By the end of 2009, unemployment in Michigan reached 15 percent. While neighboring businesses in Bay City lay off employees or close their doors, Richard Singer and his father are working hard to keep their small business afloat. “Any time an entrepreneur decides to go into business for himself, he’s incurring a lot of risk, and the rewards are not guaranteed by any means,” Singer says. “When you throw in the additional risk of lawsuits and their potential cost, it has a serious effect on the economic engine of this country.”
In 2006, one the company’s neighbors – who had filed 23 previous lawsuits in the county – sued Acra Cast, the Singer family business. Acra Cast, with about 15 employees, is a small foundry, which designs and creates precision metal castings ranging from sculptures to machine parts. The plaintiff alleged that emissions from the foundry had contaminated his cars, his carpet, and the siding of his house.
Singer’s business has always been in full compliance with all environmental regulations. As the case proceeded, Singer learned that the plaintiff did not even own some of the cars for which he wanted compensation, and he had disposed of the carpets and cleaned the house siding before any evidence could be collected. From the samples they could collect, Singer explains that he and his lawyers eventually discovered that the gritty material on the plaintiff’s car could not have been caused by the wax burned at Acra Cast. It contained metal shavings and paint globules, Singer says, and was likely the result of parking near an auto body shop.
Even so, the case dragged on for almost three years, and Acra Cast had to pay for the suit out of pocket. Knowing he had not caused this damage, Singer refused to settle out of court, and he was forced to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees before the case was eventually dismissed in 2009. These expenses, says Singer, burdened his business at a time of extreme hardship. The economy in Michigan and the fact that several of his clients have recently gone out of business meant that profit margins were dangerously narrow. He even had to lay off several of his employees.
“It’s one thing to run a business and to put up with the pain and the hard work associated with that,” Singer says. “It’s an entirely different subject to have someone come in, walk in off the street and – short of putting a gun to your head – try to steal money from you.”
36 Comments
Kim Puchniarz said on December 11, 2009 at 4:59 am #
Why are these idiots not held accountable for these frivolous lawsuits!!!!!? WTF!?
Elizabeth Singer said on December 11, 2009 at 11:24 am #
I thought you might want to see this.
K Carl Harrell said on December 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm #
The sick people filing such law suits should be required to post a bond for treble the amount they are seeking before they suit can proceed. If the judge/jury finds in favor of the defendant, he/she/it would receive the proceeds from the plaintiff’s bond in addition to having all legal and other fees paid by the plaintiff. This would substantially reduce the number of frivolous law suits.
Of course there are many who file legitimate suits and a means of “bypassing” the substantial bond for filing could be found. But anyone with a history of filing numerous suits would NOT be entitled to such a “bypass”.
Making an effort to destroy relevant material that could bring into question the defendant’s liability before the defendant, in a reasonable time, could study said material, would be cause for a verdict in favor of the defendant. Again, reasonable actions by the defendant to make all efforts to respond to suit and study the materials, etc. would be essential to his defense.
A. S. said on December 12, 2009 at 9:47 pm #
Thanks for sharing this story. We posted this up on our site to show our readers and followers how ridiculous frivolous lawsuits have become in this country.
Orm said on December 17, 2009 at 9:37 pm #
Unbelievable. Times are tough, sure, but this is a time where trivial suits like this only costs more money for everyone. If the plantiffs filing these claims put as much effort into getting jobs themselves or working, they would be making much more than if they were to win or settle one of these claims.
denny m. hilliard said on December 19, 2009 at 9:31 pm #
I have owned several bussiness’ but got tired of insurance compan’s getting most of the profit’s. Let’s get a group going to maybe fight these :GOLD DIGERS!!! It’s legal unarmed robbery and theft.
SSNarwhal said on December 20, 2009 at 11:59 am #
Since most politicians are lawyers and heavily influenced by the powerful and rich trial lawyer lobby, how can we expect any relief from this societal destructive problem. Redress in real issues yes, but abuse should be a punishable by law, if found to be the case. Courts need to be reformed so lay people have a say in decisions. Not qualified? From what is coming out of court room judges these days, I would say they are more qualified. How do we address greed and avarice which is so common among, not only lawyers, but the population in general. Integrity seems to have taken an extended vacation and people, especially the highly litigious, see lawsuits as a sort of Lotto game. I see only bad things ahead. SSNarwhal
Fulty said on December 20, 2009 at 4:53 pm #
Then the left wonders why businesses move out of the country. Of course a vast majority of trial lawyers are on the left. Those legislators on the left will never go against the support they get from the trial lawyers. Since most legislators are attorneys themselves they want to keep a rich market available for their own law suits when they are ot of politics. If the Republicans had any guts they would have taken care of the situation when they had a chance. Go Tea Party! Fulty
Claude said on December 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm #
We are not getting the whole story here.
We, as Americans, are guaranteed the constitutional right to sue.
A judge allowed the suit to be heard.
If we want tort reform, then we have to make the whole process open to public scrutiny, which would include making judges explain why they hear a case like this knowing that the plaintiff had filed 23 other suits previously, and knowing that the defendant was in compliance with the relevant environmental laws.
Trebor Spalding said on December 21, 2009 at 4:11 pm #
In this case, as well as the previous 23, the lawyer that broujght the frivolous suit should be ordered to pay the Singer’s lawyers bills. If this was done, we would have less and less of these junk kind of lawsuits.
What a shame on the American way of life that our judicial system has slumbed this low!
David Cookson said on December 21, 2009 at 8:41 pm #
Say, why don’t you sue the guy that sued you? You know, for monies lost on a useless lawsuit.
james hassey said on December 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm #
After the case was dismissed in your favor, was the man charged with attempted fraud? If they faced charges if their claim is unfounded or fraudulant, I don’t believe a lot of the cases would be filed…..especially the 24 this man had previously filed
Kathy May said on December 23, 2009 at 12:34 pm #
I am also a victim of lawsuit abuse in California. A sleezy attorney got a hold of one of my “blank” display giftcards and demanded the waitress to give him $100 cash for it.
Then he E-mailed me and demanded $500.00 and then $1000.00 and then $10,000.00. My attorney calls this “extorsion”. So far I have paid my attorney $5000.00 to defend me because
a law suit was filed against me for unfair business practice. We need tort reform now!!!
MWR said on December 24, 2009 at 4:11 pm #
TO SSNarwhal – you said in post #6, 12/20/09, that “most politicians are lawyers” which is not true. In fact, very few politicians are lawyers – that is a common misconception. However, I am a lawyer and as a lawyer, I will tell you that I agree – the system is corrupt. Although I spent most of my adult life in a career other than the law, I have been a lawyer now for about fifteen years. Most lawyers, in my opinion, will justify their actions (i.e., sell their soul for $$$) by hiding behind “I have an absolute duty to my client” which is garbage. The Rules of Professional Conduct absolutely prohibit a lawyer from bringing frivilous lawsuits, however, in my experience, they are brought all the time. The only way to get rid of this corruption is to totally reform the system. This means that judges AND lawyers MUST be held accountable – more than the so-called accountability of the election booth for the judges, and more than simply relying on the state’s attorney licensing system for lawyers. The truth is, once a person is elected or appointed to a judgeship, it is almost impossible to get rid of that person. The system of judges/lawyers is a “country club” and if you want to get a key to the club you have to play by their rules and not rock the boat. They take care of each other and only those most eggregious violations – or those committed by persons who don’t “toe the line” – are truly investigated by the Judicial Tenure Commission or the Attorney Grievance Commission and followed up on. And to the inevitable lawyer or judge who responds to this post – no, I have never been investigated or disciplined by the state or anyone else. The people must take back control by forcing political change and political change will only begin when we get rid of the party system. In other words – get rid of “Democrat” or “Republican” party tags. Once PEOPLE have to state what THEY stand for in order to be elected to office, instead of simply marching in lock step with a political party platform, we will have a system that reflects the true will of the MAJORITY instead of a system that protects political PARTIES and their “loyal followers.” Only then will we return to a system where people who are truly interested in serving their fellow citizens, rather than becoming someone rich and powerful. Someone who will truly do what is best for their community rather than what is best for their political party. This includes the legal system.
John said on December 26, 2009 at 8:06 am #
Why didn’t the reporter of this story give us the neighbor’s side of the story? Our laws already permit the award of fees and costs for defending against frivolous law suits. Is there a reason why they were not awarded in this case if the law suit was so tenuous?
Mark Tisch said on December 26, 2009 at 12:20 pm #
K Carl Harrell’s idea about bonds is a good one. Or at a minimum plaintiffs in cases where they sue for money should have to pay the defendant’s court costs. Fraudulent lawsuits cost all of us in the form of higher insurance premiums, and higher product and service costs. And it costs business owners like the Singers dearly.
Claude, you say we are not getting the full story here. The plaintiff has filed 23 lawsuits and you think there is a snowball’s chance in hell that he’s not looking for a free ride?!
John Szelogowki said on December 26, 2009 at 12:57 pm #
Thanks to you Fox News for putting this out. I live in this community, and indeed the owner of Acra Cast is spot on. It is very frustrating to watch the country turn in the wrong direction. The foundation of the building being built right now is weak and it will eventually fold. Hang in there all you entrepreneurs, I am…
Great Article….
Paul said on December 27, 2009 at 1:06 pm #
Physicians have been dealing with frivolous lawsuits like these for years. Many a physician has lost all that he/she has worked for during their entire career due to some ridiculously frivolous lawsuits or a series of them. Of course, one of the biggest lobbies for the Democratic Party is the Trial Lawyers Union; the Democrats consistently block all efforts at any significant tort reform for their lawyer friends. I sincerely doubt that this will ever change, since congress is evidently no longer responsive to the desires of its citizenry, unless the citizens take exceedingly strong measures to ensure that their are not taxed without representation!
Ted Hurd said on December 28, 2009 at 1:12 am #
Most of our legal system is borrowed from British common law. It’s a shame their practice of making the litigant pay the court costs of the defendant in a losing or thrown out law suit. This would stop a lot of this. Getting this reform will be very difficult. The ABA and the trial lawyer lobbyists are very powerful. Electing a truly reform minded congress would be the only way. Will see what happens in 2010.
Mark Domanski said on December 29, 2009 at 12:28 am #
I got sued for loss of consortium. At least somebody got screwed!!!
Ricky David Tripp said on December 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm #
This case, and others like it, are an absolute outrage. Not only is this something that should never have happened in the first place, it is something that should have stopped happening at all years ago. Listen, there comes a point in a process — much like those processes that lead to the place where we now find ourselves with the IRS — when you determine, as the late J. Paul Getty once said, “that a deal has gone sour, take your lumps, and get out.”
Just as the IRS should have already been abolished, and the entire tax code doused in gasoline in an open parking lot and set ablaze, the backs of attorneys taking these kinds of cases should have already been broken like toothpicks. No discussion. No “tort reform.” Just end it. Raise the level of public and congressional outrage to the point that the cases simply cease. Judges refuse to hear them. Attorneys, knowing what will happen, refuse to file them when “clients” like this clown show up at the front door.
We must reach a point like a small town reported in Reader’s Digest did years ago, when a man moved to town and decided that he would make money selling photos of 16-year-old girls in the nude. One day — without a lawsuit, or an arrest warrant, or an attorney of any kind — the man opened his door one day, and urinated in his own pants…..
….when the entire town, of several thousands of residents, showed up in front of his home, and in every possible place that a person could stand, in yards and streets for as far as the eye could see, and the spokesman said to him: “You aren’t welcome here anymore. Get out of our town.” He left in a matter of hours, with little or none of his belongings. Case closed.
That’s what we need in America today, a new sense of rage that says, “We have had enough of this nonsense.” Left to the attorneys — who profit heavily from it — it wil never, ever change. But if we stop electing attorneys to high office, and take our own government back again, yes, it can change.
This has to stop NOW. Not after Senate sub-committee meetings, not after town halls, not after studies by commissions.
This has to stop NOW. We have to put the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform out of business, not because they are a bad organization, but in a context where they are no longer needed. I’m sure, under the right circumstances, they would be happy to close their doors.
Mike M said on December 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm #
We’re in Michigan….land of Granholm, unions ( union members excepted), special interests, corruption, high spending, punitive taxes, liberalism and big government, and apparently, a lot of stupid or uneducated voters who don’t know and don’t know they don’t know. And the plaintiffs Bar is one of the strongest lobbyists among the special interests. Instead of being deported back to Canada, Granholm will probably be rewarded with a big cabinet, no, czar position. Michigan has earned it’s 15% unemployment rate!
How about Robert Bobb for Governor?
Adam said on December 31, 2009 at 11:21 am #
Why didn’t Singer Have Insurance? Insurance covers legal fees.
Rushgroove said on December 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm #
A “loser pays” system – as they have in Canada, is an effective tool in discouraging frivolous lawsuits, as the loser is responsible for the lion’s share of the other party’s legal costs.
I believe John Stossel, when he was with, 20/20 did an expose on on frivolous lawsuits a few years ago.
Don said on January 2, 2010 at 10:13 pm #
Cut to the chase people when someone files a suite on your company turn right around and file one on them for everything they own. and put a lien on them for future value and make sure your Atty. lets every one in the area know about it run a ad in your Loc paper. Lets see $ 1.1Mill law suite just because she burned her self in the bath tub Hot water heater set at 108 norm is 120 come to find out she added hot water from Mic-wave well well she had 1 car worth 8,000 1,220 in savings and a 401 worth 3,000 so we went after it and her for 50,000 in paper work it said. We want your 401 your car and your savings see you in Court have a great day.
WoW 7 days later guess what happen oh by the way my fees cost 6,250 guess who got a judgment and lien. LOL
Lauren Eastman said on January 10, 2010 at 8:05 pm #
No doubt, any lawyer who would take on a case for someone who had already filed so many suits, is a scumbag. That’ s how lawyers get this reputation, by not having morals themselves.
chris pedersen said on January 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm #
The Federal courts have “Rule 11 for this purpose and believe me it works. All jurisdiction should adopt it because if the plaitfiff can’t pay the sanctions of attorney’s fees and cost the attorney of record has too under threat of losing their law licence
Rainer said on January 14, 2010 at 2:16 am #
It’s probably no good to counter sue. You have to prove the fool knew the stuff on the cars/siding/carpet was not from the casting company. Probably can’t sue for much. He probably has little money and the lawyers fees would cost more than the return. Suing is a time consuming business, it’s not their business unlike the other person, they are trying to cast parts and keep their business running in a recession, not spend all days in court.
sharon fomby said on January 15, 2010 at 6:48 am #
I worked for an attorney for a year. I learned that many times, these suits come before a different judge each time. That is why the judge does not know of the 23 previous suits.
Ross Newsom said on January 18, 2010 at 9:54 pm #
I wil keep you in my prayers and keep strong in this time-Ross
ZORIADA said on January 19, 2010 at 12:41 pm #
I HAVE THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM. I CONTRACTED WITH AN ATTORNEY IN FORT LAUDERDALE TO REPRESENT MEI A LAWSUIT AND TOLD HIM HE COULDN’T EXCEED $5000 IN LEGAL FEELS. AFTER 6 WEEKS HE HANDED ME A BILL FOR $13,000 AND I ENDED HAVING TO SETTLE MY LAWSUIT ON MY OWN. I REFUSED TO PAY ANYTHING OVER THE $5000 I GAVE HIM IN RETAINER AND BEACUSE HE IS AN ATTORNEY,HE FILES MOTIONS AND DEFAULTS AND LIES TO JUDGES AND EVEN HAD A PATIENT OF MINE SIGN A FALSE AFFIDAVIT AGAINST ME WHICH THE PATIENT ADMITTED “I DIDN’T READ WHAT HE PUT IN FRONT OF ME”A AND STILL I CAN’T HIS CASE AGAINST ME DISMISSED EVEN THOUGH I SIGNED NO CONTRACT WITH HIM NOR AGREED TO HIS EXORBITANT COSTS. I HAVE ALREADY SPENT IN EXCESS OF $2,500 BUT UNTIL I CAN’T I WON’T PAY THIS BUZZARD LOW LIFE A DIME.
THE LEGAL SYSTEM NEEDS TO POLICE ITSELF TO RID ITSELF OF THE BAD APPLES LIKE THIS GUY.
John Fitzpatrick said on January 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm #
While these gentlemen paint a sympathetic picture, I have to wonder why they had so much expense since prudent businessmen buy liability insurance to defend them. Also, according to the Michigan Legislature’s website, that state’s law includes: “600.2591 Frivolous civil action or defense to civil action; awarding costs and fees to prevailing party; definitions.
Sec. 2591.
(1) Upon motion of any party, if a court finds that a civil action or defense to a civil action was frivolous, the court that conducts the civil action shall award to the prevailing party the costs and fees incurred by that party in connection with the civil action by assessing the costs and fees against the nonprevailing party and their attorney.” If so, they have a remedy.
John Corey said on January 23, 2010 at 9:36 am #
After 23 suits it is clear this is just legal stalking to harrass. Singer should file suit for all costs and damages associated with all 23 suits. I think he has a good shot at recoverery with 23 failed pointless suits filed against him by the same party. Would definately make this false filer take notice and put them on the defense and out of pocket for a change.
Joe said on February 10, 2010 at 2:55 pm #
Simple solution: “loser pays” tort reform. You must be sure enuogh of your case before you sue someone that you are willing to pay the defense and court costs if you lose.
Of course, we will probably never see this common-sense system put into place, as Democrats oppose it – and guess which group’s political donations go almost entirely to Democrats? Why golly gee, it’s the trial lawyers. What a surprise.
Barbara said on May 18, 2010 at 10:08 pm #
Our system is broken and the lawyers are the only ones making a profit. The one who files the lawsuit and it is dismissed or loses should have to pay for all court costs and lawyer fees. That would stop a lot of silly lawsuits. Things like this are tying up the courts and, again, just making the lawyers rich.
This is like the lady who sued McDonalds because she got burnt with hot coffee because the cup did not have a warning on it….HELLO…..coffee is hot!!! or the guy who got injured while breaking into a house….he won is law suit…rediculous. They should outlaw lawyer advertising….websites like…Who can is sue.com…and so forth. This is now how the law was suppposed to be used.
Bill Smith said on July 11, 2010 at 6:52 pm #
Let’s all get the records straight. All legal professions in most every state in the United States requires an individual or business to be licensed by a branch of the state government. All except one! Attorney’s are not licensed by any branch of the state government. No the bar association is not a licensing bureau of any branch of government. When you turn the fox lose in the hen house, what do you expect? The system is in dire need of repair. Attorneys not licensed by any branch of state government is no different than your brain surgeon operating on you with a degree or license. Under the orginal constitution of the United States, attorneys can only represent those who are a ward of the court. We the people have allowed this mockery to take place. Want to fix the system? Put it on the ballot, all attorneys will need to be licensed and monitored by a branch of the state government. If then an attorney screws up, or misrepresents you in a case, you “SUE” the attorney for shotty services.