|
Like a growing number of C.I.A. employees, Mr. Rodriguez, former head of the agency’s clandestine service, had bought professional liability insurance from Wright & Company. The firm, founded in 1965 by a former F.B.I. agent, is now paying his mounting legal bills.
The standard Wright policy costs a little less than $300 a year. The government pays half the premium for all supervisors and certain other high-risk employees, a group that includes hundreds of C.I.A. officers, including everyone at the agency involved in counterterrorism or counterproliferation.
The more scandal official Washington produces, the better for Wright’s niche business for federal employees. Every whiff of investigation or litigation drives additional nervous federal workers to the company’s door…
I’m not certain if this article is about a positive or negative symptom? Certainly our knee jerk reliance on lawsuits sucks. And anything that makes insurance companies happy – usually sucks double.
Are lawsuits all we have left to replace Congressional oversight?
As the homeowners association board member, I have insurance paid by the HOA to protect me against legal liability. This protection is extended to all members of the boards in our community.
It was surprising at first that we had this coverage, but it make sense in our suit-happy world.
I once got out of serving on a jury because the cop that was being sued by someone had liability insurance with Allstate. I owned stock in Allstate. I got to go home early. Every cop buys insurance as soon as he pins on a badge.
What the world really needs is blogger insurance to protect against cyberlawyers.
Perry
Sarbanes-Oxley makes liability insurance a necessity for any corporate board member. You have to wonder if the insurance industry wrote the law?
Still, let these spooks hang, twisting in the wind, for their decisions to obey the diktat of state-sponsored terrorism.
Oh man, when I read the title I thought spooks was a reference to knee grows. My bad…
Eideard–I question your underlying premise==that there are too many lawsuits.
Your solution to perceived harm is to rely on congressional oversight?–Really? You want Congress to be a specific fact finder and to award money damages for personal injuries? Think that one through and get back to us?
No–simply, GOUSA is a nation of laws. When laws are broken, courts are the remedy.
What is actually needed in GOUSA is MORE LAWSUITS and a revamped court system for speedier cheaper resolutions. Small Claims should be expanded, mediation expanded.
If you are against people seeking redress in court, you are IN FACT arguing for people taking the law into their own hands OR for the abused to suffer in silence while the powerful take advantage.
What do you really think?
Bobbo, I think the Constitution got it right with checks and balances.
Relying on lawsuits to substitute for Congressional cowards who refuse to live up to their responsibility for oversight is a lame solution. Throw the bums out of office – instead of relying on more lawyers.
The problem, in this case, is not civil lawsuits, but a Federal criminal investigation. The issue is that a Federal investigation can go on for years with virtually unlimited resources. Even if you are innocent (and I don’t know about the facts in this case,) you could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to defend yourself. Also, while you are under investigation, you are unemployable if you are forced to leave your current position.
Don
#6–Eideard–what you are actually addressing in your response is separation of powers.
Checks and balances go to what happens when one branch fails in its job–then the other two can check and balance. Yes, Congress uniformily fails in its duties. BushCo has picked up their foreign affairs/war making duties, and the legal branch is picking up their oversight of administrative duties.
So–if congress fails and your response is to vote the bums out, you are not applying any check and balance.
Rereading the post though, I do wonder how “sovereign immunity” rule is so often avoided now that lawsuits can be brought–or if the article is actually about governmental employees suing the government to keep their jobs? Very different things–probably with a lot of overlap and the distinction not kept in mind?
I think the Crutch of insurance is a liability of its OWN.
Having a WAY out if you Screw up, gives Anyone an excuse, NOT to be competent in what they DO or say. Then ADD to that, WE pay the Gov, to have insurance when they LIE/cheat/steal from us. If they get caught, the insurance PAYS.. Which STILL means its coming out of our pockets.
Read the story, this is not about lawsuits. This is not liability insurance, it’s legal bill insurance.
He ain’t being sued for destroying the tapes, he is probably going to JAIL for obstruction of justice.
The insurance only pays his defense bills.
Don
One former C.I.A. officer said he bought the insurance because when a scandal broke “you figured the government would moonwalk away from you as fast as it could.”
This was the money line. IMHO
11,
Its paying a company to PAY your fines, IF’ someone finds out you SCREW’d UP..
It makes it possible to have SOMETHING cover your back, for being an ASS/Thief, either by Mistake or ON PURPOSE..