Declarations

‘In Pain All the Time’

“I’d gladly give up all the money just to have my whole life back together.”

—James Klotz, whose jury award in a medical malpractice lawsuit was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court, told The Associated Press he’s glad he won, but that he’s “in pain all the time.” The Court said the Missouri Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws means a state law limiting how much money can be awarded to people in medical malpractice cases cannot be applied to the Klotzes, nor to anyone else whose injuries occurred before the 2005 law took effect. James and Mary Klotz of suburban St. Louis filed a lawsuit in 2006 alleging that James Klotz contracted a staph infection—which led to other health problems—when a pacemaker was implanted in March 2004.

A jury awarded James Klotz more than $2 million and Mary Klotz more than $500,000, with non-economic damages comprising more than half their combined total. A trial judge had reduced James Klotz’s non-economic damages to the cap imposed by the 2005 law and eliminated them for Mary Klotz because the 2005 law required that they be counted under her husband’s total. AP

Holdovers

“People at these five companies are not leaving the companies to go elsewhere. … There is a striking number of holdovers.”

—Kenneth Feinberg, a Washington lawyer who was appointed last year to oversee pay at firms receiving U.S. taxpayer bailouts, in late March slashed pay again at five U.S. firms that still depend on a government lifeline, but said the clampdowns are not sending talented workers away. The 2010 pay for the highest-earning employees at those firms was cut by 15 percent on average. Cash pay was cut 33 percent on average, the Treasury Department said. The firms are AIG, General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. The Treasury, where Feinberg’s office is housed, said about 84 percent of the top earners are still with their firms despite having their pay dramatically cut back. Reuters

Information and Data on Demand?

“Without this amendment, the proposed Office of National Insurance (ONI) would have inadvertently had the ability to require countless agents and brokers to produce any data and information demanded by ONI.”

—Robert Rusbuldt, Big “I” president and CEO. The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big “I”) reported progress in an effort to modify a proposed federal financial services regulation bill passed by the Senate Banking Committee. Lobbyists for the Big “I” were pleased that an amendment, filed by Sen. Tester (D-Mont.), which clarified that the definition of “insurer” for mandatory data collection does not include insurance agents and agencies, was attached to the act. The amendment makes it clear that only entities that issue contracts and write insurance or reinsurance are to be included.

Topics Agencies