Most contemporary procedures for mass litigation were developed in a slow, reasoned fashion, as a result of professional study, scholarly discourse, judicial decisionmaking, and appellate review. Claims resolution facilities, in contrast, are creatures of necessity. They emerged from a specific litigation, and are the product of compromising the competing interests of parties, attorneys, judges, and other court actors. This article proposes an agenda for research on claims resolution facilities, the results of which could assist in improving the current set of facilities and fashioning better alternatives for the future. The objectives of the proposed research are to describe the outcomes of different facilities, to examine the differences in outcomes among the facilities and between claims facilities and other compensation systems (including the tort liability system), and to develop a better understanding of the relationship between key design and implementation decisions and these outcomes. It discusses the outcomes of interest and the relationships between design and outcomes that merit further investigation, considers the feasibility of collecting systematic empirical data on the claims resolution facilities, and discusses the public interest in research on claims facilities.
Originally published in: Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 53, no. 4, Autumn 1990, pp. 175-188.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.