North Carolina Trial Law Blog

Law Suit Crisis in NC? Not even close, malpractice refund check "in the mail"

As a personal injury lawyer in the state capitol, Raleigh, I hear a lot of "complaining" by physicians about "crazy lawsuits."  I always tell them (many of whom are friends) that malpractice lawsuits in North Carolina are either declining or at worst, holding steady. 

The main insurer for physicians, NC Medical Mutual, has just announced that they MADE so much money last year, they are issuing a refund to doctors.  And guess what?  This is NOT a result of tort reform.  We have had no major laws pass in our state which resulted in "savings."

In fact, based upon actuarial studies, the reality appears to be that when lobbyists for the insurance companies were screaming for tort reform, what they were doing behind the scenes was RAISING premiums for physicains to create what I would call a "manufactured problem."  The doctors' own insurance company was gouging them, and then asking them to donate money to "tort reform" causes, which of course, are insurance company lobby groups.

Looks like the physicians have finally reigned in their own insurance company by realizing that the "crisis", if there is one, is mostly in the minds (and wallets) of the insurance industry.

from the News and Observer

N.C. insurer to pay dividend
Medical Mutual will also pay off debt as drop in malpractice suits boosts profit

David Ranii, Staff Writer
The state's largest medical malpractice insurer says that fewer lawsuits filed against doctors will allow it to pay its policyholders a $3 million dividend -- its first dividend ever.
Raleigh-based Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of North Carolina said it posted a 7.4 percent increase in profit last year as the number of lawsuits filed against its policyholders fell to 298 last year. That's down from 326 in 2006.

In addition to paying the first dividend since the company was founded in 1975, Medical Mutual also plans to erase its $10 million in debt this year. And, over the next four years, it plans to refund $12 million in capital supplied by its policyholders in 2003 as part of a plan to shore up the company's finances and stabilize its premium rates.

In recent years the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, whose members include the personal-injury attorneys who sue doctors for malpractice, has bashed Medical Mutual for charging rates that the lawyers' group labeled excessive.

Medical Mutual's CEO Dale Jenkins said the dividend and capital refund to shareholders demonstrates "we are a very good steward of the resources the [doctors] have provided to us. We recognize every day that it is their money."

Medical Mutual hasn't sought a rate increase from state regulators since 2005. The latest positive financial results will allow the insurer to hold rates steady again this year.

Medical Mutual's dividend will be in the form of a credit that physicians receive when they renew their policies, said Jenkins. The average credit will be about 5 percent of the annual premium for most of the 6,300 North Carolina physicians who are policyholders. Medical Mutual is a mutual insurance company that is owned by its policyholders.

"We're always glad to see a company ... able to give money back to its shareholders," said N.C. Insurance Department spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson.

Jenkins said the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen nationwide. In addition, Medical Mutual has taken steps aimed at limiting lawsuits. The company has established stringent underwriting guidelines in order to avoid insuring doctors it considers high-risk, Jenkins said. "We do not take all comers," he said.

The company also sends out teams of nurses to assess doctors' practices and recommend ways to minimize risks, he said.

Profit last year totaled $26.1 million, up from $24.3 million in 2006, Medical Mutual reported. Assets increased by $44.9 million, to $416.2 million.

_______________________________________

Chris Nichols

www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Contributory Negligence in NC: why comparative won't raise insurance rates

NC Lawyers' Weekly has provided a great link to an article that was run in the Winston-Salem Journal about contributory negligence laws in North Carolina. 

Contrubutory Negligence is an issue that people don't know or care about, until they face the problem themselves.  Basically, in NC, even if you are hurt by someone else's negligence, if the other person can prove you are just a little bit to blame for your injury, you are barred from any recovery.  That's right.  Someone else is 99.9% to blame, and you are barred from recovery.

Columnist Scott Sexton has written a series of excellent articles on the subject and really puts a human face on this convoluted and political issue.  I highly recommend reading these articles.

I'll also add this to the mix.  One of the problems with contributory negligence is that it is so often a bar to people seeking legal representation.  Lawyers who represent injured people know that they could spend years working on case and lose everything at trial simply because a jury felt the Plaintiff may have played some very small part in causing the accident.

Here are some the the previous articles by Sexton:

Contibutory Negligence: it's "an insurance company's dream "

"Never mind that Joshua was 7 years old and was within 3 feet of the curb, or that Logan was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road. "By way of affirmative defense, Defendant Logan pleads the contributory negligence of the decedent Plaintiff Joshua Franklin Palomares-Beckles," wrote Rodney Guthrie, Logan's attorney. If a jury in North Carolina decides that you are even a tiny bit at fault in this sort of case, you are entitled to nothing under state law, under a concept called contributory negligence. "In general, I'd say contributory negligence is an insurance company's dream," said Walter Holton Jr., the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Beckles-Palomares. "

Wreck victim faces being victimized by outdated law

"After an automobile accident in New Hanover County involving his daughter, Ashley, a student at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Norris has become something of an expert on a legal concept known as "contributory negligence," an outdated and completely unfair area of insurance law used only here and in three other states. That leaves option C. "Our insurance company is also using the contributory-negligence law claim that Ashley is limited in what we can recover," Norris said.

'There is no lobby for the little people' in this state

"Just four states - North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Maryland - still hang on to the concept of contributory negligence, a relic from English Common Law. "

Don't believe hype that law would increase insurance rates

By Scott Sexton

JOURNAL COLUMNIST

Scott Sexton
Email	Bio

On its face, insurance law - specifically a legal concept called “contributory negligence” - is something that only a serious policy nerd could love.

That is, unless (or until) you or someone you know gets hosed by that law. Then it’s not so boring.

Contributory negligence works like this: If you’re in an accident and deemed to be just 1 percent at fault, you’re not legally entitled to one red cent to cover your damages from the idiot (or his or her insurance company) who was 99 percent to blame.

Three recent columns explored some of the more outrageous abuses of this law. Possibly the worst was the insurance-company attorney who argued that a 27-year-old man killed by a hit-and-run driver in October 2003 while changing a flat tire in Orange County was partly responsible for his own death.

It’s a shameless, outdated blame-the-victim strategy. It also seems like an easy law to change.

Yet objections remain. The state, for example, could switch to a “comparative-negligence” system. If you’re 90 percent at fault, you (or your insurance company) pay 90 percent of the damages.

“Comparative negligence is a nightmare to apply. Few people agree on the percent fault they are assessed, it increases lawsuits, is a cash cow for lawyers, and raises everyone’s insurance rates,” wrote one reader who works in the insurance industry. “If you haven’t noticed, N.C. enjoys some of the lowest auto-insurance rates in the country.”

Good point. And it’s one worth exploring.

Low-rate state

North Carolina does indeed enjoy consumer-friendly auto-insurance rates - the sixth lowest in the country, according to the N.C. Department of Insurance.

That’s not, however, because of any sense of fair play by insurance companies nor because contributory negligence keeps costs down.

The credit goes to a man who next to nobody has heard of, state Insurance Commissioner Jim Long. He is basically the final word on insurance rates in North Carolina.

Every Feb. 1, the N.C. Rate Bureau - an umbrella organization representing insurance companies - files a rate request. The bureau then makes a rate recommendation. Actuaries and attorneys with the Department of Insurance negotiate any changes with the rate bureau. If there’s no agreement, then Long decides.

“It’s a pretty long and pretty dull process unless you are an actuary,” said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for the Department of Insurance.

Given that background, I figured that Long’s thoughts on the merits of contributory negligence versus comparative merits would be worth hearing.

You can read the rest of the article by going to the Winston-Salem Journal.

-Chris Nichols

www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

New Video

Raleigh Personal Injury: Lawyers Paying Bloggers to "testify"

Because I run a business that is, in part, dependent on advertising, I check out Google searches to see where my firm "places" in the Google rankings.  While looking through some of the "top hits" I found a local Raleigh firm "recommended" by a Blogger.  Sure, why not?  Except that this "Blogger" is from another state, and if you read the "small print" she makes product endorsements for CASH.  That's just wrong, and deceptive.  Would you hire a firm that pays people to endorse them?

So, if you are looking for a Raleigh personal injury attorney, you have found one.  My law firm, Nichols Law Firm, never pays anyone for endorsements.  We provide personalized service to clients, and are available to meet with you during your hours, at your home if you need us too.  There is never a fee for a consultation.

_______________

Chris Nichols

www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

A Conservative Christian Physician against Tort-Reform

To often, politics of the right and the left interfere with the stark reality of tort reform.  In the past decade or so, conservatives have used "tort-reform" as a political "wedge issue" and have spent multi-millions of dollars to turn the public, and juries, against all Plaintiffs.

The article below was written by a self-described conservative Christian physician who deeply questions the politics of taking away justice from injured people in the name of politics and for the goal of profitting "big business."

This shows me that people are seeing that fairness and responsiblity are truly non-partisan issues, and that lawsuits, in and of themselves, are not "all bad."  In fact, lawyers and lawsuits have often been all that stands between the public and harm.

Remember the Little Guy 
by Steven Hotze, M.D.

Shouldn't companies and individuals who cause you harm be responsible for the damages they inflict?
            
You are probably aware of the lawsuits in the 1970s against Ford Motor Company and its Pinto automobile. Because of poor design, rear end crashes often caused the Pintos gasoline tank to explode into flames. Over 500 drivers lost their lives and thousands more were severely burned. Ford knew about this problem and that it would only cost $11 per car to repair but determined it was cheaper to pay the lawsuit settlements than recall the vehicles. Incredibly, Ford put their profits above the safety of their customers.
            
Because plaintiff attorneys were willing to file lawsuits on behalf of these injured individuals and families on a contingency basis and fight the multi-billion dollar Ford Motor Company, Ford paid hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments. Ford was also criminally charged with negligent homicide for having knowingly sold unsafe cars.
            
These lawsuits against Ford were based on product liability law which holds businesses responsible for any injuries caused by their products. The Ford lawsuits and resulting settlements sent a strong signal to the automobile industry. Safer cars have been the result.
Over the past decade, the Republicans in the Texas Legislature have passed a series of bills which have limited the liability of large corporations when they are found by a jury to have caused injury to their employees or their customers. This has me concerned and it should have you concerned as well.
            
Who wouldnt want limited liability for their actions? This is especially true of some large corporations which place their financial interests above the well being of their employees and customers. 
            
Under current Texas law, it is hard to imagine that Ford Motor Company would have been required to pay out such a large amount of money in judgments as it did at that time.
            
Tort reform has dramatically limited the liability of businesses and individuals in Texas. The Texas Legislature has set limits on the amount that a business or individual can be required to pay in judgment to an injured party. No one likes the idea of frivolous lawsuits, but most individuals seem to agree that a remedy should be paid to an injured party commensurate with the damage.
            
Who does this current law benefit? It benefits the large corporations and the well financed who have deep pockets and the wherewithal to hire a bevy of defense attorneys.  Their financial risk for shoddy workmanship and unsafe products has been dramatically reduced.
            
What about the small business owner or the individual with modest means?  How will they afford the assistance of a lawyer to help them be fairly compensated for their losses?
            
As a physician and conservative, I have a healthy distrust for big government and big business. The conservative position requires accountability for actions. It appears to me that the pendulum for tort reform has swung too far in favor of big business.

Its time to remember the little guy.

by Steven Hotze, M.D.

_______________________

Chris Nichols

www.NicholsTrialLaw.com 

How NOT to avoid Jury Duty

This just in from www.cnn.com

Every once in a while someone goes a little too far in trying to avoid jury service.  Looks like this guy went overboard in his attempt to avoid service on a grand jury, which amittedly, can take a lot of time.

I think the Judge did the right thing here.  Jury duty is one of the very few real things we can do to actively participate in our democracy.

BARNSTABLE, Massachusetts (AP) -- A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.

Daniel Ellis' excuses to try to get out of jury duty didn't sit well with the judge.

"In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service," Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson told Daniel Ellis, according to a preliminary court transcript of the exchange.

Ellis, of Falmouth, had been called to court with about 60 other potential jurors for possible service on a 23-member grand jury.

On a questionnaire that all potential jurors fill out, Ellis wrote that he didn't like homosexuals and blacks. He then echoed those sentiments in an interview with Nickerson.

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.

"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn't want to serve on a jury.

"I have the distinct impression that you're intentionally trying to avoid jury service," Nickerson said.

"That's true," Ellis answered.

Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. He was released later Monday morning.

Ellis could face perjury and other charges.

Chris Nichols

www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

The Truth That Juries Never get to See

As I'm getting ready for a trial, I'm constantly reminded that the "reason the case is going to trial" has more to do with the defendant's insurance company than anything else.  It's frustrating as an attorney fighting for justice because I have the burden of proof for the "facts" of the case, but what the jury really needs to hear, I'm not allowed to tell them.

Why?  Well, the insurance industry has effectively "gagged" anyone from telling the jurors why the case is going to trial.  Typically, the reason for that is that the insurance company who pulls the strings on the defendant, WANTS the case to go to trial, because they know that for every case that goes to trial, 99 just give up, and the insurance company gets to pay less than what is "fair and just" as the rules require.

Here are some of the "hidden" rules and insurance practices that you only learn about after you've been hurt by someone else's negligence.

You Can Not Mention the Insurance Company at Trial

Under no circumstances can a Plaintiff mention the word “Insurance” in trial, even though the person who is being sued has insurance. You cannot mention Insurance, nor can your witnesses, including the doctors, police or anyone else who may testify for you. If you do, the judge will grant a “mistrial” and we will have to try the case over again.

NC Rule of Evidence: Rule 411. Liability insurance.

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. 

Insurance is available in at least 99% of all auto accident cases that go to trial. But, the insurance industry has lobbied the legislature so diligently that it has created a set of court rules that absolutely prohibits the lawyers representing injured people from telling the jury the truth that the little old lady in the defendant's chair has had no choice in whether she is sitting there or not. She cannot settle the case even if she believes you deserve everything you are asking for.

The insurance company is completely in control of how much to offer the injured person, whether to settle the claim or not, and what they should contest in the lawsuit. So, even if the little old lady sitting in the defendant's chair wanted to settle the lawsuit for the same amount as what the injured person is requesting, the insurance company won't offer the money.

In North Carolina, the Plaintiff has virtually no right to sue an insurance company for improperly denying a claim or delaying the payment of what is due. Again, effective political contributions, and legal maneuvering by insurers have resulted in these rules.

Its cheaper to deny the claim than settle.

Believe it or not, insurance companies have saved Billions of dollars since the mid 1990s, by improperly denying claims, and otherwise forcing litigation by paying far below the jury verdict average to settle claims. Frivolous defenses to legitimate claims have resulted in an increase in litigation, against people insured by these companies. This is part of a deliberate claim handling program implemented by McKinsey & Company, the same consulting firm that set up Enron's business model, at many of the nation's largest insurance companies. See "Record Insurance Profits" Article

But, in jury selection, jurors often mention that if the injuries are real, the case should have settled with the insurer. That is exactly what the insurance company is hoping for. It doesn't matter if they offered $0.50 on a claim worth $500,000. The jury will never know, because the lawyers are prohibited from ever mention the settlement negotiations during the trial.

McKinsey & Company counted on this when they told Allstate Insurance in the mid 1990's to quit treating people with “Good Hands” and instead treat them with “Boxing Gloves.” When Allstate forced more litigation and posted record profits, the rest of the insurance industry followed their lead. It is now standard operating procedure in the insurance industry to spend multiple times what a reasonable settlement would be to fight the claim, simply to prove to injured people and their lawyers that filing a claim for injuries is more trouble than it is worth. Read a Transcript of Anderson Cooper's Interview with one of Allstate's Victims

That is because the end result is that most lawyers will not take the cases, and people will not file the claims themselves. These improper denials have led to a huge spike in bankruptcies in the United States, the leading cause of which is an inability to pay for medical bills. So, when jurors turn injured people away, everyone but the person at fault, and their insurer pay for the damage. Instead, the jurors take the financial burden themselves through higher taxes to pay for the bankruptcy. For more, see the article entitled “In Tough Hands” in BusinessWeek.

Lien manual published by Chris Nichols

Well, it finally happened- I'm officially a published author now (and editor!)

The NC Lien Manual is now on the shelves, the one I edited and wrote chapters for and that was published by the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers and Lexis.  Before you think that I'm pitching my own product, you should know that 100% of proceeds go to NCATL to further the fight for people's rights, not to me!

Here is the link to check it out: NC Lien Manual

Here is what Lexis says:

Description

New Publication! The Personal Injury Liens Manual is a brand new publication that is intended to help simplify the complexity that characterizes personal injury liens, and to provide information you need to secure maximum net recovery for your clients. Edited by Christopher R. Nichols, a leading personal injury attorney and Academy member, the first edition is authoritative, comprehensive, and user-friendly. The 380+ page manual contains 6 chapters and provides fingertip access to more than 35 sample forms, letters, and complaints, and includes dozens of practice tips and pointers from the experienced authors. It also contains the text of relevant state and federal statutes, regulations, and case law.

Medicare Liens and Set Asides (MSA) in Liability Cases: Myth or Reality?

What is a Medicare Set Aside (MSA)?
In 2001 Medicare (CMS) announced that it would begin to exercise the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) statute.  The concept of the law is that Medicare is a "secondary payer" when any other form of insurance exists to pay claims.  Before 2001, that meant traditional health insurance, but starting in 2001 CMS began to interpret that to mean that even third party insurance, specifically Worker's compensation settlements that "cut off" future medical benefits (clinchers), would be subject to the MSP regulations.

This meant that any Workers Compensation clincher that resaonably cut off future workers compensation benefits would have to be reviewed by CMS to determine if there should be an MSA "allocation."  Accordingly, Medicare would look at the case and decide what the future medical costs for the injury would be.  The future costs would be placed in a MSA trust for the payment of medical services related to that claim. Click here to read what Medicare says about MSA's.

Qualified claimants are  often referred to as Class I and Class II claimants or beneficiaries and  are determined as follows:                   

• CLASS I - Any claimant who is currently Medicare eligible and the total settlement value is greater than $25,000.
• CLASS II - Any claimant who has a reasonable expectation of Medicare enrollment in 30       months or less and the total settlement value is greater than $250,000.

Does the MSP apply to Liability Settlements?
The answer is yes, and no.  Yes, because the MSP statute clearly says that liability settlements are covered by the MSA guidelines:

USC Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter XVIII, Section 1395y comprises the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute.According to the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Title 42, Part 411, Subpart B, Section 411.20 (2), “Section1862(b)(2)(A)(ii) of this Act precludes Medicare payments for services to the extent that payment has been made or can reasonably be expected to be made promptly under any of the following:”

(i) Workers’ compensation (ii) Liability insurance (iii) No-fault insurance

The "no" part of the answer is because CMS has not yet started enforcing Medicare Set Asides in standard laibility cases, but that is coming, I think.

Dark Clouds on the Horizon
Here are the signs that things may be changing in the future:

United States of America v. Baxter International, 345 F.3d 866 (11th Circuit 2003) This was a class-action products liability case centered on leaking silicone breast implants.The defendants settled the class-action lawsuit in 1995 for $4.2 billion with no admission of liability. The Office of General Counsel filed suit in 2001 on behalf of Medicare asserting a right of recovery consisting of payments Medicare made to treat the toxic condition of many of the claimants. The government’s case was dismissed  at the district court level for failure to state a claim.  However, the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, determining that Medicare did in fact have a right of recovery. The case is significant because it expands the reach of the MSP to civil litigation and upholds Medicare’s secondary payer rights.

According to Gould & Lamb, LLC, an MSA company,

• In late 2003, CMS appointed a Director of Liability in the Baltimore Home Office to begin addressing liability settlements. They have indicated that CMS is diligently developing the MSP Liability enforcement policy covering liability and no-fault settlements. While the thresholds and case criteria remain unclear, it is clear that liability settlements’  involving consideration of future medical costs will be the target of this CMS program.

• Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 included changes to the MSP Statute that increase Medicare rights as a secondary payer. The legislation is written as if the changes noted in the Act were included in the original MSP, dating back to 1980. The Act closed loopholes and eliminated previous legal arguments used to defend against the MSP, including “prompt payment” and “self-insured plan” exclusions. The Act also added that an admission of liability is not necessary to have exposure to the MSP; it applies if any payments are made to settle the claim.

• During a recent CMS Conference in Atlanta (June 2004), representatives of the Office of General Counsel  of the United States confirmed the intention of Medicare to begin enforcing the MSP against liability and no-fault cases in the very near future. They remain guarded about the specifics of the program and Gould & Lamb continues to monitor this situation closely. However, it is our considered opinion that an official MSP enforcement policy will be forthcoming within 12-24 months.

It's Coming, Get Ready
Given that Medicare is continually put on the chopping block by the federal government, and our current administration is not exactly "lawyer friendly", we should expect that we will have to deal with tMedicare Set Aside issues in liability cases in the near future.  Fortunately, in the recent case of Arkansas v. Ahlborn the US Supreme Court has at least given us the ability to argue that if CMS gets a piece of the settlement for future meds, then at least their lein for the past medical expenses must be allocated in proportion to the ratio of the medical costs to the overall value of the case.

Chris Nichols
Nichols Law Firm

Punitive Damages Against an Estate Blocked by Court

The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled today that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages from an Estate of a tortfeasor.  In the matter of Harrell v. Estate of Perry, the COA addressed an appeal from a Superior Court where the Superior Court had ruled that pursuant to NC Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6, the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which releif can be granted under some legal theory.  The gist of the opinion is that punitive damages are awarded to punish the wrongdoer, and the death of the wrong doer precludes his being punished by the assessment of punitive damages.

Drunk Defendant Dies After Injuring Plaintiff
The opinion of the COA is light on facts, but does cite that the Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by an intoxicated defendant.

The Plaintiff brought a case for compensatory and punitive damages and the defendant moved to dismiss under 12(b)6.

Levinson: You Can't Deter the Dead with Punitives
Judge Levinson, writing for the panel, cited a 1982 decision that held that punitive damages were not appropriate against a deceased defendant.  The issue in this case was whether the 1996 amendment to the punitive damages statute, N.C. Gen Stat. § 1D-1, expanded the scope of punitive damages in the section that states that punitive damages may be awarded:

“to punish a defendant for egregiously wrongful acts and to deter the defendant and others from committing similar wrongful acts.”

And, But or Or Won't Get You Very Far
While the Plaintiff argued the obvious policy reasons behind the statute, that punitives should be awarded against an estate to discourage similar bad behavior of people that are living, the COA dodged that policy discussion through statutory interpretation.

Judge Levinson wrote:

     It is a common rule of statutory construction that “when the conjunctive 'and' connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to beconsidered jointly.”  Lithium Corp v. Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 535, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964).  Thus, an individual is subject to punitive damages where he or she may be punished for the egregiously wrongful act and be deterred from committing such an act in the future.
    In the instant case, defendant died sometime before plaintiff filed the subject complaint.  Because defendant is deceased, deterring him from committing a similar wrongful act in the future is, of course, not possible.  Consequently, the statutory mandate of G.S. § 1D-1, providing that the appropriateness of punitive damages is contingent upon punishing and deterring defendant from engaging in similar conduct in the future, cannot be achieved. 

So there you have it.  The "and" means that if punitives deter someone else, that's great, but that alone will not allow punitive damages to be granted.  You need a live tortfeasor to punish first.

I don't particularly agree with this interpretation.  To me, the "plain meaning" of the statute is that it is meant to deter other acts like this, whether they be from the defendant or from other similarly situated defendants.

-Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com