Liability and Chess

[NoZed Avenger]

I suspected that was a lot of it.

I can say, though, that over the course of twenty years, it has grown more difficult to find meeting places. That's anecdotal evidence, but I think stats would back me up that liability insurance rates have increased in that same period.

However, so has the price of bread. Correlation, causation, etc.

Urban legends and bogeymen don't make rates increase. There must be something real to the phenomenon, and my point was that the liability/lawsuit culture affects us in ways we don't realize, including making it more expensive to run a chess tournament.

Well, *if* the culture is doing it, then yes. And it may well be so -- it is not an unreasonable idea. But you're kind of assuming it is so because it intuitively makes sense, and then using that assumption as proof that the culture is affecting us in ways we don't realize. It's kind of leaving out a big step.

Community centers in other communities have been more accomodating. Different cities definitely have different attitudes on what is appropriate use of their facilities, and how much they want people in them. It's just a matter of finding the right ones. Nevertheless, the issue of liability insurance is a very real, and very costly, complicating factor.

But again, it looks like liability insurance is definitely a factor, except in those cities where it isn't. . . . Wouldn't a "very real" factor be easier to see?

I mean, John Edwards has a very real power, except in those times where it doesn't work as well - it's a matter of finding the right hits.

To be clear, I suspect that you are right. However, it always makes me uncomfortable when I cannot 'show my work' in getting at a conclusion.

 

[linusrichard]

There are a number of reasons why the current situation cannot change
- An accident happens and the victim wants to sue somebody.
- Juries want that person to receive some money
- Insurance companies seem a soft target.
Result huge stupid payouts

Don't stop there, you left off the last few steps:

- Judge reduces "huge stupid" jury award to something within the realm of sanity.
- Media reports original "huge stupid" jury award, and never the reduced amount.
- The plaintiff, to avoid the risks and costs of an appeal, often settles for an amount somewhat smaller than the reduced award. More media silence.
- People get into a froth about the non-problem of excessive verdicts, and the non-solution of tort reform.

Hey, a few years back, Congress decided to cap med-mal awards at, IIRC, $250k. Has this resulted in lower med-mal insurance rates, or have the rates stayed the same while the insurance companies pocket the difference?

 

[shemp]

I think they have good reason to be wary of renting to you:

Chess-related deaths

 

[Beerina]

Variations on the same story occur all over. The fees are higher than they used to be.

Based on your story, you would have to get the Congress to declare people may not sue if they fall down someone else's stairs carrying a table, or pinch their fingers setting it up.

I have no idea how to do this generically. I also wouldn't hold my breath, as there are over a million lawyers who earn a living suing people, and they carry a lot of weight with the political parties, especially one of the parties that, coincidally, loves regulations that, when violated, may and are often sued over. I hear they even authorize lawyers to act as police to root out violations and claim a reward.

 

[Beerina]

By the way, another example: Parking lots of adjoining businesses will have separators to keep people from going from one to the other. Why? Because if you are driving to one business by driving through the other business's lot, and hit someone or thing in that other business's lot, they can be sued. It's bad enough your own customers can sue you for mistakes, but the other guy's as well? Bzzzzt! Seal it off.

 

[Meadmaker]

Don't stop there, you left off the last few steps:

- Judge reduces "huge stupid" jury award to something within the realm of sanity.
- Media reports original "huge stupid" jury award, and never the reduced amount.
- The plaintiff, to avoid the risks and costs of an appeal, often settles for an amount somewhat smaller than the reduced award. More media silence.
- People get into a froth about the non-problem of excessive verdicts, and the non-solution of tort reform.

Hey, a few years back, Congress decided to cap med-mal awards at, IIRC, $250k. Has this resulted in lower med-mal insurance rates, or have the rates stayed the same while the insurance companies pocket the difference?

I suspect that the contribution of "huge stupid" awards are insignificant in the liability insurance rate increases. Far more significant is the fact that if there is a minor injury, there's a gaggle of insurance companies who will want to try to get the other one to pay.

For example, when I broke my finger, there simply should not have been an issue. I should pay, and I had already made provisions to do so, by buying insurance that covered just such an incident. That should have been it. Over. Done. I have health insurance. I have an injury. Next question.

Not so in America.

The insurance companies love that cap sort of legislation. That way, they are protected from the huge, unpredictable, awards, and they are guaranteed a steady supply of the easily predictable, everyday, awards, guaranteeing that the awards are just enough that they could put a homeowner out of a house, or a business out of business. As a consequence, everybody needs liability insurance. For companies that sell insurance, that translates into "Cha - Ching!"


But imagine that if you were injured, your health insurance company covered the cost, even if you were doing something stupid in someone else's parking lot, or in a public library. There wouldn't be any need for liability insurance. That would make the insurance companies go .