Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/223

 198

THE GREEN BAG

insurance, and it expects protection. To a varying degree it is unconcerned with the number or the seriousness of accidents. The cost of insurance is measured against the cost of safeguards. If it costs less to buy insurance than it does to provide safety appliances and a safe place to work, then economy is the best policy. The corpora tion, therefore, having proofed itself against loss, has but a passing interest in the meth ods employed or the amounts paid to dis pose of accidents arising in its business. Having sold its legal obligations to the lowest bidder, it is disposed to regard its moral obligations as having been also trans ferred, and so, if the employer interests himself at all, it is to join with the insurance company to settle with his employees upon the lowest possible basis. The employer knows that cheap settlements mean cheap in surance, and insurance is an item of expense, that with the majority of corporations, is ever too burdensome, and never too cheap. When, therefore, the personal element and friendly relationship that had formerly existed between master and servant has been eliminated, and when the business of liability companies is secured by the cut throat methods of almost ruinous compe tition, the injured employee may have no hope for fair play_ or a square deal. The claim agent of an insurance company can not approach an injured man on settlement, with any proper conception of reasonable justice. This very situation operates to shape and mould the policy of every claim department. It may therefore be re garded as one of the causes that naturally leads to evils in tort litigation. The diffi culty may be traced by natural and easy stages back to the parent cause — corpo rate greed — and with it abuse of power, evidenced by the advantage taken of the ignorant and the helpless. There is only one rule that to-day fits all cases and all classes, and that is to hammer the claim down to the lowest possible figure. Is it any wonder, therefore, that dissatisfaction

and bitterness is occasioned, and litigation often results, and with it large verdicts and liberal fees. "The corporations are pri marily responsible for it. Because, with a few honorable exceptions, they treat every claim for damages, no matter how just, as an iniquitous attempt at robbery, and if they cannot bully the claimant into settling for a small sum, they fight it out with every means in their power. In short, they in sist upon swindling this class of creditors out of their just dues."1 Personal injury litigation arising from injuries to the public, or to those other than employees, allows, to some extent, the elim ination of insurance abuses. Nevertheless, the record of settlements made in liability cases by railroads and trusts and other large corporations that maintain claim de partments of their own, demonstrates, with few praiseworthy exceptions, that the policy of these corporations is universally one of cheap settlement, or no settlement, regard less of the merit if the claim. On the one side may be found organiza. tion that comes with wealth, and intimida tion that comes with power; on the other side, helplessness, ignorance, and fear. Then comes the product of organization, the modern claim adjuster, whose sole pur pose is to secure a settlement for a small sum. He has been trained in all the sub tlety and chicanery of the trade. To his mind the case is invariably one of no lia bility, but if liability undeniably exists, he cunningly and craftily juggles the injury. He is smooth of tongue and polite of man ner when it best serves his purpose to be so. He cares nothing for values. He is after results at the lowest possible cost. Upon these results his remuneration, even his job, depends. That a man has been crippled for life, that a widow has been left penniless with small children, and the legal claim against the company clear, is irrelevant and immaterial. He has been 1 Editorial. Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 14, 1905.