Perry Says Loser Pay Bill Puts Texas "Over the Top"

Another hit for Texas Schools (3.00 / 1)

Phillip - Don't forget that this will also have drastic affects on education and will create deep cuts to local school districts already cash strapped budgets.  

With this legislation in place what is stopping corporate interests from blindly filing litigation to lower commercial property appraisals? If this becomes commonplace we will see appraisal districts began to adjust their methods to meet a new standard. Big business wins, Texas schools fail.

---

by: TXJRS @ Thu May 19, 2011 at 19:32:30 PM UTC

More than that (3.00 / 1)

It's another hit for Texas, period. Everything Perry and his Teabagger boys do to reward big business (which doesn't pay its fair share of taxes) takes away from public schools and the average taxpayer.  Perry and his boys would be happy to destroy public schools and send ALL state money to vouchers and their right-wing private school pals--making sure that future Texans are poorly educated and poorly paid.

---

by: dj @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 22:14:41 PM UTC

The former tort-reform stat analyst at TDI says: (5.00 / 1)

From the comments made by other bloggers, I think there is some misunderstanding about the bill.  This legislation is about tort reform and it is a stretch to get into school finance issues with this bill.

This legislation that affects business interests is eerily equivalent to the GOP healthcare plan of "Get Sick, Die Quickly" in that it becomes "Get Injured, Die Quickly".  This legislation affects EVERYONE in this state that ever becomes injured at a business, involved in auto accidents, injured by a defective product, or was subject to malpractice (legal, medical, real estate, etc.).

The bill creates a layer of insulation for the business sector by obstructing the rights of Texans to have grievances resolved in a court of law by creating a disincentive for the injured party to obtain legal relief.  When you are injured, more than likely you are absent from work and obtaining your income at a reduced rate, if any at all.  When faced with mounting medical bills and dealing with your own insurance company for treatment, the risk associated with filing lawsuits in a "Loser Pays" situation may tilt the balance enough that people may not obtain adequate settlement amounts for their tort.

The concern that I have regarding this bill is that the cost for taking care of the injured party is shifted from the party that may be responsible for a tort to the public.  For example, is it right for BP to ask the taxpayer to cover the medical/social costs of an injured party through Medicaid/social welfare programs when they should bear the costs alone?  

I thought that the GOP advocated principles of responsibility?  This legislation gives business interests the ability to shirk that responsibility if there is a smidgeon of doubt-so we can expect business interests and insurers to allow more legal cases in the civil justice system, drawing further demands for the taxpayers to fund a system that works primarily in their interest and against the interests of everyone else.

The "Loser Pays" legislation along with efforts to eliminate contingency fee arrangements are the part of the GOP assault on the citizens of this state for the sake of a "better business climate".  It is a shame that more people did not stand up to fight this legislation which is inherently wrong.  Meanwhile, I must console myself with the irony that the same people that supported this assault on our constitutional rights will most likely fall victim to this legislation in the future.

---

by: IrvingDem @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 04:38:05 AM UTC

You are right about the tort reform aspects of the legislation... but you are missing the point (0.00 / 0)

You're absolutely correct about the how this legislation will affect our tort system and those who are seeking compensation in personal injury cases.  I agree with everything that you have posted.

However, what you are missing is the fact that the legislature has established what will be an even broader, pro business, policy that will open the door to corporate challenges on the value of property. This will have devastating affects on public school funding throughout the state.
 

---

by: TXJRS @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 18:19:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I guess this is where we disagree... (0.00 / 0)

The definition of the word "tort" from Merriam Webster is that is a noun meaning, "a wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction."

In the case of a commercial property appraisal, I don't believe there is any wrongful act committed since the appraisal board is performing its required duty.  While I an not an attorney, I believe that the commercial entity must prove that the appraisal board acted in either an arbitrary or malicious manner.  That's a tough standard for the commercial entity to pursue and I doubt that many attorneys would advise using this strategy since the commercial entity could be the "loser" subject to pay the appraisal board's legal fees if this situation actually was a tort.

Furthermore, as a governmental entity, I also believe that the appraisal board would be able to claim sovereign immunity to any legal challenges.

Thanks for being civil with your comments.  I also want to agree with you that there was too much legislation in this session that favors business interests.

---

by: IrvingDem @ Tue May 24, 2011 at 02:24:24 AM UTC

You need to read the legislation... (3.00 / 1)

First, this is not just a piece of legislation that is focused on torts. Yes, torts are a major component of this bill.  However, the bill outlines several ways "loser pays" comes into play.  Including an amendment that specifically discusses the repayment of legal fees accrued while challenging an appraisal.  

You need to read the San Antonio Express article that has been included in the post.

IF, this legislation passes this will give a strategic advantage to corporate interests who will no doubt blindly challenge appraised value of commercial properties.  Doing so would only benefit the companies interests and establish a lower appraisal value of commercial properties. The outcome of which would be lower property taxes. The long term affect of this will be shown through more conservative appraisal estimates in fear of a possible legal challenge. This will have a devastating effect on education and the revenue that is collected from property taxes.  

Sovereign immunity does not apply in this type of litigation.  You have the right to challenge the appraised value of a property.  You have the right to sue if you disagree with that value. Also, Sovereign immunity is not that black and white.  The concept does not broadly apply to all state and governments.  

You're attempting to define "loser pays" from too narrow of a lens.  This may be how the term is used in other states, but I think the concept of the article is that the bill, as it stands in Texas, is much more broad than many states that have passed "loser pays" legislation.    

---

by: TXJRS @ Tue May 24, 2011 at 19:08:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (3.00 / 1)

You are correct, I didn't read the attached article and was mislead by the use of the word "tort".  

The effects of the bill on public entities almost makes me believe that some people in Texas want anarchy.

---

by: IrvingDem @ Tue May 24, 2011 at 23:56:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sadly (3.00 / 1)

Not anarchy, just a state that is in the business of big business and not the best quality of life for its residents.  

---

by: TXJRS @ Wed May 25, 2011 at 19:26:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]