April 11, 2006
Florida to "Keep Track" of Effects of Changes
Florida, as I've noted before, is the governor's signature away from eliminating joint and several liability. Today, the pro-elimination forces say they'll be watching the effect to ensure that they did the "right thing." The article suggests that the focus of the watching will be on the impact, of any, on taxpayer costs for Medicaid, which seems like a fairly narrow focus for such an evaluation.
Also in the article (from a business magazine) is a fairly honest assessment of the impact of joint and several liability on business recruitment in the past -- i.e., its presence didn't stop businesses from coming in the past:
And the repeal does not only affect Florida businesses. A state's legal environment has become an important criteria for the relocation or expansion of larger companies. Florida is the ninth state to completely ban joint and several liability -- nearby states Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana have already done so.
Jerry Mallot, executive vice president for the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce's Cornerstone division, said joint and several liability did not stop companies from coming in previous years, but with the ban, the worry of an unfair legal system can be taken off the table.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Florida to "Keep Track" of Effects of Changes:
what is really funny is when you see that much of the loss from this falls on small businesses and rich republicans who are victims of theft and fraud.
for example, Edward Jones is now liable when a broker steals from one of its customers. Restatement of Agency 261. Without joint and several liability the customer gets nothing.
same goes for all the duties of principals to agents, sections 435 and above in the restatement 2nd. These are very important duties, but rarely understood until they are needed.
same goes for everyone robbed, raped, murdered due to a lack of security at wal-marts. in fact, on passage, most companies should pull all security or face suit by shareholders for waste
actually, I am wrong to say shareholder. Now you only want to have partnerships of llcs. Partners not at fault have no j/s liability
Posted by: moe.levine | Apr 12, 2006 7:56:42 AM