Diverse Coalition Opposes Trial Lawyer 'Deep Pockets' Bill
When organizations and interest groups whose goals and objectives seem totally divergent and unrelated join together to support or oppose an issue, chances are the reasons are good and the issue - for or against - is important.
It’s not usual for the Illinois Association of Park Districts and the Illinois Petroleum Council to be hand-in-hand in support or opposition.
Nor is it usual for the City of Chicago and the Illinois Municipal League to be highly alarmed and concerned with the same proposal that distresses the Midwest Truckers Association or the Illinois Railroad and Illinois Realtors Associations.
But that’s what is happening in Springfield this year as a wide range of interests, represented by trade groups and associations, have joined together to fight an obnoxious bill that has been dubbed the “deep pockets” bill.
There is, of course, some support for the bill. The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the organization that represents the 2,000+ personal injury trial lawyers in Illinois, is mounting an aggressive campaign.
As they should. It is their proposal, it is their bill, and they stand to benefit if it is passed.
Unfortunately in the Illinois General Assembly this year, the personal injury trial lawyers have considerable influence - verging on control. When the sponsor of the bill (it’s SB 1296), Sen. John Cullerton of Chicago, wanted to seek a compromise or some middle ground and tried to bring the supporters and opponents together, the trial lawyers at first agreed but then decided they did not want to compromise and let Senate Democrats know that they expected the bill to be passed “as is.” And it was.
The personal injury trial lawyers in Illinois are in a strong enough position in the General Assembly this year that they can do that, and they got away with it in the Illinois Senate. The bill passed, 34-23, with only one Democrat - Sen. Mike Jacobs of Moline - voting against. Others wanted to but felt they couldn’t.
Now it moves to the House of Representatives where trial lawyer control has been even more pronounced in recent years. The personal injury trial lawyers and their allies in organized labor are THE big funders of Democratic legislators in Illinois and they expect some return on their investment. They haven’t gotten it lately - frankly, because most of their proposals have been over the edge and even their friends have realized that.
They feel they were betrayed by many of their friends in 2005 when Illinois enacted a medical malpractice reform bill, establishing limits on non-economic damages. They are not giving up that fight yet, however, as they are working to nullify that over-due law in the court system.
This year, they seem to have put SB 1296 at the top of their “wish” list (maybe that should be their “demand” list). I write “seem to” because there are other equally offensive and dangerous proposals in the pipeline (HB 1798 is one) and these may be equally as important or more important to the trial lawyers. SB 1296 is in the spotlight now because it already has been passed by the Senate so it is half-way home. The others are not as far along.
According to the president of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel, SB 1296 “permits the truth-seeking process to be manipulated in the courtroom.” Steven M. Puisizis wrote that SB 1296 “goes to the very heart of our system’s fairness and drives a stake through the heart of fairness to defendants.”
Among other things, the proposed law would allow the plaintiffs’ lawyers (the personal injury lawyers) to manipulate which defendants in a personal injury case actually go to trial. They could settle with those who have few financial resources (but perhaps the most responsibility) and leave the large judgment at trial to fall on the shoulders of the defendant with the most resources, but perhaps only a small percentage of the actual responsibility. Thus it has been dubbed the “deep pockets” bill.
There have been two Illinois Appellate Court decisions that reject the approach proposed in SB 1296. One, in fact, is pending before the Illinois Supreme Court and there is no doubt the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association is trying to pre-empt the Supreme Court by changing the law.
In a letter to legislators last Friday, ITLA officials said the bill would “correct a technical interpretation of the legislative language by some Illinois Appellate Courts.”
In typical trial lawyer fashion, they know better than the Appellate Courts how the legislative language should be interpreted.
The real challenge to opponents of this legislation is getting the word to legislators and to the public. This year, very little information is coming out of Springfield unless it has something to do with the Governor’s proposed gross receipts tax or, in Southern Illinois, it involves electric power rate freeze proposals.
During several days of meetings with newspapers throughout Illinois, it became obvious that little is known about what the personal injury trial lawyers are trying to do - and that’s exactly the way they would like it.
Here are just a few of the entities that do oppose it, in addition to the Illinois Civil Justice League. They are listed in no particular order and it is only a partial list of many more:
• Illinois Railroad Association
• Illinois Association of Park Districts
• City of Chicago
• Illinois Business Roundtable
• Illinois Chamber of Commerce
• Illinois Petroleum Council
• Associated General Contractors
• Illinois Municipal League
• Homebuilders of Illinois
• Illinois Insurance Association
• Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel
• Northwest Mayors and Managers Association
• Park District Risk Management Association
• American Council of Engineering Companies of Illinois
• Midwest Truckers Association
• Illinois Manufacturers Association
• Illinois Construction Industry Council
• Illinois Retail Merchants Association
Cross posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.
Technorati Tags: SB 1296,Illinois legislature, trial lawyer, tort reform, Illinois Civil Justice League
2 comments:
Ed -
I'm sure all of the folks listed here would love it if the Appellate Courts decided that they could never be held accountable for their own negligence, justice and the intent of the legislature be damned. I'm sure you could quickly sign them up as opponents to any legislation to the contrary. That doesn't make it remarkable or right.
After all, it only took the City of Chicago decades to accept the Shakman Decree. And even though they've been caught red-handed handing out jobs for political favors, instead of giving the jobs to the most qualified candidates, that hasn't stopped some within city government from griping about the fact they've got to pay damages to the folks they've wronged.
That's some auspicious company you've found.
Yellow Dog said last month that ICJL was "over the top" in its claims, but now it seems as if EVERYBODY - well, except for Yellow Dog and the Trial Lawyers - is seeing the problems with SB 1296.
But Yellow Dog just can't get his talking points fast enough from the Trial Lawyers.
The fact's show that SB 1296 has nothing to do with anyone being "held accountable for their own negligence", but it has everything to do with being held for other's negligence.
Yellow Dog said last month that opposition was coming from "out-of-state big business interests", yet the list of opponents is filled with in-state interests that represent multitudes of different small business, governmental, and other sectors.
Still no word on the identity of Yellow Dog, but only one clue: he or she must be a lap dog for the Trial Lawyers.
Post a Comment