Compensation first party

The relevant question, of course, is whether the tort system s additional benefits (e.g., damages that are prevented) exceed its additional costs. Danzon (1988,118) estimates that medical malpractice torts cost 40 percent more than simple first-party insurance. She argues that if approximately one injury of comparable severity is prevented for every injury compensated, then the tort system pays for itself. 

Danzon (1988,117), for example, estimates that 60 percent of medical malpractice insurance premiums is consumed by lawyer fees, court costs, and overhead, while only 20 percent of first-party insurance premiums is not paid out in compensation. 

Compensation traditionally is provided by a patient (e.g., first-party payer) or by an insurance carrier (third-party payers). With first-party payers, the fee for the service is requested directly from the patient. There are advantages and disadvantages to charging patients directly for a clinical service. Advantages include the fact that the pharmacist can ask directly for and... 

After having first concentrated on the establishment of administrative rules ie, environmental protection rules, the public interest has been focusing on civil law ie, liability schemes complementary to protection rules respectively. It is argued that (strict) liability rules are deemed not only to ensure compensation for the party who suffered the damage, but also ensure that the operators behave in most responsible manner in order to avoid possible liability. 

A personal injury trial would be heard in the first instance by a single judge, without a jury, who will decide who is liable for the accident. If the claimant is successful he/she will be awarded compensation assessed by the trial judge and the unsuccessful party will normally be ordered to pay the other party s legal expenses. 

---