Luigi Mangione --- pundits fear Jury Nullification

[Chop]

Some articles on Luigi's rise in pop culture and the internet.

Luigi Mangione is more complicated than his myth. The internet doesn't care.

Ivy Leaguer, tech bro, leftist nut job: The myth of the person charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson preceded the man.

www.businessinsider.com

The Internet’s Obsession With Luigi Mangione Signals a Major Shift

On Monday, police arrested Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old app developer, in connection with the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Online reaction to his apprehension reveals a new form of fandom.

www.wired.com

 

[Chop]

This Luigi stuff goes way beyond left vs. right.

If you're looking at it with a left vs. right lens, you're not looking at it right.

One way to consider this (but for which I and other non-United insiders don't have the data for) is simple:

Was:
(I) United trying to abide by its contracts in good faith,
-or-
(II) was United operating on a general policy of deny first--knowingly breaching the contract, make the patient sue you (many won't), and delay (including depositions). Plus kick the lawsuit to arbitration fairly late in the litigation (which is often allowed), thereby delaying it even more. In this way, even when it loses, United keeps the $ for the maximum amount of time and earns more $ on it. Meanwhile, the patient suffers and dies.

Like I said, I don't have the data (or a team of actuaries at my disposal). But........if United is frequently operating more like "II" above, you could make a credible argument that United (and its decision and policy makers) may be not only breaching contracts and whatever applicable insurance law there may be, but they are also committing involuntary manslaughter on a mass-killing level.

This is something that should be tried in fair and unbiased courts that aren't bought and paid for by the insurance companies ( ), and if that were done, it would go a long way to solve these problems. Meanwhile, I understand the sentiment of Luigi, even though I don't condone the killing he allegedly did.

 

[Chop]

You can have a private insurance company that abides by its contracts, operates in good faith, pays the legitimate claims pursuant to the terms of its contracts, and still makes a profit.

It's called having good management, good actuaries, and a good investment department. Legal can, and should, fight the bullsh!t claims, and not fight the legitimate claims.

 

[mchammer]

You are absolving Obamacare. Whatever UnitedHC is doing, it is using Obamacare as cover. Equally culpable in my opinion.

 

[Monahorns]

We also need to understand how much money United Healthcare has given out to the insured. How much healthcare have they paid for and how many people have they healed compared to how many were withheld funds? I'm not siding with United, but to think clearly about the subject we need to think through both sides.

Then we can work to remove the ways they withhold money they should pay out. The best way to do that is increase competition and reduce government regulation. The government provides cover for big corporations like this.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We also need to understand how much money United Healthcare has given out to the insured. How much healthcare have they paid for and how many people have they healed compared to how many were withheld funds? I'm not siding with United, but to think clearly about the subject we need to think through both sides.

Does this really matter? Two things can be true at once. It's wrong to murder people. It's wrong for an insurance company to wrongfully deny claims. If an insurance company denies claims, it doesn't justify murder. If someone murders an insurance executive, it doesn't justify claims denial.

Then we can work to remove the ways they withhold money they should pay out. The best way to do that is increase competition and reduce government regulation. The government provides cover for big corporations like this.

We need more competition and less regulation but easier access to the courts. When an insurer wrongfully denies a claim, it should never be better off than if it had paid.

 

[Monahorns]

Does this really matter? Two things can be true at once. It's wrong to murder people. It's wrong for an insurance company to wrongfully deny claims. If an insurance company denies claims, it doesn't justify murder. If someone murders an insurance executive, it doesn't justify claims denial.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that we don't need to think about the good United has done compared to the bad?

I'm not saying anything justifies anything else. My point is that people are saying United is bad because they withheld money for some reason and our opinion of the company needs to weigh good and bad. That doesn't mean bad wasn't done or that we should ignore it. The point is that insurance companies work in a complicated space. The whole point is to take in money and give out as little as possible. Rates are set by complex statistical models, so that payment rates are high enough to cover expenses. But they should also give out money they are due to give out. It is easy to criticize them but are our criticisms correct? I'm not even sure United is withholding payment in a wrongful manner. That case has to be proven. I haven't seen it made yet.

We need more competition and less regulation but easier access to the courts. When an insurer wrongfully denies a claim, it should never be better off than if it had paid.

Of course. You are saying justice needs to be done and the incentives in the system need to align with just outcomes. Correct.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying that we don't need to think about the good United has done compared to the bad?

It's fine to think about that, and I know you have good intentions. However, I'm not a fan of bringing it up in the context of a murder.

It is easy to criticize them but are our criticisms correct?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not a simple question.

I'm not even sure United is withholding payment in a wrongful manner. That case has to be proven. I haven't seen it made yet.

Like with most insurers, sometimes they deny wrongfully, and sometimes they don't. But the bottom line is that insurers pay out when not doing so is worse for them. When the court system makes it harder to sue them and cheaper for them to fight claims, they'll jerk people around more.

Will the courts allow insurers to impose arbitration or internal appeals as a prerequisite to suing? If so, they'll jerk people around more.

If the insurer refuses to pay, will they be on the hook for damages beyond just what they should have paid in the first place? If the answer is no, they'll jerk people around more. To the extent that they do, how much more on the hook? Punitive damages? Attorneys fees? Is it easy or difficult to get those things? The answers to all of that will determine how much and how hard they'll jerk people around. It's all about risk management.

 

[Monahorns]

It's fine to think about that, and I know you have good intentions. However, I'm not a fan of bringing it up in the context of a murder.

It may not matter in the subject of murder. When a guy shoots somebody in the street he is guilty and should be put to death.

I am thinking more about the public perception.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It's not a simple question.

That is the most honest and likely answer. Those on the left aren't thinking that way.

 

[Chop]

easier access to the courts

That is the key--right there.

Unfortunately, certain charlatans riding on the "right wing" have beaten the drum against "trial lawyers" for decades upon decades in this State. The result--good for some big businesses; bad for anyone who has been wronged and wants lawful redress for his injuries (economic or physical). The pendulum swings to far back-and-forth. Right now, the pendulum sits at a point where many people with legitimate claims are all but shut out of redress from the court system.

As said earlier in this thread, if people can't get justice through the court system, they'll sometimes resort to vigilantism.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Unfortunately, certain charlatans riding on the "right wing" have beaten the drum against "trial lawyers" for decades upon decades in this State.

Lol. No sh1t. As a former trial lawyer and an unapologetic 7th Amendment supporter, I've been on the receiving end of this countless times. I decided to forgo a political career mostly because of this. I couldn't run as a Democrat, because I'm wildly too conservative for them, but I couldn't run as a Republican, because most GOP primary voters are too f*ckin stupid to look at this issue other than through the mindless "trial lawyers bad" lens. So I decided to quit it all, travel through Europe, and drink beer. I don't regret it at all.

The result--good for some big businesses; bad for anyone who has been wronged and wants lawful redress for his injuries (economic or physical). The pendulum swings to far back-and-forth. Right now, the pendulum sits at a point where many people with legitimate claims are all but shut out of redress from the court system.

Yes, I know. In 2003, the Legislature made medical malpractice claims almost impossible to pursue. You have to fit your case through a very narrow channel that frankly has little to do with merit. But they went further than that and gutted individual rights on litigation in general.

On top of that, three Texas Supreme Court has been gutting common law causes of action and butchering statutes to screw victims for the last 20 years. Don't get me started on Dram Shop Act cases. The law clearly says one thing, and they just wiped their *** with it.

As said earlier in this thread, if people can't get justice through the court system, they'll sometimes resort to vigilantism.

They will, but that doesn't make it right on an individual level.

 

[Chop]

Yes, I know. In 2003, the Legislature made medical malpractice claims almost impossible to pursue. You have to fit your case through a very narrow channel that frankly has little to do with merit. But they went further than that and gutted individual rights on litigation in general.

Yep. I've said it before: if you're going to get harmed by a botched medical procedure in a way that ruins your life--make sure it doesn't happen in Texas.

 

[Chop]

Some old guys should weigh in, but I think when the legal pendulum in Texas swung the other way, it swung way too far in the other way.

Workers comp insurance was unaffordable for many businesses because the $$$$ payouts were so high. Not anymore, that's for sure... Also, 1970s or so, a lot of borderline legit/non-legit personal injury claims were breaking the bank $$$$ in Houston and elsewhere (it seems to have lasted in the RGV and pockets of East Texas until very recently).

A happy balance of good business environment and allowing people to effectively address their legitimate/non-bullsh!t claims in court is what's needed. But, I don't think we've seen that in Texas in my lifetime.

 

[Chop]

s a former trial lawyer and an unapologetic 7th Amendment supporter, I've been on the receiving end of this countless times.

Jim: "Crooked criminal defense lawyers are getting their clients off on technicalities."

Jim (after being arrested after an unlawful search): "GET ME A LAWYER!!!"

Bill: "Dang trial lawyers are hitting the jackpot $$$$."

Bill (coming out of a long coma after being hit by a drunk truck driver and losing his legs): "GET ME A LAWYER, I'M GOING TO SUE THOSE SOBs OUT OF BUSINESS!!!"


I very well realize there are plenty of sleazy lawyers who bring plenty of bs / questionable cases to the courts. But lawyers play an important role, and I prefer our adversarial legal system to the European/Asian inquisitional legal system.

 

[Chop]

because most GOP primary voters are too f*ckin stupid to look at this issue other than through the mindless "trial lawyers bad" lens

Trump is definitely not of this breed. Dude sues people at the drop of a hat.

Also, it was Roy Cohn who helped propel him to the top of Manhattan's real estate world, after all.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Some old guys should weigh in, but I think when the legal pendulum in Texas swung the other way, it swung way too far in the other way.

Workers comp insurance was unaffordable for many businesses because the $$$$ payouts were so high. Not anymore, that's for sure... Also, 1970s or so, a lot of borderline legit/non-legit personal injury claims were breaking the bank $$$$ in Houston and elsewhere (it seems to have lasted in the RGV and pockets of East Texas until very recently).

A happy balance of good business environment and allowing people to effectively address their legitimate/non-bullsh!t claims in court is what's needed. But, I don't think we've seen that in Texas in my lifetime.

The Texas Supreme Court in the '80s had some corrupt justices willing to bend the law for plaintiffs, but they were outed and defeated pretty quickly. For awhile, you had moderate reform justices like Tom Phillips and James Baker, but we also got some hardcore 7th Amendment haters like Hecht and Greg Abbott. When Perry became governor, the 7th Amendment haters fully took over the court (specifically with Dale Wainright, Scott Brister, Paul Green, David Medina, and Don Willett), and they were massive judicial activists at least on the rights of individuals. The law was irrelevant to them.

The workers compensation insurance was high before they gutted the system in the early '90s, and it pretty much stayed high, because the system wasn't the cause of the high rates. Let's put it this way. Bo Pilgrim was handing out checks on the Senate floor to pass the legislation destroying the system for workers. He was a big supporter. In 2004, I sued Pilgrim's Pride for an employee injury at the Waco plant. Do the math. The reforms were a failure, which is why he decided to drop his coverage and take his chances as a nonsubscriber.

A balance is what's needed. Some (not all) of the '95 reforms were good. Frivolous lawsuits were always a massively overblown talking point. It makes little sense for someone on a contingency fee to take a case of questionable merit, but I have no problem with the frivolous pleading statute the '95 legislature enacted to deal with situations in which it happens. I think the balance they struck on proportionate responsibility was fair, but the '03 designation of responsible third party practice was ridiculous. The '95 legislation made fairly sensible reforms to the venue rules to prevent unreasonable forum shopping.

We need a Supreme Court that doesn't recognize new causes of action every 5 minutes like it did in the 1980s, but we don't need one that's unconstitutionally overturning jury findings every 2 minutes like we've had for most of the last 25 years. We need one that follows statutes strictly rather than loosely and with an agenda like it has with the Insurance Code and UM/UIM claims and the Dram Shop Act.

Basically, since 1995, everything they've done has been horse sh!t.

 

[Chop]

the 7th Amendment haters fully took over the court

People who hate any Amendment in the Bill of Rights don't belong on the Bench.

 

[Chop]

recognize new causes of action every 5 minutes like it did in the 1980s

Tortious interference with contract is a pretty nifty judge-created cause of action.