Lawsuits and the Unfairness of Insurance

In the past few days both the CBC and the National Post have posted stories of the RCMP being sued in a class action by officers who have alleged "systematic bullying, intimidation and harassment"(CBC). With no judgement as to the validity of these claims - although they are, given the para-military design of this agency, easy to believe - the amount being claimed (1.1 billion dollars) seems excessive. The RCMP has no money. It is not some private corporate entity that has access to millions of dollars tucked away in some off shore rainy day account. Its only money comes from me - the Canadian tax payer. The RCMP officers are suing Canadians because our government has not interfered at the right times, in the right way to prevent the alleged abuses. I suspect that the officers are right; we should have done more to ensure that their rights were not abused, that when issues arose - that they were dealt with in a speedy and appropriate manner. It should be noted however, that in general opposition parties have historically been quick to criticize governments that interfere too often with the internal workings of its arms length agencies.

On any given day, one can find a story in our national media about some person suing some employer or agency for alleged wrong doings. In many of these case, such action has only come after either the criminal court system or another tribunal has refused to recognize the validity of the case. But there are as well numerous example of people deciding that the best way of getting some attention, or claiming money is to threaten a lawsuit in civil court where the burden of proof is less. It is frequently hard to distinguish which of these reasons is the real reason for the lawsuit.

It seems to me that part of the problem is that we live in a litigious world; a world that is afraid that someone, someday may sue them. Sue them not for the very real costs of injury, but sue them for all sorts of indefinable additional trauma and their associated costs. The original claims are so inflated that the alleged offending party has no choice but to deny the claim and go to trial. Trials cost money. If the amount of the claim is inflated by the cost of a trial, then justice surely can be better served by finding alternative means of resolution.

I sell my weaving at a local farmer's market. The market board has been informed by the municipality that they negotiate with for space that all vendors must have insurance that indemnifies the municipality and associated partners from all potential lawsuits. I accept that it is remotely possible that my tent which is held down by a total of over a hundred pounds of weights might blow over and lightly injure a passerby. I am unconvinced that the risk is so high that my insurance company requires $300.00 a year to provide coverage.

I am required to have insurance because lawyers have convinced a public body that the risk of being sued by other lawyers is so high that they need special protection. The cost of insurance is so high that I will no longer be able to attend the market. The cost is so high not because I produce a product that puts people at risk, not because I am doing anything inherently dangerous to the public, but because someone is afraid that some undefined person might at some point in the future be injured so severely that there will be a lawsuit for millions of dollars.

I do not benefit from this expenditure, the public does not benefit - only the insurance company does. And they do so because the public entities are told that they should be afraid of lawsuits and that citizens, if something happens, that they can demand excessive amounts for their injuries.

I am pissed off that I have lost a portion of my income because some lawyer has convinced someone that what I do puts them at risk.