Justices on the Take: Episode 2

Brian Dickerson apparently took some heat for his column (the one I posted on earlier this week) in which he accused four of our Michigan Supreme Court Justices of being on the take. Instead of retreating, he responded with more evidence that our state Supreme Court uses a double standard when ruling, providing favorable interpretations, leniency, and benefits to insurance companies and corporations while construing long-recognized laws against consumers and refusing to uphold decades-old rights of individuals. His article follows, in its entirety: BRIAN DICKERSON: A question of appearances August 12, 2005 BY BRIAN DICKERSON FREE PRESS COLUMNIST A trial judge I like and respect put it to me straight: Did I really believe, she wanted to know, that four members of Michigan's highest court are on the take? If not, what did I mean when I wrote that the state Supreme Court justices in question "belong" to the insurance industry? These are fair questions. None of the justices mentioned in my Monday column -- Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, Clifford Taylor and Robert Young Jr. -- has been charged with a crime. No prosecutor I know of is investigating any of them for official corruption. But since late 1999, when Markman's appointment gave then-Gov. John Engler's handpicked justices control of the seven-member court, the four have been on an almost messianic crusade to recast the rules of engagement between insurance companies and consumers. In case after case, they've made it easier for insurers to deny coverage and harder for aggrieved policyholders to do anything about it. In dozens of instances, the same justices have discarded precedents and common-law customs that had protected consumers for decades. A retreat from precedent The case I wrote about earlier this week -- in which the Engler majority abandoned a long-established rule that time limitations established in an insurance policy must be reasonable -- is but the most recent example. In another case, the justices held that auto insurers may shirk liability for some accident-related expenses simply by waiting until the statutory time limit has passed before denying coverage. In a third case, the Republican majority upheld a clause barring claims made more than 30 days after an accident, even when no one was appointed to represent the fatally injured policyholder's estate until the 30-day limit had elapsed. In each instance, the majority insisted the plain meaning of the relevant statute left the court no choice but to rule as it did, however unjust the result. But the same justices have not hesitated to apply a more flexible standard in other types of cases, especially when a more literal reading of the law would benefit criminal defendants. Quacking like a duck Motives are always difficult to divine, and I do not lightly question the sincerity of those whose views I contest. I know how much I resent it when a reader dismisses anything I've written as a payoff to the plaintiffs' bar or some other interest group to whom they imagine me beholden. But I don't take money from lawyers, and they didn't help me get my job. The Engler justices have a different relationship with the insurance industry, which has invested untold tens of thousands in the current majority's ascent to power. So far, insurers are getting exactly what they paid for: a radically altered legal landscape in which it's increasingly difficult for policyholders to get their day in court. From the insurers' point of view, the justices' motives hardly matter. Results are what count, and the Engler majority continues to deliver. My guess is that the four Justices he criticizes won't have the gall to sue him, as their rulings would never hold up to scrutiny. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, slander and libel. Article from: