[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Of course, there's two sides to every story, but what you say makes sense. The only point where my thinking veers off is where the tobacco companies targeted the teenagers.

That's part of the reason why I don't have any sympathy for the tobacco companies. I think we agree on this.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by zonerboy

Absolutely ridiculous!
Hello juries out there.....
You are not punishing tobacco companies with your verdict.
R.j. Reynolds will never pay this judgement. It will be appealed and re-appealed. Some final amount will eventually be settled upon and guess who will pay it? Not R.J. Reynolds, but some insurance company contracted by R.J. Reynolds. And ultimately all of us who purchase any kind of liability insurance will be the ones who suffer.
The attorneys for both sides will make big bucks.
Please remember this if you are ever on the jury in a liability case.

I disagree to this extent: Not all products carry the same risk so liability premiums will be based on a particular risk posed by a particular product.

[CFrance]

Yep.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I disagree to this extent: Not all products carry the same risk so liability premiums will be based on a particular risk posed by a particular product.

I disagree to this extent: Jury verdicts enter into the actuary's equation when determining premium for all liability insurance

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I disagree to this extent: Jury verdicts enter into the actuary's equation when determining premium for all liability insurance

So a farmer would pay the same liability premium to sell fresh vegetables? How about a bakery that bakes and sells bread?