Over the last decade nursing homes, and to a lesser extent assisted living facilities, have become common and often easily preyed upon targets for litigation. Quite frankly, the plaintiff’s bar was initially very reluctant to invest both the time and resources (especially the money) necessary to aggressively pursue long-term care related litigation. An historical bias that devalued the life of elderly citizens created the false impression that jurors would not award substantial verdicts in litigation involving aged individuals. This callous viewpoint has proven to be a great misconception.

All of us have participated in a lawsuit where the amount of the jury's verdict did not measure up to our pretrial evaluation. Needless to say, a result of this sort can come as quite a shock. It is hard to explain this type result to a client who has turned down a substantial settlement offer. In every such case, there is a valid reason for the jury's verdict. The manner in which a case is presented to the jury generally determines whether or not the jurors will meet or exceed your expectations. In every case where the jury's verdict is in the $1,000,000.00 plus range, all jurors must have been properly motivated in that direction. Large verdicts don't just happen. Neither do bad results. We will now explore the conditioning of a jury to return a substantial verdict in a proper case.

The two main areas of consumer fraud that will be addressed in this paper are the victimization of consumers by the financial services industry, more commonly referred to as “predatory lending,” and the types of fraud perpetrated on consumers in the sale of insurance. This paper will also discuss both industries attempt at immunity by requiring pre-dispute, binding arbitration.

The American judicial system was first introduced to the concept of antitrust law when the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890. The Sherman Act was brought to life during a period of American history when our country was suffering from a series of depressions, while businesses were struggling to survive during the post Civil War era. Many large companies were organized for the sole purpose of monopolizing the market and restraining free competition in an effort to increase capital gains. The legislative history of the Sherman Act points to Congress’s intent to make such tactics illegal where the result is an unreasonable restraint on trade.

The high incidence of alcohol-related vehicle accidents has resulted in an equally large number of civil actions being filed in our state and throughout the country. The courts have responded in a proper fashion by holding bars, restaurants, package stores, and the like responsible to injured parties. Due to the catastrophic injuries and deaths resulting from drunk-driving crashes, the national movement to curb drunk driving, the loose practices by many sellers of alcoholic beverages, and the increased awareness by jurors generally, the value of these cases has increased greatly.