Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

General Law and Lawsuits

User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#376

Post by raison de arizona »

Huh. Yes, very interesting, thanks :thumbsup:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#377

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Thanks, K! “Verrry interesting.”
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
mojosapien
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:44 pm
Location: 02910
Occupation: Desktop support. Retired juror for the next three years, thanks.
Verified:

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#378

Post by mojosapien »

Think like a fortune cookie. ©2022-Mojosapien
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#379

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

🎶Yes, you have no copyright to duct taped banana art, you have no copyright today.🎶
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#380

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:29 pm 🎶Yes, YOU have no copyright to duct taped banana art, you have no copyright today.🎶.
: “While using silver duct tape to affix a banana to a wall may not espouse the highest degree of creativity, its absurd and farcical nature meets the ‘minimal degree of creativity’ needed to qualify as original.”
The Guardian article.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#381

Post by RTH10260 »

User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#382

Post by KickahaOta »

Another one that falls into the category of "darkly funny and also interesting":

US v. David Walsh, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


The opening sentences of the opinion lay out the darkly funny part:
At 71 years old, David Walsh robbed a bank with a firearm and nearly robbed another a few days later. During his sentencing hearing and just after the district court announced an intended 13 year sentence, Walsh lashed out with threats of violence against the judge, the judge’s family, the probation officer, and the government’s attorney. The judge denied Walsh’s subsequent motion to recuse, finding that Walsh’s tirade was strategic and made for the purpose of getting a different sentencing judge. Over three months and several hearings later, the judge imposed a life sentence.
File under "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

A panel-selected sample of the tirade in question (spoiler-tagged due to uncreative but extensive profanity):
► Show Spoiler
"Walsh’s profanity laced rant continued from there, spanning several pages of the hearing transcript."

And because I know that at least one of you will want the full majesty of the aforementioned hearing transcript:

District court docket (RECAP)
First Sentencing Hearing (RECAP) (fireworks start on page 45)

But after recounting the profane hijinks, the appellate majority (which upheld the sentence) and the dissent (which would have vacated it and sent the case back for resentencing before a different judge) go into a really interesting discussion of 'What are the factors that determine whether a judge should recuse in a situation like this, and how do those factors apply here?'
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#383

Post by northland10 »

KickahaOta wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:00 pm And because I know that at least one of you will want the full majesty of the aforementioned hearing transcript:
:bag:
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#384

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... t-88809765
Cosmetics giant Sephora settles customer data privacy suit

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Sephora Inc., one of the world’s largest cosmetics retailers, has settled a lawsuit claiming that the company sold customer information without proper notice in violation of the California’s landmark consumer privacy law, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said Wednesday.

Sephora failed to tell customers that it was selling their personal information, failed to allow customers to opt out of that sale, and didn’t fix the problem within 30 days as required by the law, even after it was notified of the violation, state officials said.

The company agreed to pay $1.2 million and immediately correct the problem under the settlement, the state's first such enforcement action under the California Consumer Privacy Act, according to Bonta.

Sephora said it is already complying with the state law after cooperating with Bonta's office.

“Data is power, and these days everyone wants it,” Bonta said.

"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#385

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

northland10 wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:49 am
KickahaOta wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:00 pm And because I know that at least one of you will want the full majesty of the aforementioned hearing transcript:
:bag:
:daydreaming:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#386

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

3M subsidiary gets to pull an Alex Jones.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... r-AA118FRg
3M combat earplug lawsuits to proceed, judge rules, despite bankruptcy case

(Reuters) -3M Co must face more than 230,000 lawsuits accusing it of selling defective earplugs to the U.S. military, after a U.S. judge on Friday ruled that the bankruptcy of a subsidiary did not stop lawsuits against the non-bankrupt parent company.

Companies that file for bankruptcy typically receive an immediate reprieve from lawsuits, and 3M subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC argued that extending those protections to 3M would buy Aearo time to address its debts and restructuring goals.

Aearo and 3M had argued that bankruptcy offered a faster and fairer way to compensate veterans who say that earplugs made by Aearo caused hearing loss.

But bankruptcy Judge Jeffrey J. Graham in Indianapolis said that Aearo's bankruptcy restructuring could proceed in parallel with the lawsuits.

While the "sheer size" of the consolidated litigation may have spurred 3M and Aearo to seek "additional leverage" through the bankruptcy proceedings, that did not create a legal need to protect 3M, Graham ruled.

Attorneys representing the veterans with hearing loss said they looked forward to continuing their lawsuits against 3M in other courts.

"Judge Graham's decision is a complete rejection of 3M's attempt to evade accountability and hide in bankruptcy," plaintiff attorneys Bryan Aylstock and Christopher Seeger said in a statement.

"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#387

Post by raison de arizona »

:clap:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#388

Post by RTH10260 »

AL Coal Miners Must Pay $13 Million in Damages for Strike, Biden’s NLRB Rules

Daniel Werst, Left Voice
August 21, 2022

On August 3, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) and the Associated Press reported that the subunit of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for Region 10 (much of the South) has ordered the union to pay $13.3 million to Warrior Met Coal.

About 1,000 workers from two mines and two aboveground facilities southwest of Birmingham, Alabama, have been on strike against Warrior Met since April 2021, resisting brutal working conditions. Now the Biden NLRB is demanding the UMWA pay what amounts to $13,000 per striker into the company’s pocket. The government says this is reimbursement for security guards, security cameras, repairs, and production lost because of the strike, plus buses for carrying scabs across picket lines.

This workforce routinely does six-day weeks and 12-hour days. The company operates on Sundays and almost all holidays. A hated company policy fires workers automatically if they miss four days of work in a year, even because of health problems or family emergencies.

Early in the strike, the company offered a raise of $1.50 an hour for 2021 to 2026. Workers retorted that back in 2016 they accepted a $6-an-hour reduction when the company declared bankruptcy and threatened mass layoffs if the workers didn’t “help” shore up its profitability. More than 95 percent of the strikers voted no when the UMWA leadership put up this company offer as a tentative agreement.

The $13.3 million NLRB judgment is more than half of the strike pay distributed to 1,000 strikers in 16 months. The UMWA provides only $350 a week, or $18,000 a year, for miners’ families to live on. The money grab goes to a company that made $146 million in profit for January to March this year and last year paid its CEO $5.7 million.




https://truthout.org/articles/al-coal-m ... lrb-rules/
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#389

Post by raison de arizona »

WTF.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#390

Post by KickahaOta »

It's been an extremely nasty strike, and that's an extremely one-sided article.
The government says this is reimbursement for security guards, security cameras, repairs, and production lost because of the strike, plus buses for carrying scabs across picket lines.
The payment is because of a settlement to the NLRB charges that the mine filed against the unions. To be blunt, the unions settled for good reasons, and the award is large for good reasons.

Settlement (June 16, 2022)

The law absolutely lets workers strike. It absolutely lets workers picket. It doesn't allow workers to shut down the locations they're striking and picketing.

The union workers have crossed way over the line. They've attacked folks coming in and out of the plants. They've blockaded roads. They've repeatedly scattered "jackrocks" -- caltrops -- on roads near the plant. They've used spotlights to blind drivers.

And as if a court order was necessary to tell folks not to do this sort of stuff, there's been a court order in place since April of 2021, telling them not to do this sort of stuff.

Then they got cited for contempt in July for violating that order.

This is the statement that the unions agreed to in the settlement:
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
  • Form, join, or assist a union;
  • Choose representatives to bargain with your employer on your behalf;
  • Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection;
  • Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT block ingress and/or egress at Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC’s facilities.
WE WILL NOT engage in unlawful activity at or in the vicinity of Warrior Met Coal Mining LLC’s facilities.
WE WILL NOT coerce or threaten Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC’s security guards stationed at its facilities.
WE WILL NOT engage in threats, vandalism, and/or physical violence at or in the vicinity of Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC’s facilities.
WE WILL NOT place jackrocks nor any other hazardous objects in the roadways at, in the vicinity of, or leading to and from Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC’s facilities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL post this notice at all locations where our picketers typically assemble.
WE WILL mail copies of this notice to all bargaining-unit employees employed by Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC between March 31, 2021, and the date of the final Board Order approving this Agreement.
WE WILL read this notice at mandatory meetings of members in the presence of a Board agent.
WE WILL post this notice on the United Mineworkers of America, International Union’s website, www.umwa.org.
WE WILL, through an officer United Mine Workers of America, International Union, record a reading of this notice, and WE WILL post that reading on the United Mineworkers of America, International Union’s website and YouTube.com channel.
WE WILL compensate Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC, its contractors, and its employees, for economic losses incurred as a result of our unlawful actions.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#391

Post by raison de arizona »

Thx for the context KickahaOta, that is a horse of a 'nother colour then.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14356
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#392

Post by RTH10260 »

:yeahthat:
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#393

Post by KickahaOta »

Some good old-fashioned tax-denying silliness from the Fifth Circuit. As is so often the case, it involves a defendant who developed radical new views about the nature of income taxation, immediately after receiving a large sum of money subject to income taxation.

US v. Thomas Selgas and John Green
Selgas and his wife Michelle were partners in a company called MyMail, Ltd. MyMail sued alleged patent infringers, which resulted in $11 million in settlement proceeds in 2005, of which MyMail received $6.8 million after attorney fees. In February 2006, MyMail’s CPA filed tax forms reporting that Michelle Selgas received $1.559 million in ordinary business income and $1.091 million in distributions from MyMail, and Selgas received $117,187 in business income and a $82,000 distribution.

In late 2005, the Selgases had MyMail send $1 million by wire transfer to Dillon Gage, a precious metals dealer in Texas with whom Selgas had an account, and, as instructed by Selgas, Dillon Gage used the money to buy 7,090 quarter-ounce $10 Gold Eagle coins for Selgas. While the Gold Eagle coins have a nominal $10 face value, the actual value of the coins is much higher and is based on the price of gold.

In April 2006, Selgas and Green—his lawyer—orchestrated an effort, along with MyMail partner Bob Derby, to amend MyMail’s tax forms “based on the current laws of a constitutional $.” According to Selgas and Green, “Federal Reserve Notes are valueless pieces of paper” and “lawful money” is instead measured by the “constitutional value” of a dollar, which is 371 ¼ grains of silver.
► Show Spoiler
Selgas' attorney, John Green, provided client services above and beyond the normal call of duty.
For example, the Selgases did not keep money in bank accounts in their own names. Instead, from 2007 through at least 2017, the Selgases deposited more than $857,000 into Green’s client trust accounts, and Green paid the Selgases’ expenses and credit card bills out of his trust accounts. In 2008, the Selgases sold their home in Garland, Texas and bought a new home in Athens, Texas, paying the $385,000 purchase price with 1,667 $10 Gold Eagle coins. Green represented the Selgases in both transactions. The buyer of the Garland home refused to pay in gold coins, so Selgas and Green had the title company send the buyer’s payment directly to Dillon Gage to be converted into gold coin. They also attempted to get the Athens house assessed for property taxes purposes based on the purported “constitutional lawful money” dollar price of $16,670 instead of the actual purchase price. In 2012, Selgas sold the Athens house for $8,400 “lawful money” to a trust controlled by a family member.
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#394

Post by Kriselda Gray »

From Snopes (https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/10/geico-woman-std/) - a rather interesting suit that leaves me with a couple of questions (following the story):
A Missouri woman who said she got a sexually transmitted disease (STD) from having sex with a man in a car may, in the future, be the recipient of a $5.2 million payout from Geico. The Associated Press reported that the man was insured by the company and that two courts have already ruled in the woman’s favor.

The woman, who was identified in court documents only as “M.O.”, said that she contracted human papillomavirus (HPV) and that “the man did not tell her he had the disease.” According to Brittanica.com, HPV can “cause warts and other benign tumors as well as cancers of the genital tract, especially of the uterine cervix in women.”

The woman originally sought $1 million from Geico for allegedly contracting the STD in the man’s car. However, “an arbitrator eventually determined she should be awarded $5.2 million for damages and her injuries.” This determination led her to the Jackson County Court, where the arbitrator’s decision was affirmed.

The Associated Press published that Geico initially wasn’t aware of the arbitration:

Geico claimed it did not know the man and woman had entered into arbitration and, when it found out, it sought to intervene in the court case. The company argued the arbitration award was reached through collusion and fraud, violated its rights to due process and was unenforceable.

The lower court rejected Geico’s requests and confirmed the award, prompting the insurance company’s appeal because it said it did not have a “meaningful opportunity” to defend its interests, according to court documents.

The appeals court found that Geico did not have the right to “re-litigate” the issues after the award had been affirmed.

On June 7, three judges with the Missouri Court of Appeals “upheld a Jackson County Court’s decision affirming an arbitrator’s finding that the woman was entitled to the award,” according to court documents cited by The Associated Press. Geico has since filed a federal lawsuit that “will determine whether ‘there is coverage in this matter.'”

We have reached out to Geico in hopes of learning more about the case. This story will be updated if more details come to light.

Sources:

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Missouri Courts, 7 June 2022, https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183.

Stafford, Margaret. “Geico Facing Payout to Woman Who Got HPV after Sex in Car.” AP News, 9 June 2022, https://apnews.com/article/health-kansa ... c09e7bc614.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Human Papillomavirus | Description & Diseases.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/human-papillomavirus.
1. Maybe I just don't know wnough about the lw and insurance, but this just seems really off to me. Does this strike any one else as weirdly ridiculous?

2. Car insurance covers getting n STD from ex inside a car? Isn't insurance usually for accidents? How is having sex accidental? And if the guy knew he had it and didn't tell her, how is *that* accidental?

3. Why wasn't Geico notified of the arbitration? If they're the ones who are going to be on the hook for it, shouldn't they hve a right to defending their interests? What if their defense is "We don't cover sexual activity in a car"? (If that's the case, of course...)
And since Geico also offers home insurance, if an STD were transmitted in a bed, could they be liable for that, too?
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#395

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

I think we covered it earlier this year. If it's the same case, the guy filed a claim with Geico to have them represent him. Geico denied the claim and walked away. By doing so, they exposed themselves to liability if the court ruled the claim was valid, and there's precedent supporting that. In essence, this is a default judgment because they chose to ignore the suit. The details are a bit fuzzy, but I think that covers the gist.
W. Kevin Vicklund
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#396

Post by W. Kevin Vicklund »

Yep, covered it beginning on page 12 of this thread.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#397

Post by Kriselda Gray »

I found it and read it - hadn't realized it was already here. Thanks, and sorry to everyone for the dupe!
User avatar
KickahaOta
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#398

Post by KickahaOta »

Let me add a little more explanation to the earlier discussion. Spoiler: GEICO still isn't firmly on the hook here.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect. Consult your own attorney before having unprotected sex in a car.
  • M.B. (GEICO's insured) allegedly had unprotected intercourse with M.O., resulting in a sexually transmitted disease.
  • M.O. sent GEICO a copy of a lawsuit that she intended to file, along with a settlement offer.
    • The proposed lawsuit claimed that M.B. was negligent in giving M.O. the STD.
    • Car insurance policies cover various forms of negligence that an insured driver might practice in an insured automobile.
    • There are, of course, all sorts of reasons why negligent sex in a car (auto-eroticism?) might not be covered by the policy.
  • Once an insurer is notified of a claim, there are two duties that may kick in:
    • The duty to indemnify -- to pay out, up to the policy limits, if the insured winds up being liable for the claim, and if the claim is covered by the policy.
    • The duty to defend -- to provide a legal defense against the claim. The duty to defend applies if the claim is even arguably covered by the policy.
  • GEICO responded to M.O. by denying coverage, refusing to settle, refusing to defend M.B., and filing a federal suit against M.B., seeking a declaration that the claim isn't covered by the policy.
    • Obviously, not paying to fund a legal defense can save an insurer a lot of money. And in cases where the claim isn't arguably covered by the policy, it's a perfectly proper thing to do.
    • But there's a risk: If a court later determines that the claim was arguably covered by the policy, then the insurer can wind up on the hook for the insured's defense costs, as well as for whatever the insured is ordered to pay, or whatever the insured reasonably settles the claim for. In some states, the insurer can even wind up having to pay more than the policy's limits in this case.
  • After GEICO's refusal, M.B. and M.O. carried on:
    • They agreed to arbitrate the case rather than going to court.
    • They agreed that, if M.O. won an arbitration award, M.O. would only try to collect that award against the insurance policy, not against M.B.'s other assets.
    • They agreed that, if M.O. won an arbitration award, M.B. wouldn't try to fight the award in court.
    • They went ahead with the arbitration.
    • The arbitrator ruled in M.O.'s favor, for $5.2 million.
  • All of these things might have been perfectly appropriate things to do under the circumstances. They also might be collusion between M.O. and M.B. to stick GEICO with an excessive payout. Hard to say.
  • M.O. then notified GEICO of the agreement with M.B., and almost immediately afterwards, went to Arkansas court to confirm the arbitration award against M.B.
  • GEICO tried to intervene in the court case.
  • The Missouri trial court confirmed the arbitration award, and entered judgement against M.B. for the $5.2 million. The court denied GEICO's motion to intervene.
    • Most notably, the trial court ruled that GEICO had been notified of the claim, could have stepped in to defend its insured, and chose not to. So GEICO didn't have a right to object to the result after the fact.
  • The Missouri appellate court upheld that.
  • And here we are.
So why might GEICO still might not have to pay all of this?
  • The arbitration award, and the court judgement, are only against M.B.
  • The next step will be for M.O. to sue GEICO and try to collect on the judgement.
  • At that point, GEICO will still be able to defend itself.
  • Furthermore, that federal case GEICO filed is still going on, and the federal court could still find that GEICO didn't have a duty to defend -- in which case it wouldn't have a duty to indemnify, either.
  • If the courts ultimately rule that GEICO didn't have a duty to defend, then M.O.'s $5.2 million judgement is meaningless.
  • Furthermore, the courts might ultimately rule that GEICO did have a duty to defend (and so is in the hook), but that the amount of the judgement is excessive, because M.B. and M.O. colluded to bring it about. In that case, the amount that GEICO has to pay could be much less.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#399

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Very informative - thank you!
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: General Law and Lawsuits

#400

Post by pipistrelle »

RTH10260 wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 1:29 pm
AL Coal Miners Must Pay $13 Million in Damages for Strike, Biden’s NLRB Rules
I didn't read based on "Biden's NLRB." He appointed three members, including the chair. But it's not his personal board. This headline, intentionally or not, pushes that Biden's not on the side of "real Americans."
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”