Cory Lidle lawsuit settled for $2 mm

[JeffDG]

Subrogation is a nasty bit of legal extortion...

The alternative would be the insurance company refusing to pay you for your losses and telling you "Hey, that guy caused your problem, sue him for your damages."

Subrogation permits the insurance to pay you, then recoup from the responsible party later. Take subrogation away, and the insurance company will be entirely within their rights to not pay until a determination of fault is completed...your pain notwithstanding.

 

[Henning]

Subrogation is a nasty bit of legal extortion...

I had a spinal disc rupture suddenly while loading cement blocks in Oct 2010... Dropped me to the ground with a paralyzed leg... Had an emergency surgery and months of PT and I am functional...
(but that is not the story)
I have Medicare and an HMO insurance policy... They paid all but a few hundred in co-pays... Life is good, right?
Wrong!
I now have the insurance subrogation monster attempting to eat me... They want me to, in writing, name the national chain store I was at when the disc let go so they can recover their money from them - they know who it is from the emergency room report but need me to 'attest' to have legal standing...

I am one of those a**holes who believes that right is right and wrong is wrong... That national chain store did nothing to injure me - no harm, no fault!
So, I won't sign the form... Now they are sending threatening letters that they are going to get the thirty grand back from me and/or cancel my health insurance (Medicare)...
My only response so far is to cancel them and sign up with another insurance company.. Mama always said I was fathered by a Missouri mule - father always said, "I heard that!"...

denny-o

No, Subrogation is a way for you to pay one insurer to get made whole on your losses by them regardless the cause. You already signed in your policy agreement to cooperate with your insurer so you may be causing yourself some problems. Subrogation is handled between insurance companies for the most part, it is just a low cost way to negotiate torts outside of the court system.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

But you and I both know the ONLY way to know what the evidence was is to read the transcript. In 22 years I have never seen an accurate and full report of a trial in the media.

....

Yup. I looked it up on westlaw, but got bored pretty quickly. Looked like there were a fair number of disputes over discovery-related stuff, and a few SJ's. But, I got nothing from the summary judgments - they were denied, so the order didn't do anything other than say "I find a dispute of fact to exist."

 

[woodstock]

Denny-O:

I'd consult an attorney about your insurance contract, stat. David and others are probably right - you are likely breaching the contract which means pretty soon you are going to be in the middle of this again and probably not looking too pretty.

I'm not sure if writing a letter to the Natl Chain wouldn't be construed as "not cooperating" - ask your attorney.

David and others.. in cases like these, how would any suit be set up - would it be Acme Insurance company against Home Depot, or, would it be Denny O against Home Depot - in a subrogation claim I mean? Assuming it got to the actual suit that is...

Anyone else wonder why our insurance rates are so high? Convinced this is only about the original plaintiffs now?

 

[weilke]

David and others.. in cases like these, how would any suit be set up - would it be Acme Insurance company against Home Depot, or, would it be Denny O against Home Depot - in a subrogation claim I mean? Assuming it got to the actual suit that is...

ACME sends subrogation claim to Home Depot (or their insurer)

Home Depot talks to Denny

Home Depot sends 'go f### yourself' letter to ACME

ACME realizes they have no case

End of story.

 

[Gary F]

Denny-O:

I'd consult an attorney about your insurance contract, stat. David and others are probably right - you are likely breaching the contract which means pretty soon you are going to be in the middle of this again and probably not looking too pretty.

Probably a good idea.

I'm not sure if writing a letter to the Natl Chain wouldn't be construed as "not cooperating" - ask your attorney.

I would be amazed if it would be legally enforceable for an insurance contract to prevent somebody engaging in truthful communication with another party in the absence of a court order. C'mon David, weigh in here.

David and others.. in cases like these, how would any suit be set up - would it be Acme Insurance company against Home Depot, or, would it be Denny O against Home Depot - in a subrogation claim I mean? Assuming it got to the actual suit that is...

Anyone else wonder why our insurance rates are so high? Convinced this is only about the original plaintiffs now?

Insurance rates reflect the losses including fraud, overhead including legal costs, and profit. Subrogation shifts costs from one entity to another while increasing the overhead and possibly the legal expenses.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Denny-O:

I'd consult an attorney about your insurance contract, stat. David and others are probably right - you are likely breaching the contract which means pretty soon you are going to be in the middle of this again and probably not looking too pretty.

I'm not sure if writing a letter to the Natl Chain wouldn't be construed as "not cooperating" - ask your attorney.

David and others.. in cases like these, how would any suit be set up - would it be Acme Insurance company against Home Depot, or, would it be Denny O against Home Depot - in a subrogation claim I mean? Assuming it got to the actual suit that is...

Anyone else wonder why our insurance rates are so high? Convinced this is only about the original plaintiffs now?

Beth, it depends on where you are. Some places, it will be in the insured's name, in others it will be the insurance company. It also depends on the issues involved.

 

[SCCutler]

Around here, subro claims are usually in the name of the insured, not the carrier. Usually pretty easy to smoke out, because the Plaintiff's counsel are not traditional PI Plaintoffs' firms.

 

[Henning]

ACME sends subrogation claim to Home Depot (or their insurer)

Home Depot talks to Denny

Home Depot sends 'go f### yourself' letter to ACME

ACME realizes they have no case

End of story.

Unless you p-ed off the file examiner (or their spouse or kid p-ed them off earlier) then the insurer comes back at you. Not necessarily gonna happen, but it could.

 

[Henning]

Probably a good idea.

I would be amazed if it would be legally enforceable for an insurance contract to prevent somebody engaging in truthful communication with another party in the absence of a court order. C'mon David, weigh in here.

Insurance rates reflect the losses including fraud, overhead including legal costs, and profit. Subrogation shifts costs from one entity to another while increasing the overhead and possibly the legal expenses.

The greatest factor that effects insurance rates is the performance of the markets in which they are allowed to invest.

 

[weilke]

Unless you p-ed off the file examiner (or their spouse or kid p-ed them off earlier) then the insurer comes back at you. Not necessarily gonna happen, but it could.

On what grounds ?

You get deposed by the opposing side (Home Depot), you make truthful statements about the incident. What case would ACME have against you ? Can they sue you for not lying to their benefit ?

 

[Henning]

On what grounds ?

You get deposed by the opposing side (Home Depot), you make truthful statements about the incident. What case would ACME have against you ? Can they sue you for not lying to their benefit ?

They can deny your coverage for breech of contract and sue you for what they have already paid. You actively hindered in their ability to subrogate which is in violation of every insurance policy that doesn't have an active "Waiver of Subrogation". If you want one of those, you have to pay extra.

It's a cut and dried case of breech of contract, you're sunk.

 

[Gary F]

You actively hindered in their ability to subrogate which is in violation of every insurance policy that doesn't have an active "Waiver of Subrogation"....
It's a cut and dried case of breech of contract, you're sunk.

By telling the truth or by not participating in a fraudulent claim against the chain?

 

[weilke]

They can deny your coverage for breech of contract and sue you for what they have already paid. You actively hindered in their ability to subrogate which is in violation of every insurance policy that doesn't have an active "Waiver of Subrogation". If you want one of those, you have to pay extra.

It's a cut and dried case of breech of contract, you're sunk.

You may misunderstand those contract provisions.

They oblige you to cooperate with the defense of the subrogation claim, e.g. by providing a statement to your insurance company on whether any other parties were involved. They do not oblige you to ignore a valid subpoena or lie under oath during a deposition by the opposing party.

Actively going out and sending letters to the Home Depot legal department to state that you are going to help them against ACME may not be a wise thing to do. It may also not be wise for an involved party to talk about pending litigation on an internet forum...

 

[Gary F]

You may misunderstand those contract provisions.

They oblige you to cooperate with the defense of the subrogation claim, e.g. by providing a statement to your insurance company on whether any other parties were involved. They do not oblige you to ignore a valid subpoena or lie under oath during a deposition by the opposing party.

Actively going out and sending letters to the Home Depot legal department to state that you are going to help them against ACME may not be a wise thing to do. It may also not be wise for an involved party to talk about pending litigation on an internet forum...

That may be true but some of us would find it morally reprehensible to be required to actively participate in a process where an innocent party is forced to pay costs for which it is not truly responsible.

 

[weilke]

That may be true but some of us would find it morally reprehensible to be required to actively participate in a process where an innocent party is forced to pay costs for which it is not truly responsible.

The fact that company A subrogates against company B does not mean that company B ends up paying. As Henning pointed out, the subro process is a way to keep arguments about 'who is responsible' for the most part outside of the courts. Most of this gets handled in either direct negotiation or through arbitrators.

Two years ago I got rear-ended on I75 in downtown Atlanta. I managed to stop but the guy behind me didn't and pushed me into the lady in front of me. Of course, she was doing the 'my neck hurts' dance while miraculously myself and anyone else in the car were unhurt. My insurance paid her and subrogated against the company of the guy in the last car. The accident wasn't my doing, without the subro process they would have left me hanging in the breeze and just told me to convince the lady that she should sue the guy behind me.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Around here, subro claims are usually in the name of the insured, not the carrier. Usually pretty easy to smoke out, because the Plaintiff's counsel are not traditional PI Plaintoffs' firms.

Yup. Based solely on my own personal observations along those same lines, I'd say the majority of PI litigation is insurance-driven (on *both* sides). It's in the name of the insured here, too, and I think it is in most places.

So, again, it's not *always* what it seems. I learned that when my screennamesake made me fight the remote with the blast shield down - your eyes can deceive you.

 

[Henning]

By telling the truth or by not participating in a fraudulent claim against the chain?

Are you in a position to determine fraudulence? Typically that is up to the legal system, let it do what it does. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers doing this stuff and the actuaries already have the cost of this calculated in (they are scary accurate, they would have been burned as witches in the Inquisition days). You signed a contract....

 

[Henning]

You may misunderstand those contract provisions.

They oblige you to cooperate with the defense of the subrogation claim, e.g. by providing a statement to your insurance company on whether any other parties were involved. They do not oblige you to ignore a valid subpoena or lie under oath during a deposition by the opposing party.

Actively going out and sending letters to the Home Depot legal department to state that you are going to help them against ACME may not be a wise thing to do. It may also not be wise for an involved party to talk about pending litigation on an internet forum...

That was my point. You give the statement, you testify at any deposition or hearing honestly and let the system sort it out. Sending an unbidden letter against your insurer can cause you problems, it is a breech of your contract. Read it closely, I'm not sure of the wording in his state, but every state has similar wording. I'm sure he made a statement to his insurance company already which is the basis of the subro claim. The only way there is fraud involved in this is if that statement is somehow falsified. The insurance company believes it has a valid claim under the states laws or they wouldn't be pursuing it.

 

[Gary F]

Are you in a position to determine fraudulence? Typically that is up to the legal system, let it do what it does. The insurance companies have teams of lawyers doing this stuff and the actuaries already have the cost of this calculated in (they are scary accurate, they would have been burned as witches in the Inquisition days). You signed a contract....

This is a forum for discussion of interesting topics not a court of law. In my opinion the best test that the chain is not at fault is that the person who suffered the injury does not hold anybody else responsible. The overwhelming tendency is to hold others responsible for our misfortunes. On what basis could the insurance company believe that the chain is at fault so why pursue it further? I would not be surprised if an employee of the insurance company receives a bonus based on the amount of money recovered from third parties. If this is the case the employee could play it a little loose and fast with the rules by sending a letter to the national chain implying that the insured holds them responsible hoping that the chain just pays without investigating it. The national chain's legal department or insurer may have a monetary threshold for investigating or fighting a claim. It is not unheard of for somebody to file a frivolous claim hoping it gets paid without much of a fight and then back down when the other side puts up a fight. A recent example is the Taco Bell lawsuit filed by an Alabama law firm.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/04/alabamas_beasley_allen_law_fir.html Unfortunately this shakedown attempt was very expensive for Taco Bell.

 

[Gary F]

Sending an unbidden letter against your insurer can cause you problems, it is a breech of your contract. Read it closely, I'm not sure of the wording in his state, but every state has similar wording.

Are you certain? Can you give an example of language in a contract that would preclude truthful communication with a third party?

I'm sure he made a statement to his insurance company already which is the basis of the subro claim.

I don't know that and the OP for this issue did not seem to imply that.

The only way there is fraud involved in this is if that statement is somehow falsified. The insurance company believes it has a valid claim under the states laws or they wouldn't be pursuing it.

You have more faith in insurance company employees than I do. They may be mistaken or just trying to improve their recovery numbers. Some are dumb as a rock. However, I agree you might be correct as I do not have all of the facts.

 

[Henning]

This is a forum for discussion of interesting topics not a court of law. In my opinion the best test that the chain is not at fault is that the person who suffered the injury does not hold anybody else responsible. The overwhelming tendency is to hold others responsible for our misfortunes. On what basis could the insurance company believe that the chain is at fault so why pursue it further? I would not be surprised if an employee of the insurance company receives a bonus based on the amount of money recovered from third parties. If this is the case the employee could play it a little loose and fast with the rules by sending a letter to the national chain implying that the insured holds them responsible hoping that the chain just pays without investigating it. The national chain's legal department or insurer may have a monetary threshold for investigating or fighting a claim. It is not unheard of for somebody to file a frivolous claim hoping it gets paid without much of a fight and then back down when the other side puts up a fight. A recent example is the Taco Bell lawsuit filed by an Alabama law firm.
http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/04/alabamas_beasley_allen_law_fir.html Unfortunately this shakedown attempt was very expensive for Taco Bell.

I agree, but that's not the case here because you are holding your insurer responsible and you already gave them permission to collect on it. It is NOT your decision to make, you abdicated that to the insurance company when you bought the policy and again when you filed the claim.

 

[AdamZ]

....

I would be amazed if it would be legally enforceable for an insurance contract to prevent somebody engaging in truthful communication with another party in the absence of a court order. C'mon David, weigh in here.

....

Not David but the test that the carrier is most likely to follow is whether you have compromised the insurance company's rights. The argument would be that of course telling the truth would not compromise the company's rights.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Not David but the test that the carrier is most likely to follow is whether you have compromised the insurance company's rights. The argument would be that of course telling the truth would not compromise the company's rights.

Agreed. Any kind of clause in any contract that required some kind of coverup would, in my opinion, be unconscionable. "Unconsionable" being a legal code word for "unenforceable."

But, if it turns out you've deliberately obstructed your insurer - which includes not cooperating with them, which is exactly what most insurance contracts require (i.e., "insured hereby assigns any cause of action to insurer, and further agrees to cooperate in the prosecution of any such cause of action") - then you're in breach.

Of course, it has to be remembered that your average insured isn't really in a good position to know whether he/she has some kind of legal claim. For instance, with a "slip and fall," the insured's perspective might be "live and let live." That's fine when you don't have to foot the bill, but that's not what the insurance company operates on when it sets your premium (or, derivatively, the rest of our premiums when we have to foot the bill for another member of the same plan deliberately not cooperating).

Insurance is simply another kind of business deal. If that's not palatable, refusing to accept insurance benefits is always an option.

 

[Gary F]

I appreciate the excellent responses to my posts. Many valid points were raised. If my insurance company asked me to sign something with which I did not agree or understand I would call them and try to discuss it with one of the higher ups. If I have reason to believe that they are acting unethically then I will call my attorney.

I believe that there has been a gradual expansion of liability from strict proximate cause to contributory negligence to the deepest pocket pays in-spite of lack of actual fault. This has benefited the trial lawyers at the expense of almost everybody else and been especially hard on general aviation manufacturers. The recent Cirrus lawsuit alleging improper training is one example. Fortunately that verdict was overturned.
http://seriousaccidents.com/blog/wr...awards-164-million-in-wrongful-death-lawsuit/
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2011/04/21/184830.htm

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I appreciate the excellent responses to my posts. Many valid points were raised. If my insurance company asked me to sign something with which I did not agree or understand I would call them and try to discuss it with one of the higher ups. If I have reason to believe that they are acting unethically then I will call my attorney.

Absolutely, and that would be a very prudent thing to do. Esp. considering that, even if you signed something without any real consideration for it and had no fault or blame in it, you could/would still be drawn into it simply because your name was on it.

I believe that there has been a gradual expansion of liability from strict proximate cause to contributory negligence to the deepest pocket pays in-spite of lack of actual fault. This has benefited the trial lawyers at the expense of almost everybody else and been especially hard on general aviation manufacturers. The recent Cirrus lawsuit alleging improper training is one example. Fortunately that verdict was overturned.
http://seriousaccidents.com/blog/wr...awards-164-million-in-wrongful-death-lawsuit/
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2011/04/21/184830.htm

No arguments from me (although, to have a legal nerd moment, "contributory negligence" is actually a very specific legal theory existing only in Maryland and North Carolina, that gives a defendant complete immunity from liability if the plaintiff at all contributed to his own injuries; it's been abandoned everywhere else). A "shotgun approach" is pretty much par for the course these days.

Keep in mind that, with legal claims, if you don't make it you eventually lose it. And, as an attorney, if I don't make a claim on your behalf that you're entitled to make, you (as the client) can turn around and sue me for malpractice. So what do you think an attorney is going to do, in an exercise of CYA if nothing else?

 

[Gary F]

No arguments from me (although, to have a legal nerd moment, "contributory negligence" is actually a very specific legal theory existing only in Maryland and North Carolina, that gives a defendant complete immunity from liability if the plaintiff at all contributed to his own injuries; it's been abandoned everywhere else). A "shotgun approach" is pretty much par for the course these days.

Keep in mind that, with legal claims, if you don't make it you eventually lose it. And, as an attorney, if I don't make a claim on your behalf that you're entitled to make, you (as the client) can turn around and sue me for malpractice. So what do you think an attorney is going to do, in an exercise of CYA if nothing else?

You got me on the definition contributory negligence but my point is that is has become much easier to lay the blame on somebody who has money when they are not really responsible and this is not a good thing.

Physicians are especially unhappy about the shotgun approach attorneys use when deciding who to include in a lawsuit. They often list everybody named in the patient chart and make them bear the burden of proving non-involvement in any alleged malpractice. Why not use some due diligence when deciding whom to sue or compensate any innocent parties for their time and legal expense for clearing themselves? I would never sue Obi Heed Kenobi as you are one of the good guys.

 

[JeffDG]

With respect to "shotgun litigation", I suggest two words: Loser Pays.

If you sue 50 people, and one of them is held responsible, then the plaintiff wins his legal costs from the responsible party, but pays the other 49 for the costs of defending themselves. Rapidly, common sense will narrow the list of people targeted for litigation.

 

[Bob Noel]

With respect to "shotgun litigation", I suggest two words: Loser Pays.

If you sue 50 people, and one of them is held responsible, then the plaintiff wins his legal costs from the responsible party, but pays the other 49 for the costs of defending themselves. Rapidly, common sense will narrow the list of people targeted for litigation.

Or at least "Loser Pays Something"

Why should it be (virtually) free to name the 49 others and force them to hire lawyers?

 

[Anthony]

Or at least "Loser Pays Something"

Why should it be (virtually) free to name the 49 others and force them to hire lawyers?

It shouldn't be "free". The long standing argument is that our system protects the little guy in torts. If your Ford Pinto blows up when rear ended due to a poor fuel tank design, then Ford, being the large, rich, evil corporation it is can defend itself with millions of dollars and umpteen high paid lawyers while you can't.

The system is broken. I'd like to hear from some of our colleagues on how to fix it.

 

[Gary F]

It shouldn't be "free". The long standing argument is that our system protects the little guy in torts. If your Ford Pinto blows up when rear ended due to a poor fuel tank design, then Ford, being the large, rich, evil corporation it is can defend itself with millions of dollars and umpteen high paid lawyers while you can't.

The system is broken. I'd like to hear from some of our colleagues on how to fix it.

Replace Ford with Cirrus or Mooney and consider that the "little guy" is usually backed up by a wealthy law firm. Loser pays works fine where it is used which is practically every other country in the world. The plaintiff or law firm that takes the case on contingency can buy insurance in the event that they lose and must pay the defendant's legal costs. The insurance company would determine the merit of the case and base the premium on the chance of success. Frivolous cases would be uninsurable and an excellent case would only require a low premium.
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/civil-suits

 

[Henning]

It shouldn't be "free". The long standing argument is that our system protects the little guy in torts. If your Ford Pinto blows up when rear ended due to a poor fuel tank design, then Ford, being the large, rich, evil corporation it is can defend itself with millions of dollars and umpteen high paid lawyers while you can't.

The system is broken. I'd like to hear from some of our colleagues on how to fix it.

Yeah, but that isn't accurate, the "contingency" system fixes that. If you have a real case, you can get a lawyer to take it no cost up front.

 

[Anthony]

Yeah, but that isn't accurate, the "contingency" system fixes that. If you have a real case, you can get a lawyer to take it no cost up front.

You're misreading me. I am playing devils advocate, and giving the argument many use to justify our contingency system.

 

[Henning]

You're misreading me. I am playing devils advocate, and giving the argument many use to justify our contingency system.

Gotcha, but really it's the best answer. The problem is NOT the system, the problem is the inherent greed in mankind. That's the thing Marx forgot about as well and why communism didn't work, people are selfish by nature.

 

[Anthony]

Gotcha, but really it's the best answer. The problem is NOT the system, the problem is the inherent greed in mankind. That's the thing Marx forgot about as well and why communism didn't work, people are selfish by nature.

Yes, there are a lot of people that abuse our systems and want something for nothing whether it be through the courts, welfare, EPA, Education, etc. My question was specific to torts and the courts. How do we FIX the system to stop the abuse and frivolous lawsuits against Cirrus, et al?

 

[Henning]

Yes, there are a lot of people that abuse our systems and want something for nothing whether it be through the courts, welfare, EPA, Education, etc. My question was specific to torts and the courts. How do we FIX the system to stop the abuse and frivolous lawsuits against Cirrus, et al?

You can't, that's what I'm saying, the system isn't broken, the people abusing the system are broken. Any system in fairness is going to have potentiality for abuses, and people will find those potentials, regardless of how you change the system. You cannot create a fair system that has no potential for abuse.

The best thing you can do is apply the death penalty or at least felony prison time for filing a frivolous suit, and both the plaintiff and counsel serve the sentence or are executed.

There are "looser pays legal fees" situations out there as well, but you have to make the lawyers equally liable....

 

[JeffDG]

There are "looser pays legal fees" situations out there as well, but you have to make the lawyers equally liable....

That's an excellent suggestion to the basic "user pays" model, I would add requiring a bond sufficient to cover the defendant's legal costs at the time of initiating a suit.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The problem with "loser pays" in this country is that everyone is guaranteed the right to judicial access. Loser pays presents a variety of issues in that regard, and for a few reasons I'm too lazy to discuss right now will likely never become law absent an amendment to the First Amendment depriving you of your right to petition for redress.

With that in mind, a more practical solution in my opinion is to require complaints - the documents initiating a lawsuit - to contain actual evidence. As in, if you don't have actual evidence supporting your claim, you don't get to file it.

Under the system as it exists now, you file your claim and then develop, through a potentially lengthy and always expensive process, the evidence to support it. Of course, there's no burden on defendants to disclose any potentially damaging evidence before a suit is filed, meaning that you often don't have a choice but to file suit. Meaning that a part of this system would impose an absolute obligation upon any potential defendants to disclose any relevant evidence upon receipt of some kind of notice from the potential plaintiff.

That would prevent a whole lot of cases from ever even reaching a court. They'd either be settled before filing, or never filed for lack of any evidence.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Yes, there are a lot of people that abuse our systems and want something for nothing whether it be through the courts, welfare, EPA, Education, etc. My question was specific to torts and the courts. How do we FIX the system to stop the abuse and frivolous lawsuits against Cirrus, et al?

See my post immediately above. Require fact-based pleading rather than notice-based pleading.

The latter basically being, "let me drag you into court based upon allegations I make," whereas the former is basically "let me drag you into court based upon facts I have."

 

[Gary F]

The problem with "loser pays" in this country is that everyone is guaranteed the right to judicial access. Loser pays presents a variety of issues in that regard, and for a few reasons I'm too lazy to discuss right now will likely never become law absent an amendment to the First Amendment depriving you of your right to petition for redress.

I might buy that if an average person files a lawsuit and pays out of pocket but when a law firm gets involved on a contingency basis the rules should be different. A judge could waive the requirement to post a pre-trial bond for those who could not otherwise afford to file suit just as they decide who can have a public defender.

With that in mind, a more practical solution in my opinion is to require complaints - the documents initiating a lawsuit - to contain actual evidence. As in, if you don't have actual evidence supporting your claim, you don't get to file it.

Under the system as it exists now, you file your claim and then develop, through a potentially lengthy and always expensive process, the evidence to support it. Of course, there's no burden on defendants to disclose any potentially damaging evidence before a suit is filed, meaning that you often don't have a choice but to file suit. Meaning that a part of this system would impose an absolute obligation upon any potential defendants to disclose any relevant evidence upon receipt of some kind of notice from the potential plaintiff.

That would prevent a whole lot of cases from ever even reaching a court. They'd either be settled before filing, or never filed for lack of any evidence.

I am not convinced that this would be all that helpful but it seems reasonable.