Paragraph 2 is wrong. The reason claims are rising is simple, the plaintiffs bar has figured out the issues on which they can base a lawsuit. Legit or not. Faux science or not.
Your theory seems to be more viable than that proposed in the article. If the eventual success rate of claims is high or increasing, it implies the legal theory you stated, rather than construction problems mentioned, is more correct/ relevant to the claim spike.
I don’t understand how the author could claim the severity rise is due to construction issues and others mentioned.
Just wait until the market becomes flooded with all of the wind-blown noise cancer claims. You all heard the president. It’s a thing now. Noise cancer.
Giving credit to both points addressed above, it is possible that both are missing certain components that relate to the article’s subject and subtopics. First, the author said that the rise in certain types of claims “can” be attributable to construction and employment types of circumstances. It does not exclude the other potential sources of loss nor exclude the factor of claims rising due to a transient industry that operates within a litigious environment. Relevance of either, or both, is weighted by the observer, but the fact remains that the industry must be prepared to face the existing and new risks posed to it.
Paragraph 2 is wrong. The reason claims are rising is simple, the plaintiffs bar has figured out the issues on which they can base a lawsuit. Legit or not. Faux science or not.
Your theory seems to be more viable than that proposed in the article. If the eventual success rate of claims is high or increasing, it implies the legal theory you stated, rather than construction problems mentioned, is more correct/ relevant to the claim spike.
I don’t understand how the author could claim the severity rise is due to construction issues and others mentioned.
Just wait until the market becomes flooded with all of the wind-blown noise cancer claims. You all heard the president. It’s a thing now. Noise cancer.
I’m waiting for TDS to be covered by health insurance, hoping it is soon.
Well, ODS wasn’t covered so I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Giving credit to both points addressed above, it is possible that both are missing certain components that relate to the article’s subject and subtopics. First, the author said that the rise in certain types of claims “can” be attributable to construction and employment types of circumstances. It does not exclude the other potential sources of loss nor exclude the factor of claims rising due to a transient industry that operates within a litigious environment. Relevance of either, or both, is weighted by the observer, but the fact remains that the industry must be prepared to face the existing and new risks posed to it.