California Trial Lawyers Assn

Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Coleman F. Fannin has been named Trial Judge of the Year by the 54,000-member California Trial Lawyers Assn.

I find it remarkable that the insurance industry is coming off unscathed in this current workers' compensation debacle. The situation is so comparable to 1975, when I was public relations counsel to the California Trial Lawyers Assn., and we discovered the real reason why that selfsame insurance industry had implemented excessive and apparently unwarranted premium increases on medical malpractice insurance that were threatening to drive doctors out of state or out of practice. It was not that their underwriting costs had increased.

Elmer C. Low, 93, Pasadena lawyer and former president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. As head of that organization of plaintiffs' attorneys in 1974, Low became a chief spokesman in defending the controversial lawyers' contingency fee.

It is very hard to understand why The Times would give so much space to the insurance industry's biased reports on auto accident injury claims ("State Leads Nation in Filing Injury Claims for Auto Accidents," Dec. 19). The reports were commissioned by major insurance carriers with no input from consumer groups. It is obvious that the numbers are skewed to favor the insurance industry's position. Even in his own story Kenneth Reich points out that injury claims in no-fault states are counted differently than they are in liability states, such as California.

The commentary by state Sen. Marion Bergeson, "Public Liability and Public Safety" (July 27), goes a long way to dispel the image projected by a large number of our state legislators. Her appeal to common sense in the face of the highly organized California Trial Lawyers Assn. and soft-headed juries who still don't know there is no free lunch, is indeed refreshing. In contrast to so many politicians who simply respond to the demands of special-interest groups or whoever has made the largest campaign contribution, this public servant has set out to fulfill the mandate she received when the voters of her district sent her to Sacramento.

I find it remarkable that the insurance industry is coming off unscathed in this current workers' compensation debacle. The situation is so comparable to 1975, when I was public relations counsel to the California Trial Lawyers Assn., and we discovered the real reason why that selfsame insurance industry had implemented excessive and apparently unwarranted premium increases on medical malpractice insurance that were threatening to drive doctors out of state or out of practice. It was not that their underwriting costs had increased.

Propositions 101, 104 and 106 are sponsored by insurance industry interests. Proposition 100 is sponsored by California Trial Lawyers Assn. It seems to me that the insurance industry and the trial lawyers, separately and/or together, through their greed, created the reason that brought about the five insurance initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot. Who among us is so naive as to believe that the insurance industry and/or the Trial Lawyers Assn. suddenly, and at their expense, now want to aid the very drivers they gouged in the past.

How very altruistic of Ian Herzog, president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. (letter, June 15) and how reassuring to hear that he and his ambulance-chasing group are in fact only interested in the well-being of us naive California drivers. It is indeed refreshing to know that they stand there ready to get us big bucks if (as he so picturesquely puts it) our child should be beheaded in the car while sitting beside us. Come off it, Mr. Herzog. Your example is not only far-fetched, but if that is the only gap in insurance you can come up with in a no-fault auto insurance program, then let's get no-fault going now. Don't tell me that you masters of legal jargon cannot come up with some no-fault wording that will cover the beheading of my child in the car without my having to pay $2,000 a year in auto premiums in order to maintain the lifestyles of a privileged and parasitic group, who in a short 20-year span has forced on all of us huge increases in the cost of auto, health and workers' compensation insurance and practically every manufactured product we purchase.

Elmer C. Low, 93, Pasadena lawyer and former president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. As head of that organization of plaintiffs' attorneys in 1974, Low became a chief spokesman in defending the controversial lawyers' contingency fee.

How very altruistic of Ian Herzog, president of the California Trial Lawyers Assn. (letter, June 15) and how reassuring to hear that he and his ambulance-chasing group are in fact only interested in the well-being of us naive California drivers. It is indeed refreshing to know that they stand there ready to get us big bucks if (as he so picturesquely puts it) our child should be beheaded in the car while sitting beside us. Come off it, Mr. Herzog. Your example is not only far-fetched, but if that is the only gap in insurance you can come up with in a no-fault auto insurance program, then let's get no-fault going now. Don't tell me that you masters of legal jargon cannot come up with some no-fault wording that will cover the beheading of my child in the car without my having to pay $2,000 a year in auto premiums in order to maintain the lifestyles of a privileged and parasitic group, who in a short 20-year span has forced on all of us huge increases in the cost of auto, health and workers' compensation insurance and practically every manufactured product we purchase.

It is very hard to understand why The Times would give so much space to the insurance industry's biased reports on auto accident injury claims ("State Leads Nation in Filing Injury Claims for Auto Accidents," Dec. 19). The reports were commissioned by major insurance carriers with no input from consumer groups. It is obvious that the numbers are skewed to favor the insurance industry's position. Even in his own story Kenneth Reich points out that injury claims in no-fault states are counted differently than they are in liability states, such as California.

Propositions 101, 104 and 106 are sponsored by insurance industry interests. Proposition 100 is sponsored by California Trial Lawyers Assn. It seems to me that the insurance industry and the trial lawyers, separately and/or together, through their greed, created the reason that brought about the five insurance initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot. Who among us is so naive as to believe that the insurance industry and/or the Trial Lawyers Assn. suddenly, and at their expense, now want to aid the very drivers they gouged in the past.

Congratulations to The Times for its editorial, "Insurance: Open the Books," (July 1). As stated in that editorial, it is indeed time that this super-privileged industry had some kind of public accountability concerning its practices and rate charges to a hostage consuming public. Any consumer living in the Los Angeles area, having had to deal with an insurance company over the last number of years, knows well the long litany of horrors: Obscene increases in premiums, red-lining, shoddy claims practices, general lack of interest by the insurance companies to any form of accountability to the public.

The political management firm of Woodward & McDowell, which directed the winning "deep-pockets" initiative campaign for a coalition of big business and the insurance industry last year, has switched sides, going to work at a reported $40,000 a month for the California Trial Lawyers Assn., which fought the initiative.

The commentary by state Sen. Marion Bergeson, "Public Liability and Public Safety" (July 27), goes a long way to dispel the image projected by a large number of our state legislators. Her appeal to common sense in the face of the highly organized California Trial Lawyers Assn. and soft-headed juries who still don't know there is no free lunch, is indeed refreshing. In contrast to so many politicians who simply respond to the demands of special-interest groups or whoever has made the largest campaign contribution, this public servant has set out to fulfill the mandate she received when the voters of her district sent her to Sacramento.

In 17th-Century France, it might have been the stuff of bedroom farce--a lawsuit by a distraught husband claiming a doctor ruined his marriage by wrongly diagnosing that his wife had syphilis. In 20th-Century California, it is grist for a landmark Supreme Court opinion and a multimillion-dollar political campaign.