For the past six months, our news has been dominated by cases of corporate abuse and greed. Mega-banks and Wall Street fat cats take billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, while they continue to give five-, six- and seven-figure bonuses, buy Lear jets and lavishly refurnish their multimillion-dollar apartments and estates. The country's biggest health insurer gets caught intentionally shorting its customers by billions of dollars. Now, a peanut company in Georgia is caught shipping out products for over a year, knowing they tested positive for salmonella.
With all of this going on, the Oklahoma Republican leadership has sponsored two bills that can only be described as “corporate immunity” bills. Of course, they call it “lawsuit reform,” but the intent and the net effect is clear. This is particularly galling to me, as a lifelong Republican, because the philosophy that promotes this kind of legislation is anything but conservative. It's the “Government Should Control Everything,” philosophy. Ronald Reagan never embraced that, and neither do I.
It's also disturbing because there is absolutely no evidence that it is necessary in Oklahoma. Promoters argue that these bills are aimed to limit “frivolous lawsuits.” Such lawsuits don't make anyone money and for the most part simply don't exist in Oklahoma. Ask any judge. That doesn't mean that most people who get sued don't think the suit against them is frivolous. But that's why we built courthouses. Last year, when it was pointed out that these same legislators presented no evidence of a lawsuit crisis in Oklahoma, they responded that there was “anecdotal” evidence. That's the kind you hear from your brother-in-law or see on the Internet, that simply isn't true. Big business and big insurance have long filled up the Internet with false stories about far-out lawsuits. People suing on a fire policy after smoking cigars and suing Winnebago because their motor home wouldn't drive itself. About 30 seconds on Snopes.com or any reputable fact-checking Web site shows these all to be lies.
In 2006, when the Tulsa World surveyed likely voters about the important issues facing Oklahoma, lawsuit reform was not among the top 20 issues raised. That's because it simply is not an issue, except to politicians who owe their election, their political existence and maybe their souls to Big Business and Big Insurance.
One of the bills being promoted calls for a vote of the people on a constitutional amendment capping contingent attorney fees at 25 percent. Not only does that violate the constitutional right that people have to contract, it would effectively close the courthouse to most common people injured or harmed by the negligence of another. The contingent fee is the only way lawyers who represent injured people have to be paid. No recovery, no fee. If you limit the fee, you limit the cases they can afford to take. What would you think if they tried to pass a law that limited the amount of money you could make? They don't seem to have the courage to do that to the Wall Street fat cats and corporate CEOs that make hundreds of millions a year while leading their companies right down the tubes, but they want to do it to lawyers.
It's fun to bash lawyers, but your politicians aren't the reason you wear seat belts today, drive cars with gas tanks that don't explode, and work in an environment not contaminated by asbestos. Plaintiffs' attorneys did that. They've gone after big pharmaceutical companies who knowingly market dangerous drugs. That peanut company in Georgia doesn't fear the politicians, they already own them. They fear the plaintiffs' lawyers and what a jury of fair-minded citizens will do to them in court.
The second bill is identical to the one Gov. Henry vetoed last year, because it was unconstitutional. It would give that peanut company or anyone else credit for the life insurance you had on your children if they were killed by corporate negligence and you made a claim against them. It would cap all non-economic damages at $300,000. That means that if you don't make a lot of money, or you're a stay-at-home mom, or retired, or a child, you're limited to $300,000 regardless of what they did to you. That protects the corporate wrong-doer, not the individual. It hurts the people that can least afford it. The bill makes a class action almost impossible, so if the phone company or the oil company overcharges you or shorts you by $5 or $10 a month, there's nothing you can do because you can't pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour to pursue a $10 claim. The list of non-consumer provisions that protect the bad guys just goes on and on.
Some supporters want you to think these bills are designed to protect physicians. The truth is, the physicians are doing fine in Oklahoma. Malpractice suits have declined steadily in the past 10 years. PLICO, the Oklahoma insurance company owned by the physicians themselves, has made record profits in recent years. Truth is, lawsuit reform has never led to a lowering of doctor's insurance rates or anyone else's. Just ask these politicians to tie a reduction in insurance premiums to their lawsuit reforms, and see if they don't run and hide. That's because the premium being charged has almost nothing to do with lawsuits or claims of any kind. A 2005 study by Dartmouth College found that hikes in premiums are generally related to investment losses. Who hasn't had some of those lately?
Oklahoma was recently found to have the fifth highest number of physicians per capita in the United States. It doesn't appear that they're leaving the state in droves to avoid lawsuits. Most of them are moving to Gallardia. Oklahoma is also ranked by Forbes Magazine with a higher business climate than Texas, where tort reform has made it almost impossible to find an attorney to sue anyone. See the article, “Baby, I lied,” in the October 2007 issue of Texas Observer. It points out that Texas tort reform was supposed to bring doctors to the rural areas of Texas, where they were few and far between. It did bring more doctors to Texas, because they are generally immune from liability, but they didn't go to the rural areas. They simply can't make as much money there.
This nonsense will continue until Oklahomans insist that it stop. It's pure and simple political grandstanding that hurts people and protects the fat cats and CEOs. There has got to be plenty business of the people that needs tending to, especially in this economy. Mortgage foreclosures and the lack of credit have nothing to do with tort law, and these two bills will do nothing but add more harm to the common people. I suggest you call, write or e-mail your senator and state representative today and tell them to knock off the bull and get to the real business at hand. They should listen only to you. Corporations can't vote and they aren't supposed to make political contributions either.

Fletcher Dal Handley Jr., has practiced law in El Reno since 1978. He has long been active in the American Bar Association and the Oklahoma Association for Justice. In 1999, he testified before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in opposition to a proposed nationwide mandatory no-fault auto insurance bill. The bill was defeated.