|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Guest Column: South Carolina Bars Whine About Rising Insurance Costs
But their argument of unfair treatment under South Carolina tort laws is a weak one…
10 comments
The sole purpose of requiring $1 million in liability insurance coverage for bars is to compensate personal injury lawyers, who take between 33% and 50% of every recovery. If the legislature were serious about this, they would limit personal injury lawyers to a contingency fee no more than 20% of the total recovery. But they won’t, because the legislature is controlled by personal injury lawyers whose primary interest is looking out for themselves.
Probably a quicker way to directly impact insurance premiums would be to cap the profits insurance companies are allowed to make and the fees they are allowed to charge. After that, hopefully the government will cap the costs of accountants (mine charges too much), real estate attorneys (my closing fees are ridiculous), and groceries. Price controls are definitely the way to go.
Limit insurance premiums, limit lawyer contingency percentages…
If you’re going to regulate the capitalism out of capitalism, why not just get rid of capitalism?
Facts.
Probably a quicker way to directly impact insurance premiums would be to cap the profits insurance companies are allowed to make and the fees they are allowed to charge. After that, hopefully the government will cap the costs of accountants (mine charges too much), real estate attorneys (my closing fees are ridiculous), and groceries. Price controls are definitely the way to go.
Price controls generally result in supply declines, and thus increased scarcity. This has been copiously documented by economists for many decades, and with real world examples, like Venezuela.
Ah Laura Hudson, the professional hand-wringer who represents at least two major “industries” in our fair state. Those are the “victims’ rights” industry and the DUI industry. In a past life, she was probably a leading member of the Womens’ Christian Temperance Union” or similar amalgamation of meddlesome old hags.
Instead of laying the blame and burdens of DUI tragedies on legitimate businesses and their employees, or the taxpayers in general; why not go after the ones who are truly to blame, the DUI driver? I believe I can answer that.
Because in many cases, the driver who has had too much to drink and causes a tragic accident, in many cases, may not have the proverbial pot to urinate in or the window to throw it out of.
As a sustaining member of the DUI industry, Laura believes that every victim of DUI stupidity is entitled to a deep pocket to pick, even if that deep pocket is not attached to the person really to blame for said accident. So, let’s victimize the bars and restaurants as well as their employees. Methinks it will be a great day for South Carolina when like Katrina Shealy, Laura Hudson retires or is forced by circumstance to step back from “helping victims” by creating more victims from an already bloated legal system.
Indeed, and if a business is making hundreds of thousands (or in some cases millions) of dollars feeding people alcohol, and watching the intoxicated drivers get into their cars, why hold the business financially responsible when they kill an innocent father of 4? After all, it’s important for South Carolinians to have a huge supply of hard liquor. It’s a travesty when people leave bars, and kill innocent people, and then those bars go out of business because of insurance premiums. The widow can always apply for government assistance.
The law is working as it should. If you run a business, and people who consume your products are killing folks, because of the products you sold them, your business should not exist. It’s called an externality. Part of the “cost” of running your business is being born by innocent tax payers. Honestly, if you run a bar, and don’t offer to get an Uber for obviously drunk customers (who you just made money feeding liquor) you should go to prison.
I’m not sure where the idea comes from that South Carolina will be better off with more alcohol sales
Supply? Scarcity? We’re talking about insurance. They aren’t innovating anything. There is no “supply” beyond having enough money to pay claims, and one would think limiting their profits would mean more money can be used for said claims.
I think watching bars and restaurants drop like flies due to some unethical profiteering harms the economy a lot worse than slapping a few hands of some greedy insurance executives who don’t want to put a yacht on a payment plan.
All establishments serving alcohol should be required to carry insurance. All businesses should carry insurance period. It’s all about the money no matter which way you look at it. Hold the person drinking and driving responsible for their actions. Reform is needed for DUI laws as well as the Joint and Several laws