Lawrence McQuillan, who with Hovannes Abramyan  researched and wrote the Pacific Research Institute’s recent report, “U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2010 Report,” has been writing localized op-eds promoting tort reform as a jobs creator.

• Great Falls Tribune, “Tort reform would bring much-needed jobs to state”
• Pottstown Mercury, “Tort reform would bring jobs to Pennsylvania”
• Los Angeles Daily News, “State could jump-start its economy with tort reform”

Even California? Yes, even California.  From “How Lawsuit Reform Could Help California Recover“:

Asbestos awards in California’s more plaintiff-friendly counties such as Alameda and San Francisco average $3 million more than in other counties, according to an article in the American Bar Association Journal. Every business day, on average, personal injury lawyers also file nearly five class-action lawsuits in the Golden State. That destroys jobs in California.

 Entrepreneurs prefer to start, expand, or relocate businesses in states with balanced tort systems that discourage excessive litigation. These decisions matter a great deal. In 2006, job growth was 57 percent greater in the 10 states with the best tort climates than in the 10 worst states.

Business leaders remain leery of California because of its sky-high tort costs and skewed courtrooms, where business defendants lose at trial 65 percent of the time. The fear of lawsuits also causes companies to withdraw or withhold beneficial products.

Lawrence McQuillan of the Pacific Research Institute has been following up PRI’s latest “U.S. Tort Liability Index” report with state-specific commentaries about the value of tort reform in improving state business climates. The states he has picked so far — Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut — could sure use the help.

Detroit Free Press, “Lawsuit reform could boost state economy“:

Michigan fell 15 places from 28th in the previous 2008 edition, so it is heading in the wrong direction. Michigan has the fourth-highest monetary tort losses out of the 50 states. It also ranks 30th in tort litigation risks.

It has the ninth-largest number of lawyers per dollar of state output. Despite the drop in Michigan’s level of economic activity in recent years, the state’s tort costs and number of lawyers filing tort lawsuits stay remarkably high, signaling that Michigan’s courtrooms are still ripe for lawsuit abuse compared to other states, especially in the categories of product liability and auto liability.

New York Post, “‘Tort Threat’ is a Tri-State Jobs Killer“:

New York’s tort laws are among the worst in the nation when it comes to limits on who can sue, how much they can sue for and similar rules that can contain tort costs and risks. (Among 29 such limits tracked in the Tort Liability Index, the Empire State ranks dead last in 19.) Connecticut is nearly as bad, joining New York in the Index’s “sinner” category. New Jersey, with more serious limits, makes it into the “salvageable” category.

It’s important to realize that everyone pays for the “tort threat.” Making businesses easy targets for personal-injury lawyers is a serious jobs-killer.

When deciding where to start a business, expand operations or relocate, entrepreneurs prefer states with tort systems that discourage abusive lawsuits. In 2006, job growth was 57 percent greater in the 10 states with the best “tort climates” than in the 10 worst states.

The Pacific Research Institute has released its 2010 U.S. Tort Liability Index, an analysis of which states impose the highest and lowest tort costs and risks. This is the third such report PRI has produced, done this year in conjunction with the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI.

With the nation, officials and candidates making jobs an imperative, the study drives home a critical point some policymakers choose to ignore: Bad legal climates discourage the creation of jobs. As co-author Hovannes Abramyan reported, ““If lawmakers want to put people back to work, without costing taxpayers another penny for so-called ‘stimulus’, they should enact needed lawsuit reform. Job growth was 57 percent greater in the 10 states with the best tort climates than in the 10 states with the worst tort climates.”

From the news release, “2010 Tort Liability Index Ranks States’ Tort Climate: Alaska ranks best, New York and New Jersey worst“:

The Best Alaska Hawaii North Carolina South Dakota North Dakota Maine Idaho Virginia Wisconsin Iowa

The Worst New Jersey New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Missouri Montana Michigan Connecticut California

The bottom 10 put themselves at a disadvantage against the top 10 and other states when seeking to recruit new business. As the report explains, the low-ranked states had more costly and riskier business climates due to larger plaintiff awards, larger plaintiff settlements, more lawsuits, or some combination of the three. States can to counteract those negatives by tax breaks, subsidies, blandishments and political promotion, but then the taxpayers pay the costs.

Competition isn’t just among the states anymore, either. It’s a global competition, in which New Jersey and New York are competing not just against Virginia and North Carolina, but also against Singapore and Brazil. In that context, lousy tort climates harm overall U.S. competitiveness.

As Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D., director of PRI’s Business and Economic Studies, and co-author of the report, explains:

Direct tort costs account for almost 2 percent of GDP in the United States—that’s the highest in the world. These high costs impact American businesses when firms have to divert revenue to fight lawsuits. But all of us ultimately shoulder the burden through higher prices and insurance premiums, lower wages, restricted access to health care, less innovation, and higher taxes to pay for court costs.