This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. Read our Privacy Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Forensic economics combines economic analysis with the law, and it\u2019s important for practitioners to stay in their lane. No one wants an economist who speaks or acts like a lawyer. But that doesn\u2019t mean we economists can\u2019t discuss what lies outside our lane. Sometimes the non-economic stuff is interesting. A great example is the collateral […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal_matters"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The standard argument for the CSR is that society doesn\u2019t want to penalize a successful plaintiff for having acted responsibly by purchasing insurance. Without the CSR, responsible behavior is effectively discouraged, because an \u201cirresponsible\u201d plaintiff (one who hadn\u2019t purchased insurance) would get the same damage award as a responsible one.<\/p>\n
A related argument is that society doesn\u2019t want the defendant to be freed from the burden of paying compensation to the plaintiff. After all, the purpose of tort law is to punish as well as compensate.<\/p>\n
Perhaps you see the conundrum at the core of this discussion. The existence of collateral compensation means that someone will get a windfall. Either the plaintiff receives double compensation for a portion of the damage award, or the defendant is freed from having to pay the full amount of the damages. Economics can\u2019t decide which it should be. The law must decide.<\/p>\n
A separate argument for the CSR is evidentiary. Evidence about a collateral source might prejudice the jury against the plaintiff. If the jury learns that some or all of the plaintiff\u2019s damages will be covered by a third party, it might be less likely to find for the plaintiff on liability.<\/p>\n
Once the trial is over, such prejudice is no longer a concern. In states where the focus of the CSR is admissibility of evidence, the plaintiff\u2019s award is often reduced after the trial by the amount of the collateral compensation.<\/p>\n
A Patchwork of Rules<\/strong><\/h2>\nThere is a 50-state patchwork of different versions of the CSR, including no CSR at all. In states enacting tort reform, the CSR is often opposed on the grounds that it encourages specious claims by dangling the prospect of double compensation in front of prospective plaintiffs. A few states choose not to apply the CSR to medical-malpractice cases, on the reasoning that CSRs increase the cost of litigation incurred by physicians and hospitals and thereby make malpractice insurance more expensive.<\/p>\n
When I first started writing this column, I thought the issue of CSRs was straightforward. I now know otherwise. For example, I\u2019ve read that North Carolina\u2019s 2011 tort reform law changed the CSR in the state, but also that no change has happened yet. I wouldn\u2019t be surprised to learn that something I\u2019ve written here is inaccurate. But that\u2019s okay! When it comes to the CSR, it\u2019s not the forensic economist\u2019s job to determine the parameters of the rule. That\u2019s the attorney\u2019s job.<\/p>\n
The post The Collateral Source Rule<\/a> appeared first on Attorney at Law Magazine<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/attorneyatlawmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/black%400.5x.png?resize=172%2C63&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n