Article

2006-07-20 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-07-20 09:43|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I smell an insurance company. I'll bet the adjustor gets a kickback from the plaintiff's attorney. This is why people hate lawyers and insurance companies.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-20 10:25|| 2006-07-20 10:25|| Front Page Top

#2 "First, kill all the lawyers." -- Henry IV, Shakespeare

Coming next: Lawsuits over slow US evacuation from Lebanon. Mark my words.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-07-20 10:25|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-07-20 10:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Kids! What's the matter with kids these days?

If I had fallen in this manner, my dad would be bitching at me to shovel/clean the driveway (while I'm laying there in pain). Mom would chime in about her not being taken care of by her children.

Karma baby - I'd like to see how daughter's kids turn out. . .

Posted by GORT 2006-07-20 10:58|| 2006-07-20 10:58|| Front Page Top

#4 9 to 1 odds are that the parents long ago bought homeowners insurance to take care of anyone who got hurt on their property (including their daughter). Buying homeowners insurance is a responsible thing to do, and insurance spreads the risk so no one family gets devastated by a major medical/injury bill (e.g., 75k).

However, insurance companies dont like to pay claims (not paying claims is how they end up with assets in the hundreds of billions), and legally the company can force the parents to defend against a claim. The only way for the daughter to get the insurance benefits covering her slip and fall would be to sue her parents -- even if she doesnt want to do that. The parents would have to defend against the suit or risk not being covered (i.e., the insurance wouldn't pay out if it could argue the parents were failing to cooperate with defense).

However, longstanding rules of evidence nationwide bar any mention of insurance coverage from the courtroom. That is to say, the jury is never allowed to hear that the parents have insurance that will pay any judgment against them. The fact of insurance coverage is not put in the Complaint or Answer, it is only marginally discoverable, and if any mention of insurance is made or inferred to the jury the case will be declared a mistrial and the whole thing will have to start over with a fresh jury (and the responsible attorney will be in big, big trouble). And the parents can't tell the jury that they would like to see that their daughter's bills are paid -- and that paying those bills is exactly why they've been paying insurance premiums (usually for uneventful year after year). The fact of insurance coverage is considered too prejudicial to the rights of the insurance company to let the jury know about the insurance.

So, the whole case goes forward under a fiction of the daughter mad at her parents, and them saying she's wrong, when really the parents probably just want the insurer to pay her bills -- and which would probably be the cheapest and least distressing way to resolve the whole mess.

OF COURSE, THE ALTERNATE EXPLANATION IS THAT THERE IS NO INSURANCE AND SHE'S JUST PISSED AT MOM AND DAD . . .

Posted by cingold 2006-07-20 13:22|| 2006-07-20 13:22|| Front Page Top

#5 This is a loser for the insurance company as daughter can likely just call parents who will testify as to their liability. Judgment for daughter, parents indemnified by their insurer.

Likely as not some bean counter at the parent's insurance company has calculated that there's a reasonable chance that they can get the award reduced by some amount more than they expect to pay their lawyers to defend the case.

Posted by AzCat 2006-07-20 15:01|| 2006-07-20 15:01|| Front Page Top

#6 I could give a rat's ass about the insurance aspect. What nobody's addressed is the moral question of suing your parents. Honor thy Father and Mother is one of the commandments, right?

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-07-20 15:18|| 2006-07-20 15:18|| Front Page Top

#7 It would be interesting to know how much the medical bills are. If it's like my out patient surgery that developed into full blown surgery with an infection and a four day hospitalization, it could be a big number. My bet is her health insurance refused to pay her hospital bills unless she sues her parents to get their insurere to cover. After a year unpaid, the Hospital threatened to sue her if she did not pay the bill and she had to cave to her insurers demand to sue her parents. And lawyers make money at every step.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-20 15:23|| 2006-07-20 15:23|| Front Page Top

#8 I smell parential/sibling insurance scam, out'o court insurance settlement with new pony to follow eh? Poor Carriel and folks in cahoots eh?

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-20 16:20|| 2006-07-20 16:20|| Front Page Top

#9 I want a pony . . .

Posted by cingold 2006-07-20 18:13|| 2006-07-20 18:13|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:45 Anonymoose
23:44 Oldspook
23:36 Oldspook
23:30 Bob Marley
23:26 Oldspook
23:05 BA
23:00 Baba Tutu
22:57 twobyfour
22:55 Baba Tutu
22:39 Capsu 78
22:36 Frank G
22:36 MSM enabler
22:34 BA
22:32 Islamist preacher Omar
22:28 WITT
22:25 mjh
22:24 Omar
22:09 WITT
22:04 BA
22:02 WITT
22:01 BA
22:00 Scott R
21:53 tu3031