Consumers for Civil Justice - Public Relations

CONSUMERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE

U.S. Senator Jon Corzine Position on Victims Rights

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-3004

February 15, 2005

Consumers for Civil Justice
PO Box 7781
Trenton, NJ 08628

Dear Friends:

Thank you for hosting this important summit on victims' rights. One of our most cherished rights as Americans is the ability to hold those who have harmed us accountable through our judicial system. This fundamental guarantee of access to the courts is crucial to affirming the confidence of all citizens that their participation in everyday civic life will not leave them without recourse against those who have injured them. Holding corporate wrongdoers accountable for their transgressions not only serves an equitable function, but it also deters future misconduct.

Too often, the agenda of would-be tort reformers largely ignores the rights of citizens who have been victimized by corporate malfeasance. This approach is unfair, and it is why I have attempted to inject reason into the, current debate on tort reform.

Class Action Reform

Lost in all the recent debate over class action reform is the fact that many class action claims are meritorious. Class action suits can promote safety, protect our health and environment, and are essential to the enforcement of our civil rights laws. Perhaps most importantly, for citizens victimized by negligence, fraud and reckless misconduct, class action lawsuits are often the only way they can get their day in court and have their rights vindicated.

That is why I opposed the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which seeks to impose new and substantial limitations on access to the courts for victims of discrimination, mass torts, consumer fraud, and other misconduct. The changes this legislation purports to make may deny ordinary citizens the opportunity to level the playing field against large corporate defendants.

Some class action suits simply do not belong in federal court. Two such types of cases are civil rights and labor class actions. These important types of class action suits provide a particularly important mechanism for adjudicating the claims of low-wage workers and victims of discrimination. In fact, these lawsuits are often the only means by which individuals can challenge and obtain relief from systemic, widespread discrimination and far-reaching labor violations. Unfortunately, the Class Action Fairness bill will deny citizens the ability to seek redress in their own state courts for violations of these laws, even where a corporate defendant has hundreds of employees in that state.

Medical Malpractice

Our nation's healthcare crisis deserves honest scrutiny. Proponents of so-called medical liability "reform" assert that jury awards in malpractice cases have soared uncontrollably and that capping damage awards will lower premium costs for doctors. Unfortunately, the idea that if we lower caps premiums will fall is wishful thinking. The truth is that there is no solid evidence that damage caps will result in lower insurance premiums. States with caps on damages have average insurance premiums that are 9.8% higher than insurance premiums in states without caps on damages.

The Bush Administration would have you believe that escalating healthcare costs are a result of skyrocketing damage awards. Again, there is no truth to this assertion. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that malpractice costs amounted to "less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 20 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."

The real issue - which we must address - is reducing health care costs and expanding access to health care coverage.

Asbestos Litigation Reform

A legislative solution that would help solve the asbestos litigation crisis is certainly needed. For too long, victims of asbestosis, mesothelioma and other asbestosrelated diseases have suffered without the assurance that they will receive redress for their injuries. Likewise, companies face uncertain liabilities, insurance companies struggle with increasing claims, and the financial industry worries about the effect mounting cases will have on our capital markets.

Unfortunately, an under-funded asbestos trust fund is not tae answer; we need a fair and balanced approach to the asbestos problem. I believe we can provide sufficient funds to cover victims' medical bills, while at the same time providing defendant business the certainty they need for their business. We can and must craft legislation that ensures that current and future victims of this epidemic are properly compensated while respecting the needs of businesses.

Thank you again for asking me to participate in this important discussion. For the sake of the many victims and their families, I hope that we can find honest solutions to these pressing questions.

Sincerely,

/Jon S. Corzine/

JON S. CORZINE
United States Senator