Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Motor third-liability insurance is compulsory in the European Union. We examine the behaviour of Spanish appellate courts in the context of motor liability insurance and pay particular attention to four characterising features. Specifically, we investigate (1) how the appellate court interprets the rules for updating the financial compensation when the courts’ ruling is made in a different year to that in which the motor accident occurred; (2) the response of the appellate court when its legal medical evaluation differs from the court’s decision; (3) whether the appellate court modifies the criteria when the insurance company was not charged with interest for delaying payment in the first instance; (4) whether the fault allocated by trial courts is revised by the appellate court. We apply a multi-categorical selection mechanism to deal with samples that are potentially non-random. This allows us to separately consider the characteristics of victim’s and the insurer’s decisions to appeal. The results indicate that disputing agents have significantly different appeal functions, where insurers show a more effective and consistent behaviour than victims.
- Ayuso, M., Bermudez, Ll., & Santolino, M. (2012). Influence of the claimant’s behavioural features on motor compensation outcomes. Journal of Risk Research, 15(6), 673–691. CrossRef
- Ayuso, M., & Santolino, M. (2012). Forecasting the maximum compensation offer in the automobile BI claims negotiation process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 21(5), 663–672. CrossRef
- Boucher, J.-P., & Santolino, M. (2010). Discrete distributions when modelling the disability severity score of motor victims. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), 2041–2049. CrossRef
- Bourguignon, F., Fournier, M., & Gurgand, M. (2007). Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte-Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(2), 174–205. CrossRef
- Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Clermont, K., & Eisenberg, T. (2002). Plaintiphobia in the appellate courts: Civil rights really do differ from negotiable instruments? University of Illinois Law Review, 2002, 947–978.
- Dahl, G. B. (2002). Mobility and the returns to education: Testing a Roy model with multiple markets. Econometrica, 70, 2367–2420. CrossRef
- de Figueiredo, J. (2005). Strategic plaintiffs and ideological judges in telecommunication litigation. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 21(2), 501–523. CrossRef
- Di Vita, G. (2010). Production of laws and delays in court decisions. International Review of Law and Economics, 30(3), 276–281. CrossRef
- Dubin, J. A., & McFadden, D. L. (1984). An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica, 52, 345–362. CrossRef
- Givati, T. (2010). Strategic statutory interpretation by administrative agencies. American Law and Economics Review, 12(1), 95–115. CrossRef
- Greene, W. H. (1981). Sample selection bias as a specification error: A comment. Econometrica, 49(3), 795–798. CrossRef
- Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
- Hay, B. (1996). Contingent fees and agency costs. Journal of Legal Studies, 25, 503–533. CrossRef
- Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimation for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(4), 795–798.
- Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161. CrossRef
- Kastellec, J., & Lax, J. (2008). Case selection and the study of judicial politics. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(3), 407–446. CrossRef
- Lee, L. F. (1983). Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica, 51, 507–512. CrossRef
- Lee, B., & Marsh, L. C. (2000). Sample selection bias correction for missing response observations. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 62(2), 305–323. CrossRef
- Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Markesinis, B., Coester, M., Alpa, G., & Ullstein, A. (2005). Compensation for personal injury in English, German and Italian law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Newey, W. K. (2009). Two-step series estimation of sample selection models. Econometrics Journal, 12(12), S217–S229. CrossRef
- Pagan, A., & Ullah, A. (1999). Nonparametric econometrics. Themes in modern econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rogers, W. (Ed.). (2001). Damages for non-pecuniary loss in a comparative perspective. New York: Springer.
- Santolino, M. (2010). Determinants of the decision to appeal against motor bodily injury judgements made by Spanish trial courts. International Review of Law and Economics, 30, 37–45. CrossRef
- Schneider, M. (2005). Judicial career incentives and court performance: An empirical study of the German labour courts of appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 127–144. CrossRef
- Seabury, S. A. (2009). Case selection after trial: A study of post-trial settlement and appeal. RAND Working Paper WR-638-ICJ.
- Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Siegelman, P., & Donohue, J., I. I. I. (1990). Studying the iceberg from its tip: A comparison of published and unpublished employment discrimination cases. Law and Society Review, 24(5), 1133–1170. CrossRef
- Söderberg, M. (2008). Uncertainty and regulatory outcome in the Swedish electricity distribution sector. European Journal of Law and Economics, 25(1), 79–94. CrossRef
- Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1992). Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 327–350. CrossRef
- Modelling appellate courts’ responses in motor injury disputes
European Journal of Law and Economics
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Sources of uncertainty
- Injury claim
- Selection bias
- Multi-categorical selection
- Industry Sectors