Anyone trying to earn a little interest on their savings knows all too well that interest rates have been hovering between zero and two percent for most of the past four years.

Ironically, one of the best returns on investment can be found by winning a lawsuit.

Under a Colorado law that’s been on the books since 1979, winning plaintiffs in a tort case are entitled to receive NINE percent interest on the damages they are owed.

Legitimate victims certainly deserve to be properly compensated for injuries or damages caused by a wrongdoer.  However, the inflated and outdated interest rate set in state law – a law passed when the Federal Reserve rate was more than 11 percent – actually provides an incentive for victims or, more particularly, their contingent-fee attorneys to try to prolong the case.

A $10,000 judgment, paying interest at 1.5% compounded annually, results in $613 in interest over four years.  That same $10,000 compounded at 9% annually earns $900 in interest in the very first year and $4,115 over four years. Read more

The so-called “Hell’s Angels” Bill has languished for nearly two months without a hearing, prompting speculation that perhaps even its sponsor, Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-Denver), was losing interest.

Instead, it now appears that this Wednesday’s hearing for HB 1128 could be a real dog-and-pony show, given that it’s scheduled for the Old Supreme Court Chambers.

HB 1128 prohibits businesses from discriminating or denying access on the basis of “unconventional attire” — later defined as dress that indicates membership in a motorcycle organization or veteran status.  (The odd conflagration of motorcycle clubs and veteran status led CO-LAW to speculate that this might simply be an election-year “gotcha” vote.)

Miklosi tells the Colorado Springs Gazette that he’s serious about HB 1128: “This is my First Amendment bill this year.”

Interesting.  So, Miklosi — also a candidate for Congress — believes that a biker’s right to wear his “colors” onto someone else’s property is more important than, say, a bar or cafe-owner’s right to freedom of association or to control the use of her property? Read more

Sometimes it’s hard to figure what the plaintiffs’ bar is really thinking.  Newly-introduced Senate Bill 153, sponsored by Sen. John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) brings us to one of those times.

SB 153 would drastically increase the cost of litigation — and of settlements — for both defendants and plaintiffs by forcing courts into a time-consuming nuisance procedure before approving what are known as “protective orders.”

According to the Judicial Conference of the United States, “Protective orders to safeguard against dissemination of highly personal and sensitive information are critical to both plaintiffs and defendants.”

Rather than allow plaintiffs and defendants to agree to and courts to approve protective orders, this bill would prohibit courts from issuing a protective order unless it specifically finds that each and every covered document has no usefulness in warning of a “public hazard.”  It also allows third parties — gee, who might they be? — to intervene to oppose protective orders.

Incidentally, a “public hazard” could be something as innocuous as a toothpick! Read more

Senate Bill 3 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.  No big surprise there, since the committee is chaired by the bill’s sponsor (Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora) — though it passed only narrowly, on a 4-3 vote.

This is the bill that would prohibit employers, in most cases, from even looking at a job applicant’s credit history as part of the applicant screening process.  Even under current law, employers never see an applicant’s credit score or identifying account numbers.

Noteworthy by their absence were any witnesses claiming that an unflattering credit history had cost them a job.

Given some of the dubious coverage related to the bill, clearly implying that applicants with bad credit histories cannot get jobs, it was ironic that no real people showed up to make that claim to legislators.

Instead, the testimony was dominated by far-left ideologues, trial lawyers and labor unions who want to make employers prove their innocence in court — at considerable cost to employers and potential profit to labor lawyers.

Kudos to Senators Ellen Roberts (R-Durango), Steve King (R-Grand Junction), and Kevin Lundberg (R-Berthoud) for recognizing that SB 3 is a political solution in search of a real-world problem.

From Colorado Lawsuit Abuse Watch, Feb. 13

Once again, trial lawyers and their allies are devising new ways to sue Colorado’s job creators.  Colorado Civil Justice League is standing up for Colorado employers and opposing this new game of “Litigation Lottery.”

Senate Bill 3, sponsored by Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora) and Rep. Randy Fischer (D-Fort Collins), would give disgruntled job applicants and their attorneys the opportunity to sue employers who reviewed the applicant’s credit information as part of the hiring process.  The same goes for employees who are denied a promotion.

What that means is that Colorado job creators could be forced to prove their innocence — at a cost of thousands of dollars — any time a disappointed job applicant or disgruntled employee is denied a job or promotion. Read more