Debate Over Measures to Limit Lawsuits

Re Perspective on Propositions 200, 201 and 202: “Laws to Shut Consumers Out,” Commentary, March 14: Has there ever been a legal reform initiative Harvey Rosenfield is for? He makes his living on the way things are. I’d like for him to explain why is it that all lawyers, both plaintiff and defense, are always against no-fault. I will. Under no-fault, nobody would need these parasites.

I wonder if he is on the side of the “consumer” who sued my wife two years ago. She parked next to his station wagon and when she opened her door it tapped into his passenger door strip. But the “shock” caused him to turn quick and “hurt” his neck. These are the types of suits in the vast majority in the auto insurance industry and it’s about time we do something about it.

MARK CARANDE

Agoura

* I read Andrew Tobias’ “Only Lawyers Lose on No-Fault” (Commentary, March 13) with disappointment. As an attorney, I’ve been trying to see the good in these propositions, but I haven’t found any yet. The commentary, along with his group’s advertising, uses anecdotes and lawyer-bashing, instead of evidence.

These propositions are terribly wrong. I’m an estate planning lawyer; I would not be affected by the new laws, but thousands of ordinary citizens would be.

Tobias states that “soft” injuries are unverifiable. As a former insurance defense attorney, who investigated injury claims, I can say that soft injuries are verifiable, and the bogus injuries slunk away in shame after we found the truth.

I’ve known very few people who have been able to recover even their basic damages from an insurance company after an accident--people don’t realize that a claim adjuster’s job is to argue against the claim, and when they do realize, it’s often too late. Insurance companies have lawyers fighting against your claim--I was one--and the new law won’t let you effectively get a lawyer to defend your claim. If you think the insurance companies have your best interests at heart, think again. If you think they’ll accept your claim because you’ve always been a good, law-abiding citizen, think again.

CHRISTOPHER B. JOHNSON

Pasadena

* Los Angeles is not the City of Angels; it is the City of Hell. For the third time I am having to watch a family member or friend go through the aftermath of a traffic accident. The routine is always the same--cannot speak English, no driver’s license, no insurance and you’ll be hearing from my lawyer.

If this is not reason enough to vote for no-fault insurance, I don’t know what is. As for me, I am looking for a place where a law-abiding citizen is valued for something more than being a patsy.

LINDA HOFF

Canoga Park

* Who put up the money to write Propositions 200, 201 and 202 and get them on the ballot? They were not written by our elected representatives, but by the lawyers of corporate special interests. At a time when we are demanding more “personal responsibility,” Propositions 200, 201 and 202 seek to shield corporations from “corporate responsibility,” protecting corporate financial interests at the expense of the interests of consumers.

RONALD G. ROWE

Moorpark