This is actually a novel concept and one of the more insightful articles on IJ in a while. This is a quantification of our skewed perceptions of “fair” based on how the information is presented and how we tether to tangible aspects we understand with specific relevance to insurance. Good find, decent summary of the study.
On the other hand, the title is quite misleading. I guess clicks are king even when there’s solid content.
It’s a more thoughtful, insightful article than most others because its written by a senior IJ staff member rather than a mildly/ clearly biased independent author.
Note: a smarter than average polar bear isn’t trying to gain favor with the IJ staff. Rather, the above intends to point out bias of certain independent authors of articles hosted by IJ.
A well presented article, with insight into the issue.
My answer to the question posed is “I have no specific answer”. The settlements require great details for each case. But, each case should follow some rules…
1. Should be punitive if the defendant acted without any concern for those who might be harmed by their actions.
2. Shouldn’t unjustly and unrealistically reward the injured party for pain & suffering to the detriment of society as a whole. How this is determined is unique to each case, but no one should be given excessive wealth that is intended to compensate for pain & suffering, and to some degree punish malfeasance or lack of concern for their fellow man which eventually punishes people not connected to the injurious act or accident.
Even smarter than average polar bears sometimes have no good solutions to difficult problems.
This is actually a novel concept and one of the more insightful articles on IJ in a while. This is a quantification of our skewed perceptions of “fair” based on how the information is presented and how we tether to tangible aspects we understand with specific relevance to insurance. Good find, decent summary of the study.
On the other hand, the title is quite misleading. I guess clicks are king even when there’s solid content.
It’s a more thoughtful, insightful article than most others because its written by a senior IJ staff member rather than a mildly/ clearly biased independent author.
Note: a smarter than average polar bear isn’t trying to gain favor with the IJ staff. Rather, the above intends to point out bias of certain independent authors of articles hosted by IJ.
A well presented article, with insight into the issue.
My answer to the question posed is “I have no specific answer”. The settlements require great details for each case. But, each case should follow some rules…
1. Should be punitive if the defendant acted without any concern for those who might be harmed by their actions.
2. Shouldn’t unjustly and unrealistically reward the injured party for pain & suffering to the detriment of society as a whole. How this is determined is unique to each case, but no one should be given excessive wealth that is intended to compensate for pain & suffering, and to some degree punish malfeasance or lack of concern for their fellow man which eventually punishes people not connected to the injurious act or accident.
Even smarter than average polar bears sometimes have no good solutions to difficult problems.