ILNews

Pre-settlement lenders say rate cap could doom industry

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Representatives of businesses that provide pre-settlement funding to plaintiffs said they would be forced out of Indiana by a proposal to cap their returns at 25 percent, after which a House committee advanced a bill that would do just that.

The House Insurance Committee on a 10-2 vote advanced House Bill 1205 that for the first time would regulate cash advances for plaintiffs who have cases pending. The bill defines the business as “civil proceeding advance payment transactions.”

Supporters of HB 1205, including bill author and Insurance Committee Chairman Rep. Matt Lehman, said the bill is aimed at curbing abuses of an unregulated industry in which some plaintiffs have been charged fees equal to annual interest rates of 150 percent or more.

Industry representatives said they back regulation, but that the bill’s proposed maximum return of 25 percent more than an advance – for instance, a $12,500 payback on a $10,000 advance – would put them out of business in Indiana.

Representatives of Oasis Legal Finance and others testified that the industry provides needed cash for plaintiffs facing financial hardship ahead of settlement of their cases. They said the transactions aren’t loans because nothing is owed if a plaintiff doesn’t win a case or receive a settlement. Fees charged reflect the risks of a business in which 10 to 20 percent of advances are losses, they said.

An Oasis representative said the legislation was “an insurance protection bill, not a consumer protection bill.”

But insurance and business groups said the bill is needed to rein in what they said is a predatory business that can deprive litigants of their settlements and prolong litigation.

A State Farm Insurance representative acknowledged the need, but said nothing justified triple-digit interest rates. He also said litigation should “not be turned into a stock market for investors.”

Lehman said after the bill advanced that the 25 percent cap was negotiable.   






 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT