Proposals for the reform of mesothelioma claims have been attacked for removing claimant choice, lowering compensation and undermining a claims system that is already working.Last week, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation that seeks to reform the way mesothelioma claims are processed.
The paper suggested the introduction of a dedicated pre?action protocol, which would establish quicker timescales for claims, the development of a fixed recoverable costs regime – which the MoJ said, would “encourage proportionality in the amount of legal work undertaken and provide greater certainty about the legal costs incurred on behalf of claimants” – and the introduction of an electronic ‘gateway’ for a faster exchange of information.
Briony Krikorian, policy advisor and liability regulation general insurance directorate at the Association of British Insurers, welcomed the proposals: “The focus of these proposals is very much on helping the majority of claims to settle pre-litigation.
“These pre-action protocols request all the information that would be needed by a defendant to settle a claim from the claimant and put timescales both around the information the claimant provides and how quickly the defendant has to respond to those, so it is about making the exchange of information much more systematic and third party merchant account.”
“At the moment claimants have a choice,” he said. “Some clients prefer their cases to be settled in life, while others prefer to receive an interim payment and for the case to be resolved after they die. Mesothelioma claims settled in life tend to be worth 10% to 20% less than claims concluded after death so these proposals reduce compensation and reduce the claimant’s choices.
“Second, it removes defendant lawyers from the process so insurers spend less on their own legal services. Third, it limits the amount claimants can spend on their own legal representation as this is a process designed by and to be run for the benefit of the insurers, providing cheap justice, which the victims can ill afford.”
According to Morgan the mesothelioma fast-track system introduced by Master Whitaker in the High Court, and more widely adopted in April 2008 – which requires the submission of evidence in order to establish the need for an interim payment, while giving priority to cases involving severely limited life expectancy – is already working.
He said: “[The mesothelioma fast-track claims system] has created a level of understanding and cooperation between claimants and defendant lawyers to resolve issues quickly. This process is an example of how litigation should be done, what these proposals do is rip it up completely, they undermine it.”
He added: “Insurers will have to gear up to deal with mesothelioma claims more quickly. At the moment power of a claimant to enforce its response is only through litigation whereas now they can point to the protocol and say insurers need to comply with it.”
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers added the MoJ proposals would speed up the resolution of third party payment gateway. Matthew Stockwell, president of Apil, said: “We hope this exercise will result in a fairer system, which will benefit people who are dying from a truly awful disease they contracted just because they turned up for work, often many decades ago.”
While John Latter, director of technical centre for UK claims at Zurich, argued the proposals are set to have a positive impact on all the parties involved. “I don’t see any negatives for anyone: insurers will pay the claims in a quicker and transparent way. If passed [as they are] the proposals would bring certainty to the process, take out excessive costs and make sure those that need compensation get it.”
Philippa Craven, partner at Kennedys, added the introduction of the Secure Mesothelioma Claims Gateway would bring these types of claims in line with the recent Jackson reforms for employers’ liability and public liability claims.“Jackson didn’t look to exclude mesothelioma from his reforms. He always thought the conditional fee agreements fixed fees should apply to those claims so it was just decided mesothelioma claims would be looked at as a separate issue,” she said.
However, the MoJ was keen to clarify the fact the proposed gateway is not similar to the road traffic accident portal as initially thought.A spokeswoman for the MoJ said: “It is intended to be an electronic means of exchanging information quickly between interested parties in mesothelioma claims. Its objective is to help speed up the claims process.”
2013年7月31日星期三
2012年2月19日星期日
Hotel guests want Wi-Fi, not a phone by the toilet
Do you remember those days when you were happy simply if your hotel room had clean sheets, a telephone with an outside line and no stains on the walls or floors?
We've come a long way since the days of tiny soap and two plastic glasses wrapped in plastic. But, I have to tell you, since reading about how accommodations are accommodating the changing needs of the modern traveler, I've recently had spasms of nostalgia for those simple days.
Consider that a hotel in Charlotte, N.C., now calls its housekeepers "room stylists."
That's kind of extreme, but you see where things are headed. In the crowded and competitive lodging industry, hoteliers are listening to their guests, and doing their best to keep up.
TripAdvisor recently published results of a survey of more than 1,000 U.S. travelers as well as 600-plus hotel professionals, asking each group which amenities were most and least important to them.
Wi-Fi Internet access topped the "most" list of both groups, while turn-down service topped the "least" list.
Amenities are a big deal, of course, since it's easy to click around on your device to compare what's being offered for what price. While a chocolate on the pillow won't scare anyone off, 54 percent of travelers surveyed said they have canceled a lodging reservation because they found better amenities at a different property, TripAdvisor reported.
The survey also reported that 45 percent of respondents said their favorite new food and drink amenities are happy hours, wine tastings or any other time with free food and drinks, and 31 percent wished more rooms would include free bottled water.
On the "who cares?" side of the ledger, 44 percent of women and 30 percent of men opined that luxury amenities were "not worth the hype."
The bathroom phone is the least-used fancy amenity, with 37 percent of respondents saying they never touch it.
When asked if they could stay celebrity-style, the top option for both men and women, at 36 percent, was to have the kitchen pre-stocked with their favorite food and beverages. A close second was the ability to have a private pool and hot tub in the room. These options beat out such diva-style demands as an in-room arcade, specific types of fresh flowers everywhere, private staff — even a movie screening room.
A recent story on hotels catering to the evolving tastes of travelers — particularly business travelers — was cited in the daily industry news brief for the American Hotel & Lodging Association. The story and accompanying video from an NBC affiliate in North Carolina noted the various "pretty dramatic changes" the industry is going through.
Among them are changes you never even imagined, as well as ones you were probably wishing for:
A hotel corridor bereft of a housekeeping cart. These bastions of the hotel biz apparently are on their last rattling wheels, to be replaced by smaller, more maneuverable caddies rolled right into the room.
That change will also eliminate the propped-open room doors, which means no more fears about passersby peeking in on your style of "spreading out" or — worse — someone wandering in to steal something.
Speaking of theft, the new system will thwart those who like to snag a few towels, toiletries or souvenirs from the unattended carts. And you won't be stocking up on the room toiletries as often either, as more and more companies are replacing them with refillable dispensers.
Other ways hotels are changing to accommodate the travel habits of today's traveler:
Hotels are rethinking their lobbies and other public areas to be more appealing for socializing, working and just relaxing outside the guest room. That's because more than a third of the business travelers these days are between 18 and 44, a group that doesn't like sitting in hotel rooms, said Adam Weissenberg of Deloitte & Touche, who specializes in the lodging industry.
More convenient places to plug in: Outlets are everywhere people hang out — check around your bar, lobby or restaurant table. It may be wired and ready for your power cord.
Tubs are dead: In a faster world, it's all about a quick shower — that is, if you can extricate yourself from those massage-and-waterfall experiences you'll find in hotel bathrooms.
We've come a long way since the days of tiny soap and two plastic glasses wrapped in plastic. But, I have to tell you, since reading about how accommodations are accommodating the changing needs of the modern traveler, I've recently had spasms of nostalgia for those simple days.
Consider that a hotel in Charlotte, N.C., now calls its housekeepers "room stylists."
That's kind of extreme, but you see where things are headed. In the crowded and competitive lodging industry, hoteliers are listening to their guests, and doing their best to keep up.
TripAdvisor recently published results of a survey of more than 1,000 U.S. travelers as well as 600-plus hotel professionals, asking each group which amenities were most and least important to them.
Wi-Fi Internet access topped the "most" list of both groups, while turn-down service topped the "least" list.
Amenities are a big deal, of course, since it's easy to click around on your device to compare what's being offered for what price. While a chocolate on the pillow won't scare anyone off, 54 percent of travelers surveyed said they have canceled a lodging reservation because they found better amenities at a different property, TripAdvisor reported.
The survey also reported that 45 percent of respondents said their favorite new food and drink amenities are happy hours, wine tastings or any other time with free food and drinks, and 31 percent wished more rooms would include free bottled water.
On the "who cares?" side of the ledger, 44 percent of women and 30 percent of men opined that luxury amenities were "not worth the hype."
The bathroom phone is the least-used fancy amenity, with 37 percent of respondents saying they never touch it.
When asked if they could stay celebrity-style, the top option for both men and women, at 36 percent, was to have the kitchen pre-stocked with their favorite food and beverages. A close second was the ability to have a private pool and hot tub in the room. These options beat out such diva-style demands as an in-room arcade, specific types of fresh flowers everywhere, private staff — even a movie screening room.
A recent story on hotels catering to the evolving tastes of travelers — particularly business travelers — was cited in the daily industry news brief for the American Hotel & Lodging Association. The story and accompanying video from an NBC affiliate in North Carolina noted the various "pretty dramatic changes" the industry is going through.
Among them are changes you never even imagined, as well as ones you were probably wishing for:
A hotel corridor bereft of a housekeeping cart. These bastions of the hotel biz apparently are on their last rattling wheels, to be replaced by smaller, more maneuverable caddies rolled right into the room.
That change will also eliminate the propped-open room doors, which means no more fears about passersby peeking in on your style of "spreading out" or — worse — someone wandering in to steal something.
Speaking of theft, the new system will thwart those who like to snag a few towels, toiletries or souvenirs from the unattended carts. And you won't be stocking up on the room toiletries as often either, as more and more companies are replacing them with refillable dispensers.
Other ways hotels are changing to accommodate the travel habits of today's traveler:
Hotels are rethinking their lobbies and other public areas to be more appealing for socializing, working and just relaxing outside the guest room. That's because more than a third of the business travelers these days are between 18 and 44, a group that doesn't like sitting in hotel rooms, said Adam Weissenberg of Deloitte & Touche, who specializes in the lodging industry.
More convenient places to plug in: Outlets are everywhere people hang out — check around your bar, lobby or restaurant table. It may be wired and ready for your power cord.
Tubs are dead: In a faster world, it's all about a quick shower — that is, if you can extricate yourself from those massage-and-waterfall experiences you'll find in hotel bathrooms.
2012年2月6日星期一
Air quality in your home may cause headaches
When the weather report issues an air quality warning, some people stay indoors, but there's no guarantee that the air in the home is any healthier than the air outside. Common indoor air pollutants such as dust mite grime, pet dander, mold, tobacco smoke, and airborne allergens and germs may be lurking about without anyone ever noticing.
Adults spend up to 90 percent of their time indoors and inhale approximately 2,300 gallons of air a day. Given that, people face significant, ongoing exposure to a variety of unwelcome indoor air pollutants. Extended exposure to these pollutants can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, respiratory problems, headache, fatigue and even allergy symptoms. Asthmatics, the elderly and children are the most vulnerable to indoor air pollutants and can develop more serious symptoms. Prolonged exposure to some pollutants has even been linked to cancer or other serious diseases.
Homeowners do, however, have the power to combat indoor air pollutants and improve their home's air quality.
One common first line of defense is a home air filtration system. These devices filter pollutants from the air circulating throughout the home. The whole-home purifier, installed in line with the ductwork of a home's heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, re-purifies the air as many as eight times an hour, removing a majority of pathogens, allergens and pet dander.
But an air purifier shouldn't have to do all the work. Homeowners need to do their part by maintaining a clean household. Simple things like asking people to take off their shoes at the front door or preventing family and guests from smoking indoors go a long way toward clearing indoor air, allowing homeowners to breathe a fresh sigh of relief.
Distributed by Internet Broadcasting. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Adults spend up to 90 percent of their time indoors and inhale approximately 2,300 gallons of air a day. Given that, people face significant, ongoing exposure to a variety of unwelcome indoor air pollutants. Extended exposure to these pollutants can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, respiratory problems, headache, fatigue and even allergy symptoms. Asthmatics, the elderly and children are the most vulnerable to indoor air pollutants and can develop more serious symptoms. Prolonged exposure to some pollutants has even been linked to cancer or other serious diseases.
Homeowners do, however, have the power to combat indoor air pollutants and improve their home's air quality.
One common first line of defense is a home air filtration system. These devices filter pollutants from the air circulating throughout the home. The whole-home purifier, installed in line with the ductwork of a home's heating, ventilation and air conditioning system, re-purifies the air as many as eight times an hour, removing a majority of pathogens, allergens and pet dander.
But an air purifier shouldn't have to do all the work. Homeowners need to do their part by maintaining a clean household. Simple things like asking people to take off their shoes at the front door or preventing family and guests from smoking indoors go a long way toward clearing indoor air, allowing homeowners to breathe a fresh sigh of relief.
Distributed by Internet Broadcasting. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
2012年1月16日星期一
Condos and HOAs
Recently a member of my Condo and HOA Law & Living group on LinkedIn asked the following question of our approximately 2,400 nationwide members.
“What is a condominium owner’s rights when his or her unit is saturated in secondhand smoke from the unit above them and below them? Are there laws that address this issue and, if so, have they been enforced in Florida?”
This question kicked off some heated discussion and resulted in an extraordinarily large number of comments both from smokers and non-smokers alike. Some of the commentary ran a little afield of the original question and veered off into topics ranging from the science on secondhand smoke to civil liberties and everything in between.
However, for the benefit of Sun Sentinel blog readers, I will repost my response to the question here:
In that case, the court starts out saying that the case is “not a case about secondhand smoke, rather, as persuasively argued by the Plaintiff, it is about excessive secondhand smoke.” In 2003, the Plaintiff and her family purchased a unit at the Palm Aire Condominium in Pompano Beach. The Defendant was living in a unit one floor up and one unit over from the Plaintiff. The Defendant was a smoker who smoked about a pack a day. Initially, the Plainiff had no problems with the Defendant’s smoking but the Defendant later acquired a tenant who was also a smoker and that’s when the problems began. The Plaintiff acknowledged in her complaint that her family is “hypersensitive” to smoke due to a history of respiratory allergies.
The Plaintiff installed air purifiers in her unit to no avail and the association installed a mechanical fan to draw air from the common shafts up through the roof. This also did not resolve the problem. The smoke got so bad that on several occasions the family slept elsewhere and one time the smoke set the Plaintiff’’s smoke detector off.
The Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendant for damages based on the theories of trespass, common law nuisance and breach of contract. In Florida, the focus of the tort of trespass is the “disturbance of possession”. As it pertains to smoke, secondary authority has summarized the status of the law as it relates to trespass as follows: “A trespass need not be inflicted directly on another’s realty, but may be committed by discharging a foreign polluting matter at a point beyond the boundary of such realty.”
The Broward County Court found that the excessive nature of the smoke in this case did constitute a trespass. The Court also found that the excessive secondhand smoke had created an actionable nuisance for the Plaintiff. Florida courts have allowed a nuisance to also proceed based on odors created by another party. The Broward County Court also cited the Court of Appeals of Nebraska which had held that to have the use and enjoyment of one’s home interfered with by smoke, odor and similar attacks upon one’s senses is a serious harm.
Lastly, the Broward County Court addressed whether the excessive secondhand smoke constituted a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. The Court acknowledged that in Florida there was no case on point but relied on a Massachusetts Housing Court Ruling in 50-58 Gainsborough Street Realty Trust v. Halle. The Halle Court ruled that while smoking is legal, secondhand smoke can be considered a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. The only weakness in the Plaintiff’s case in Merrill v. Bosser is that she failed to provide competent evidence demonstrating the extent of her damages. The Court awarded her the sum of $1,000 plus costs in the amount of $275.00 to cover medical expenses, loss of use of the premises and remedial expenses.
It is important to note that this is a case where an owner sued an owner. It is not a case where an association sued an owner for violation of the covenants or for a nuisance. However, the arguments set forth in this case could, in my opinion, be used equally by a fellow owner or the association upon whom responsiblity to enforce the covenants rests.
“What is a condominium owner’s rights when his or her unit is saturated in secondhand smoke from the unit above them and below them? Are there laws that address this issue and, if so, have they been enforced in Florida?”
This question kicked off some heated discussion and resulted in an extraordinarily large number of comments both from smokers and non-smokers alike. Some of the commentary ran a little afield of the original question and veered off into topics ranging from the science on secondhand smoke to civil liberties and everything in between.
However, for the benefit of Sun Sentinel blog readers, I will repost my response to the question here:
In that case, the court starts out saying that the case is “not a case about secondhand smoke, rather, as persuasively argued by the Plaintiff, it is about excessive secondhand smoke.” In 2003, the Plaintiff and her family purchased a unit at the Palm Aire Condominium in Pompano Beach. The Defendant was living in a unit one floor up and one unit over from the Plaintiff. The Defendant was a smoker who smoked about a pack a day. Initially, the Plainiff had no problems with the Defendant’s smoking but the Defendant later acquired a tenant who was also a smoker and that’s when the problems began. The Plaintiff acknowledged in her complaint that her family is “hypersensitive” to smoke due to a history of respiratory allergies.
The Plaintiff installed air purifiers in her unit to no avail and the association installed a mechanical fan to draw air from the common shafts up through the roof. This also did not resolve the problem. The smoke got so bad that on several occasions the family slept elsewhere and one time the smoke set the Plaintiff’’s smoke detector off.
The Plaintiff brought suit against the Defendant for damages based on the theories of trespass, common law nuisance and breach of contract. In Florida, the focus of the tort of trespass is the “disturbance of possession”. As it pertains to smoke, secondary authority has summarized the status of the law as it relates to trespass as follows: “A trespass need not be inflicted directly on another’s realty, but may be committed by discharging a foreign polluting matter at a point beyond the boundary of such realty.”
The Broward County Court found that the excessive nature of the smoke in this case did constitute a trespass. The Court also found that the excessive secondhand smoke had created an actionable nuisance for the Plaintiff. Florida courts have allowed a nuisance to also proceed based on odors created by another party. The Broward County Court also cited the Court of Appeals of Nebraska which had held that to have the use and enjoyment of one’s home interfered with by smoke, odor and similar attacks upon one’s senses is a serious harm.
Lastly, the Broward County Court addressed whether the excessive secondhand smoke constituted a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. The Court acknowledged that in Florida there was no case on point but relied on a Massachusetts Housing Court Ruling in 50-58 Gainsborough Street Realty Trust v. Halle. The Halle Court ruled that while smoking is legal, secondhand smoke can be considered a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment. The only weakness in the Plaintiff’s case in Merrill v. Bosser is that she failed to provide competent evidence demonstrating the extent of her damages. The Court awarded her the sum of $1,000 plus costs in the amount of $275.00 to cover medical expenses, loss of use of the premises and remedial expenses.
It is important to note that this is a case where an owner sued an owner. It is not a case where an association sued an owner for violation of the covenants or for a nuisance. However, the arguments set forth in this case could, in my opinion, be used equally by a fellow owner or the association upon whom responsiblity to enforce the covenants rests.
2011年8月10日星期三
Suit aimed at Suarez grant is dismissed
A lawsuit attempting to block a grant program North Canton officials developed for Suarez Corp. Industries has been dismissed.
Andy Martin, a New York resident who is a longtime critic of Ben Suarez, and Richard E. Bierie, a North Canton resident, filed the suit in June after North Canton Council approved an occupancy grant for SCI and two partners. The lawsuit argued that council improperly passed the ordinance as an emergency action.
The occupancy grant is based on the amount of income tax paid by employees hired by SCI, Patriot Enterprises and LT Enterprises. The companies will make EdenPURE products in an old Hoover Co. warehouse at 334 Orchard St. NE.
SCI hopes to have the operation running within a month. Plans are to employ 300 people who will assemble EdenPURE space heaters, air purifiers, vacuums and other products. Suarez said he is moving the jobs from China back to the United States.
Council passed an ordinance for the occupancy grant at its June 6 meeting. The plan had been discussed at meetings in May, but was passed as an emergency.
After Martin and Bierie filed the lawsuit, council passed a new ordinance — minus an emergency clause — over the course of three meetings.
Because the new ordinance negated the lawsuit, Stark County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles E. Brown granted the dismissal.
Andy Martin, a New York resident who is a longtime critic of Ben Suarez, and Richard E. Bierie, a North Canton resident, filed the suit in June after North Canton Council approved an occupancy grant for SCI and two partners. The lawsuit argued that council improperly passed the ordinance as an emergency action.
The occupancy grant is based on the amount of income tax paid by employees hired by SCI, Patriot Enterprises and LT Enterprises. The companies will make EdenPURE products in an old Hoover Co. warehouse at 334 Orchard St. NE.
SCI hopes to have the operation running within a month. Plans are to employ 300 people who will assemble EdenPURE space heaters, air purifiers, vacuums and other products. Suarez said he is moving the jobs from China back to the United States.
Council passed an ordinance for the occupancy grant at its June 6 meeting. The plan had been discussed at meetings in May, but was passed as an emergency.
After Martin and Bierie filed the lawsuit, council passed a new ordinance — minus an emergency clause — over the course of three meetings.
Because the new ordinance negated the lawsuit, Stark County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles E. Brown granted the dismissal.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)