Posted On: February 15, 2005, 10:19 am CST

Posted By: Florida Product Analyst

There's a couple important issues here that I expect to be overlooked when people discuss this in the future -- likely, as a "what a silly lawsuit, people suing because they got fat" claim.

- The lawsuit isn't regarding people getting fat, but McDonalds' failure to live up to prior agreements to stop using a harmful type of fat (there are others that aren't so dangerous, so it's a conscious choice to use it). Apparently, the courts agreed that McDonalds has failed, and needs to do more.

- The terms of the settlement involve giving money to a charity that helps people avoid and recover from the effects of this harmful type of fat, and money spent to more fully live up to the spirit of the prior agreement.

The "Some lady sued McDonalds because coffee is hot" argument is also likely to pop up, so here's a link to the facts of that particular case so folks can make sure they're informed about the details before they bring it up, i.e. McDonalds was deliberately keeping their coffee at an unsafe temperature for who-knows-why:

http://www.caoc.com/facts.htm

It's another case of holding McDonalds accountable for the choices it makes, and how those choices impact consumers who haven't been alerted to the dangers they may pose. I think that we as insurance professionals should really think about this, and about our traditional roles as Risk Management professionals. If we can help our clients/insureds better manage their risk with prevention and avoidance, etc., we can do a heck of a lot better with the remaining liability risks they transfer to us. Not only would that improve everyone's bottom line, it would go a long, long way toward improving our public image.

It's a win-win we should strive for, and I hope in the future we will achieve it.