Robert T. Reville

The lawsuit is the cornerstone of the civil justice system in America, and an open court the foundation of American jurisprudence. In a public setting, we resolve disputes, determine liability, and compensate injuries. In recent decades, however, more civil disputes have been resolved out of court and the outcomes have been kept secret. Fewer than 5 percent of the tens of millions of injury claims annually are actually resolved through a public trial with a jury, and the vast majority are settled out of court or through private forums, such as mediation or arbitration, with undisclosed terms. Some argue that the confidentiality of the system keeps it working efficiently and fairly; others argue that the public is being denied information about hazards that may cause harm and that a public system with no data lacks oversight. This collection of essays by leading legal scholars is the first book to approach the issue in a multidisciplinary, nonpartisan, and empirical manner. The essays provide empirical analyses and case studies of the impact of greater disclosure on various aspects of the system, ranging from settlement values to fraud, and propose several novel prescriptions for reform. With special attention to the emergence of modern mass litigation, the authors identify a number of benefits to increasing access to information, including decreased fraud, improved public understanding and confidence in the system, and lower transactions costs. The authors make policy recommendations--such as expanding access to existing databases and using technology to create new databases--that increase transparency while protecting the need for privacy.

What are the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act's effects on the market for terrorism insurance? What would be the effect of enhancing provisions for nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological (NBCR) attacks? The authors conclude that the program yields positive outcomes in a number of dimensions for conventional attacks and identify specific reforms that can improve results for NBCR attacks.

Providing a description of the evolving terrorist threat, this book's goal is to compare the underlying risk of attack to the architecture of financial protection that has been facilitated by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) requires insurers to offer commercial insurance that will pay on claims that occur from a terrorist attack, and for losses on the scale of 9/11, TRIA provides a "backstop" in the form of free reinsurance. The authors describe the evolving terrorist threat with the goal of comparing the underlying risk of attack to the architecture of financial protection that has been facilitated by TRIA.

Systematically evaluates the California permanent disability ratings system used prior to the state's recent workers' compensation reform. California's disability rating system has been criticized as being inconsistent and prone to promote disputes over the appropriate level of permanent disability benefits. This monograph follows an earlier interim briefing on California's permanent disability rating schedule. The authors provide a systematic evaluation of the ratings system that was used prior to the state's 2004 workers' compensation reform efforts. Among other analyses, they examine the extent to which workers with higher disability ratings experience higher earnings losses.

This book examines the central issues in the debate over whether to extend, modify, or end the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, which requires insurers to make terrorism coverage available to commercial policyholders.

Can the downward trend in earnings losses experienced by injured workers during the 1990s be traced to the state's improved economic conditions? The adequacy of benefits for permanent disability from occupational injuries is a continuing source of controversy among policymakers in California. This book focuses on the economic consequences of disabling injuries and what those outcomes suggest about the current adequacy of workers' compensation in California. In particular, the authors investigate the relationship between losses in earnings from workplace injuries and economic conditions in the state during the 1990s. Although changes in economic conditions had some impact on earnings losses experienced by permanent partial disability claimants, especially less-severely injured workers who are more easily accommodated by their employers, the decline in earnings losses may be more closely related to changes in the workers' compensation market. Even though benefit levels have increased since 1991 and earnings losses have declined, replacement rates for lost income remain below two-thirds of pre-tax wages, the standard commonly cited for adequacy. Because benefits have declined (in inflation-corrected dollars) since their last increase in 1996 and, as of 2001, the economy is headed into a new recession, it is possible that workers injured today will have worse outcomes than workers injured in 1996 or 1997.

Sizing up the adequacy and equity of disability benefits for the state's injured workers The New Mexico workers' compensation system has been widely regarded as a success story since it was significantly reformed a decade ago. Workers' compensation costs for the state's employers are among the lowest in the country, insurer profits are among the highest, and the system is among the least litigious. Given this environment, this book evaluates the adequacy and equity of workers' compensation indemnity for New Mexico workers receiving permanent partial disability benefits. The authors compare outcomes for workers with partially disabling occupational injuries in New Mexico with outcomes for their counterparts in California, Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin. After controlling for differences across the five states, New Mexico's replacement rates fall in the middle; however, benefits for sustained earnings losses are not adequate by the commonly cited standard of two-thirds pre-tax wage replacement. Scheduled injuries, which include primarily injuries to the arms and legs, are less adequately compensated than unscheduled injuries, which are primarily injuries to the back. The duration of time until an employee's return to work in New Mexico is much longer than that in other states, which may be accounted for by the other states' active return-to-work programs.