Treble damages in a case like the one PKM mentioned were an agent defrauded his client make perfect sense. Tens of millions of dollars in a case where a hotel clerk gave out a piece of information that any hotel clerk should know without even being told that they should not give out is obscenely ridiculous. I'm unfortunately not surprised that a lawyer apparently can't grasp that distinction, though.
You appear to be mistaken about a fundamental issue in this case. The hotel employee in question did not just give out a public figure's room number. In fact, upon the stalker's request, they booked him into the adjacent room which shared a common door.
This, amazingly, did not turn out to be something that was strictly forbidden.
And yes, this makes your argument much worse. I understand facts are inconvenient.
You also do not appear to have knowledge of, or simply disagree with, other longstanding legal doctrines. Here, the doctrine is respondeat superior. In essence, if the employee does the deed while acting in the scope of their employment, then the buck stops with the employer. Again, this is the rule we've worked out because otherwise many plaintiffs get stuck holding the bag on their own injuries while employers just stare at the injured party and say "well I didn't tell him to do that!"
Different states come down different ways on the priority between compensating those are in whojured and making sure that no one pays more than the amount for which they are personally responsible. There's a whole spectrum of that decision that plays out along a variety of fault allocation schemes from state to state. But, amazingly, there is broad consensus that respondeat superior is a just and fair rule because the balance of distribution of the harm plainly favors compensating an injured party over insulating an employer from the bad acts of the people they were supposed to be supervising. To the best of my knowledge, all 50 states recognize the doctrine. But I guess you know better?
I'm certain that I know a lot more about the insurance stuff than you think I do, and some of the claims in your post lead me to believe that you know a lot less than you're claiming to. For instance, everyone knows that insurance companies make big profits off investments, but your implication that rates are simply teasers to get to use people's money is laughable. Actuarial departments employ very smart people using very complex models in an effort to figure out what claims they will be liable for if they offer certain coverages. They have massive amounts of data that enable them to make very accurate guesses regarding the real costs of insuring large groups of people, because while they usually have no way of knowing which healthy individuals are about to get sick, they have lots of information about what percentages of a population with certain traits will become ill. And using that info, like any business which wants to maximize it's profits, they attempt to market their services in the best way they can. And BTW, do you know of a single person who believes that recent health care rates are "teasers". They are teasing us by increasing the amount we have to pay year after year after year?
But the strangest thing about your argument is that you are responding to a bunch of things I never even said, and failing to reply to all of the points that I actually did make.
That may be because, like here, you frequently combine a large number of topics together in ways that are garbled and only make half-sense. I am the lighthouse trying to guide you towards shore while you futilely steer yourself into the ocean of bad ideas.
Example: The entire discussion about subrogated recovery in the tort context refers, in general, to an entirely different body of insurance than health insurance.* So you point out that rates are set via actuarial pool (again a point not in dispute, no one said they picked the rate randomly) but then go on a bizarre rant about health insurance rates that are not in any way relevant to the larger point about the effect of tort law on insurance rates or the insurer's participation as a frequent tort plaintiff. I'm not particularly interested in trying to educate you on this topic further, but suffice to say that you might want to invest in a little more book learning before you spout off about the legal profession, and particular bodies of law, that you have no knowledge on.
* It is possible to have subrogated health insurance claims, frequently in the context of medicare, however those claims are rarely pursued by the insuring entity directly. Instead they function as a lien on any personal injury recovery by individual plaintiffs. Consequently, that situation is irrelevant to the above discussion, but I present the footnote for completeness and clarity.
