No secret that I’ve been a big critic of large insurance companies. You don’t have to look too far into the archives to find a combination of snarkiness, outrage, and jaundice over some of their practices.  So this one is in the spirit of calling it fairly. While away on vacation, I missed this report on the outcome of high-flying plaintiffs’ lawyer Dickie Scruggs’ fall from grace.

Back story is that Scruggs is one of the guys who took on the tobacco industry made millions, took on the insurers on Katrina claims, and was poised to make millions more. In between he’s done all manner of injury cases. I have no basis to know the specifics, but I would be willing to bet that he’s earned sums that might shame some small countries’ numbers.  So he falls from grace when the state and maybe a few insurance carriers go after him for attempting to bribe a judge.

And let’s be clear. Allstate, State Farm, The Wall Street Journal and everyone else has a right to call this guy a crook and to be wary of conduct like this.

For that I am eternally thankful to Mr. Scruggs. Not.

It’s a black mark on those who represent injured people. It’s worse than the magic pants guy, as this was an attempt to completely undermine the fairness of the civil justice system.  The problem is that criminals and clowns like this provide major fuel for the efforts of those who would limit consumers’ ability to access the courts.

It was reported that Mr. Scruggs swooned when the judge sentenced him to the maximum.  Good. And I hope the jerk spends each hour of his five years reflecting on how his corruption undermined the civil justice system. I say big props and major thanks to the trial judge. By slamming him, the judge made it clear that the integrity of the civil justice system will not be undermined by criminals.

David Sugerman

For consumers who have taken Vytorin, here’s a good summary of the problem from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/15drug.html

Interestingly, the companies have apparently known since April 2006 that their higher-priced drugs were not more effective than generics. But they sat on that information until Congress pressured them to release their study this month. In the meantime, the manufacturers continued to sell the higher-priced less effective drugs.

I don’t routinely pay close attention to such things, but I have to wonder whether the companies ran some of those glossy TV ads for Vytorin. Sure would be interesting to see what they said. I suppose that will be part of the discussion as the various consumer class actions move forward.

One other thing. A google search also turned up a fairly hostile editorial in Wall Street Journal. According to the writer, these cases are inappropriate because no one has been injured. I guess the Journal is bound to side with its friends on Wall Street and not consumers. But you would think that even the Journal’s editorial writers could appreciate the obvious point.

Taking money from consumers by way of deceptive trade practices IS an injury. Sure, it’s not a big deal to the well-heeled at the Journal. But of course, if we’re talking about $30 per month per person, and you’re selling this thing everyday to consumers across the nation, that’s a lot of money. Maybe it looks too much like business as usual to the Journal?

David F. Sugerman