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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT