LAWSUITS: A losing argument

Sholeh Patrick couldn’t be more wrong on being against Loser Pays Lawsuits Legislation in her column.

And just as Sholeh gave anecdotal evidence of why it’s bad, I shall give evidence how it can be good.

A SoCal construction defect law firm had people canvassing a tract of 200 homes five years later, handing out $100 bills to whomever would join a class action lawsuit against a developer. Naturally the developer was named as additionally insured by every subcontractor on the project. Most homeowners took the bribe.

A test house was used to remove drywall under windows to look for wall leaks with a simulated rainshower for 48 hours and drywall removed on shear panel plywood to count the nails and measure the spacing. Industry experts pro and con testified for thousands of dollars.

Naturally the plaintiff’s industry experts made the house fail and everyone got a $10,000 or $20,000 settlement. Which they used as they wished for trips and cars. The defects are still there 20 years later. The attorneys got much more.

Did the developer pay? Nope. Every subcontractor did in the “settlement.”

And the subcontractors’ insurance was canceled. They had a claim on their background report and most were uninsurable.

Idaho’s loser pays law could make frivolous nonsense like this diminish.

It’s a good law!

Any contractor should have an arbitration clause and a loser pays clause in their contracts. It’s just good business! So should Idaho.

MIKE RENO

Post Falls