U.S. Chamber’s “Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month”: Lies Not Funny When Seriously Injured Are Damaged

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce continues its assault on the rights of the injured and disabled in favor of corporate profits. Were you aware that the Chamber had an "Institute for Legal Reform"? Were you aware that it is used to showcase "crazy" or "ridiculous" lawsuits, then call for reform to the civil justice system? What’s the problem with that, you ask? The problem is that these lawsuits are not the ones that the Chamber seeks to curb. In fact, of the five the "poll" features, one does not even seek money damages and three were brought in foreign countries. So, you may ask, why does the Chamber do this?

They do it, and repeat this dishonest campaign over and over again, so that they can make the case to reform the system and limit court access for seriously injured victims with serious lawsuits, for serious problems, caused by seriously negligent corporations (like BP, for instance, which, despite causing billions of dollars in damages to our environment, currently benefits from a congressionally mandated damages cap). They do it so that individuals who are seriously hurt by these seriously negligent corporations, will have their damage awards capped at articifically low numbers. Doing so will benefit wealthy corporations at the expense of the injured or disabled victims and at the expense of the American taxpayer who is left with a bill that should have been paid by the offending corporation.

The Chamber seeks to "reform" the civil justice system by asking federal and state legislatures to mandate damages caps in civil cases. They use what they call "crazy", "ridiculous", "silly", "frivolous", or "abusive" cases to make their point. But, here is the real point: Why would a "silly", "crazy" or "frivolous" case need a damages cap? By definition, they are worthless; the justice system will take care of them in due time. The reason is that the Chamber, and the deep-pocket corporate interests it represents, want the public and government to think that these cases are the ones that "hit big", in court, against major corporations. Those victims who these corporate interests maim, kill, cause permanent injuries to will pay the price for this duplicity; so will the American taxpayer because, as previously indicated, if the corporation which caused the serious damage is not held accountable, the taxpayer will be left with the medical and support bills through the Medicare, Medicaid, social service and Social Security systems. That means you and me, folks! I still can’t figure out why the average Republican would be on the "reform" side of this debate. I thought this was the "personal responsibility" party!?

Here are the latest entries in the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform Poll. You be the judge as to whether they effect our system of justice and/or whether they are poster children for some sort of damage limitation:

1. Lawsuit as presented by the Chamber: Woman sues wireless carrier after her phone bill exposed an extramarital affair. Truth: This lawsuit was brought in Canada, not in the U.S.. I will not speak to its merits, but do you think that it needs a "damages cap"?

2. Lawsuit as presented by the Chamber: Teacher with a "rabbit phobia" sues a student for drawing a rabbit on the chalkboard. Truth: This lawsuit was brought in Germany, not in the U.S.; again, do you think reform or a damages cap is necessary in the U.S.?

3. Lawsuit as presented by the Chamber: A woman by the name of Zoe Renault is suing the Renault car company for naming a Renault automobile the "Zoe". Truth: This lawsuit was filed in France (sensing a pattern of Bulls…t by the Chamber here). All it asks for, on behalf of 30,000 French women named "Zoe", is that Renault choose another name. This lawsuit does not seek money damages.

4. Lawsuit as presented by the Chamber: A U.S. city (wow! an actual U.S. case!) fired a woman for refusing a wear an ID badge that she found religiously offensive. Truth: The city defaulted on the case and no damages have been awarded.

5. Lawsuit as presented by the Chamber: Man sues dating service for providing dates that were not "suitable". Truth: Considering the promises made by the defendant in here contracts and in her marketing about the quality of woman the service provides, this is an interesting case and, probably, not "frivolous" or "silly", at all. This man paid $10,000, up front, for the service, and all he wanted was his money back, which the company refused to do.

Do you see the duplicity? The tactic is to take cases, regardless of merit (or country of origin), that are "funny-sounding", lie about them to make them sound even funnier, then use them to argue that the U.S. justice system is broken. And the only reason for doing this is to maximize corporate profits on the backs of seriously injured and disabled people who have been victimized by these corporate interests. So, the next time you see something like this, tell the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that you don’t appreciate being lied to. Tell the Chamber and your state and/or federal legislators that you don’t want to be left holding the tax bill for a free ride/corporate welfare for corporations who pollute our environment, place dangerous and defective products/drugs in our stores, and fail to provide the insurance coverage that we pay for. Tell them "enough is enough".

Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.