General Law and Lawsuits

[Slim Cognito]

Wow! Wait until the guy pays out $85K for the dock, then revoke the permits? I'd be pissed too. The dock owner even offered to pay to dredge an alternate route, which looks more direct anyway. It kinda sorta seems somebody dropped the ball big-time when the permit was approved, but that's not the dock owners fault. Everybody gets a dock but him?

[RTH10260]

Worms are Fish in NSW..

(2) In this Act, fish includes—
(a) oysters and other aquatic molluscs, and
(b) crustaceans, and
(c) echinoderms, and
(d) beachworms and other aquatic polychaetes.

Legal definition representing the food chain: big fish eat small fish etc....

I infer therefore that humans are fish, even when they maskerade as chicken

[northland10]

Aren't there lots of songs* (and books and movies and...) with the same title?

New song is passed out to a choir (students). One student blurts out, "but we sang Sanctus last year."

[northland10]

As to the "All I want for Christmas" lawsuit.

1. Was this idiot asleep for 25 years?
2. Even I who does not follow pop stuff knew of this song. I did it with one of my choirs when I was teaching some 20+ years ago (one of those give and takes things where I did it so they would feel I took their constant requests about it seriously). The arrangement did not have a good shelf life so I did not have to do it again as a choir piece.
3. Even without the choir thing, that song pops up all the time so I would have known it as well.
4. Basing a music career on the SCO business method is not wise.
5. Curious if the attorney is one of those copyright trolls and the plaintiff is just a name on a page.

[pjhimself]

[raison de arizona]

Geico must pay $5.2 million to woman who got HPV after sex in car, Missouri judges rule
Geico has filed a federal lawsuit arguing the woman's claim is not covered by the man's insurance policy

Geico could be required to pay a Missouri woman $5.2 million because she said she contracted a sexually transmitted disease while having sex in the car of a man who is insured by the company.

A three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Jackson County Court's decision affirming an arbitrator's finding that the woman was entitled to the award.

However, Maryland-based Geico has filed a federal lawsuit arguing the woman's claim is not covered by the man's insurance policy. The company said in an email Thursday that lawsuit will determine whether “there is coverage in this matter.”

According to court documents, the woman, identified as M.O., and a man, who were in a relationship, had sex in the man's car. She contends she contracted HPV, human papillomavirus, because the man did not tell her he had the disease. HPV can cause cervical cancer, certain other cancers and genital warts.

https://www.12news.com/article/news/loc ... b10ec3eeb8

[RTH10260]

only in America...

[chancery]

https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/c ... 84722.html

There seems to be less than meets the eye here.

Missouri has a program in which litigants can agree to arbitrate claims for which there is insurance coverage, with any judgment for damages enforceable only against the insurance policy. Since the defendant doesn’t have to worry about personal liability, there’s a risk of collusive or fraudulent suits, in which the defendant doesn’t put up a vigorous defense or even concedes liability on a made-up claim. Geico argued in a conclusory way that this occurred here, although the defendant didn't concede liability ("In his closing argument, Insured disputed that he was aware he could transmit HPV to M.O., M.O. received HPV from him, he had a duty to disclose such diagnosis to M.O., and the amount of damages.")

Geico was notified of the agreement to arbitrate under this program, and given an opportunity to intervene and participate in the arbitration by providing a defense to its insured. (Note that an insurance company's duty to provide a defense is separate from the duty to pay damages, although a policy usually provides for both.) Geico declined to participate, on the straightforward grounds that since the “damages claimed did not arise out of the normal use of the vehicle,” there was no coverage, and it wasn't going to have anything to do with the controversy.

The arbitration went its merry way, with a finding that the insured's negligence had caused the plaintiff's HPV and that the amount of damages was $5.2 million. The appeals court's refusal to let Geico intervene after the fact to challenge the finding of liability or the amount of damages seems pretty standard, particularly under arbitration law.

However, _apparently_ (the decision's discussion of this is short) the arbitration did not determine the issue of whether or not the claim was covered under the policy, or if it did, that finding isn't binding on Geico. Geico has brought an action action against the insured in federal court seeking a declaration that the policy doesn't cover the claim, so it should be OK.

Insurance companies often operate on belt and suspenders principles, and in light of the size of the award, Geico would like to be able to challenge the findings of causation and amount of damages, in addition to seeking a declaration that the incident was not covered under the policy. However, even apart from any special rules of the Missouri insurance polity arbitration program, it doesn't seem strange to me that an insurance company has to acknowledge some potential liability under its policy if it wants to participate in the trial of a damage claim, and it can't refuse to participate and then swoop in and demand to relitigate the issues later.

[RTH10260]

https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/c ... 84722.html

There seems to be less than meets the eye here.



Insurance companies often operate on belt and suspenders principles, and in light of the size of the award, Geico would like to be able to challenge the findings of causation and amount of damages, in addition to seeking a declaration that the incident was not covered under the policy. However, even apart from any special rules of the Missouri insurance polity arbitration program, it doesn't seem strange to me that an insurance company has to acknowledge some potential liability under its policy if it wants to participate in the trial of a damage claim, and it can't refuse to participate and then swoop in and demand to relitigate the issues later.

But when the insurance company sees no liability? Like for a sex act? Then they get pulled over the table without recourse? One would think that when arbitration sees liability they ought to get an opportunity to reply. But then IANAL and an overseas viewer of strange American legislation.

[Ben-Prime]

https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/c ... 84722.html

There seems to be less than meets the eye here.



Insurance companies often operate on belt and suspenders principles, and in light of the size of the award, Geico would like to be able to challenge the findings of causation and amount of damages, in addition to seeking a declaration that the incident was not covered under the policy. However, even apart from any special rules of the Missouri insurance polity arbitration program, it doesn't seem strange to me that an insurance company has to acknowledge some potential liability under its policy if it wants to participate in the trial of a damage claim, and it can't refuse to participate and then swoop in and demand to relitigate the issues later.

But when the insurance company sees no liability? Like for a sex act? Then they get pulled over the table without recourse? One would think that when arbitration sees liability they ought to get an opportunity to reply. But then IANAL and an overseas viewer of strange American legislation.

I mean, they did have the opportunity to reply. They chose to refuse it even though the program *as designed* is one...

in which litigants can agree to arbitrate claims for which there is insurance coverage, with any judgment for damages enforceable only against the insurance policy.

This indicates that their customers taking part in such an arbitration -- complete with its style of arbitration's history of defrauding insurance companies -- opened them up to liability and they knew it. They chose to walk away from the table on the grounds that they did not believe the arbiter would find in this matter the way the arbiter did.

[RTH10260]

Steve Letho explains....

What was not clearly mentioned above: the couple went into arbitration as per state law, Geico at this point was not involved, though it seems that claimant informed them that she would sue defendant (prior to going into arbitration). Claimant went into state court to receive a enforable judgement. At this time Geico entered the law suit and things went south for them.

Obvously very twisted tricky situation

[pipistrelle]

I honestly don't understand why Geico's involved at all. If I spill a hot drink while driving or in a car, why would car insurance cover that?

[RTH10260]

I honestly don't understand why Geico's involved at all. If I spill a hot drink while driving or in a car, why would car insurance cover that?

The explanation given by Steve Letho, as i understand his explanation: car liability ensurance covers everything related to the operation (standing or moving) of a vehicle in relation to third parties that come into contact with the vehicle. Except it is one of the exceptions listed in the policy / contract.

The tricky detail mentioned was that Geico got informed of the pending law suit against their insured party and did not participate on his behalf in the arbitration and saying that their policy does not cover damages of picking up transmissable deseases in the insured vehicle.

yes


ps. everyone check how and where they got exposed to covid...

[bill_g]

So, because they didn't give STD's a specific exclusion, Geico is now on the hook? Whodathunkit.

[KickahaOta]

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 a licensed attorney before having sex in a car.

Here's a general principle of insurance law that helps to explain how this sort of thing happens. (Insurance law varies from state to state, of course; but what I'm describing here is very common.)

When an insurer writes a consumer insurance policy -- in this case, an auto insurance policy -- they take on two different legal duties in the event of a lawsuit against an insured.

• The duty to defend. This means that, if someone sues the insured, the insurance company is obligated to provide a legal defense.
• The duty to indemnify. This means, if the insured loses or (in some circumstances) settles, the insurance company has to pay the damages.

When we think about what insurance does, we immediately think of the duty-to-indemnify part; we often forget about the duty-to-defend part. And very few people understand that the standards for those two duties are very different.

• The duty to indemnify -- to pay the damages -- only kicks in if the claim is ultimately found to be valid. In other words, the insurance company only has to pay the damages if they were due to a loss that was actually covered by the policy.
• But before that, the duty to defend typically kicks in if any part of the suit is even arguably due to a loss covered by the policy. And the duty typically kicks in even if the claim is clearly meritless or frivolous -- the insurance company still has to defend, against the whole case. (This can lead to a whole lot of messy questions about things like "what if parts of the case then get thrown out before the case completes", but I'll leave those aside.)

So in a case like this, if any part of M.O.'s allegations were even arguably covered by the Geico policy, then Geico probably had a duty to defend, against the whole case.

If an insurance company decides that no part of the case is covered by the policy, then it can refuse to defend. But that's a dangerous decision. If a judge ultimately decides that the insurance company was wrong -- that any part of the case was arguably covered by the policy -- then the insurance company can be on the hook, not only for any defense costs the insured paid, but also for the damages that the insured wound up paying out. And in some cases, the insurance company is liable for the whole thing even if the damages exceed the policy limits.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas ... ar-AAYoVw5

Texas shooting records could be blocked by legal loophole

As public pressure mounts for more information on the deadly Uvalde school shooting, some are concerned that Texas officials will use a legal loophole to block records from being released — even to the victims' families — once the case is closed.

Since the May 24 shooting at a Texas elementary school that left 19 kids and two teachers dead, law enforcement officials have provided little or conflicting information, sometimes withdrawing statements hours after making them. State police have said some accounts were preliminary and may change as more witnesses are interviewed.

Amid the growing silence, lawyers and advocates for the victim's families are beginning to fear they may never get the answers, that authorities will close the case and rely on the exception to the Texas Public Information law to block the release of any further information.

The [dead suspect] loophole was created in the 1990s to protect those wrongfully accused or whose cases were dismissed, according to Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. "It is meant to protect the innocent," Shannon said. But she said that in some cases "it is being used and misused in a way that was never intended."

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... ?gnt-cfr=1

With no body, case against Kristin Smart suspects opens Monday reliant on inferences, experts say
Kristin Smart went missing in 1996 and was declared dead in 2002. Now a father and son are going to trial, and public access is extremely limited.

Kristin Smart was an adventurous and ambitious college student who dreamed of traveling the world before she disappeared without a trace while walking back to her dorm room one chilly night in 1996.

Now 26 years later, a trial is set to begin Monday for one of Kristin's fellow students and his father. Paul Flores is accused of killing Kristin during a rape or attempted rape in his dorm room. His father, Ruben Flores, is charged with helping his son get rid of her body. They have pleaded not guilty.

[northland10]

...picking up transmissable deseases in the insured vehicle.

That can be read in so many ways.

[northland10]

On the Geico thing, would it have been better for them if the insured was in a no-fault state?

This is only half serious because my inner 13 year old wants to take over this thread.

[bob]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... ?gnt-cfr=1

With no body, case against Kristin Smart suspects opens Monday reliant on inferences, experts say
Kristin Smart went missing in 1996 and was declared dead in 2002. Now a father and son are going to trial, and public access is extremely limited.

Kristin Smart was an adventurous and ambitious college student who dreamed of traveling the world before she disappeared without a trace while walking back to her dorm room one chilly night in 1996.

Now 26 years later, a trial is set to begin Monday for one of Kristin's fellow students and his father. Paul Flores is accused of killing Kristin during a rape or attempted rape in his dorm room. His father, Ruben Flores, is charged with helping his son get rid of her body. They have pleaded not guilty.

Flores' attorney had suggested the real killer was ... Scott Peterson. (Peterson also was a student at Cal Poly in 1996.)

[Slim Cognito]

Gee, that's convenient.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north ... ar-AAYsQMn

North Carolina charter school's skirt requirement for girls unconstitutional, court rules

A North Carolina charter school's requirement that girls wear skirts based on the view that they are "fragile vessels" deserving of "gentle" treatment by boys is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-6 that Charter Day School violated three female students' equal protection rights by adopting the skirts policy based on gender stereotypes about the "proper place" for girls in society.

The school implemented a dress code that its founder, businessman Baker Mitchell, in an email and testimony said would "preserve chivalry" and ensure girls are treated "courteously and more gently than boys."

The state-funded school in Brunswick County argued the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment did not apply to it because it was a private entity, not a "state actor."

But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said it was one since North Carolina delegated to it its duty to provide free, universal education to students. A contrary ruling would mean North Carolina could ignore "blatant" discrimination, she said.

The Richmond, Virginia-based court also allowed the students to pursue a claim under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education.

[northland10]

Was trolling through the 9th Circuit's oral argument calendar and saw this scheduled:

21-71321 Nude Nicotine Inc. v. FDA - Petition for review of an order of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration denying a premarket tobacco product application for authorization to market certain e-cigarette products.

I guess that's one way for people to notice you're vaping company.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://nudenicotine.com/

WARNING: This product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

Why Nude?
Founded in April of 2012, we at Nude Nicotine are an electronic eLiquid manufacturer and contract laboratory that prides itself in the purity and validated contents of its chemistries. Unlike any nicotine liquid manufacturer on the market, we publish chemical data for each individual lot of nicotine, propylene glycol (PG), and vegetable glycerin (VG) for the public eye. Each lot is analyzed by GC/MS (gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry – a laboratory technique utilizing a piece of equipment to analyze an unknown for chemical content) to ensure only the desired chemical ingredients are present, no unwanted contaminants or degradation products. No oxides, no beta-carbolines, no nitrosamines, never. (This piece of equipment is currently being validated for wider use in the testing of final eLiquid solutions as well – ISO 17025 application pending).

Synthetic nicotine.

[RTH10260]

Florida condo owner who asked to see association financial records. It sued, and now she owes $395,554 in legal fees.

Ron Hurtibise - South Florida Sun Sentinel (TNS)
22 hrs ago

When Eileen Breitkreutz filed a request to inspect her condo association’s financial records six years ago, she had no idea it would spark six years of litigation and a $395,554 judgment against her.

Now, the registered nurse and single mother is talking to bankruptcy lawyers to find out whether she’ll be able to keep her home.

“I don’t know how they can do this. I don’t know why nobody stops them,” Breitkreutz said about the Boca View Condominium Association’s legal fights against her and several other unit owners who have asked to see their community’s books.

While state law gives condo owners the right to inspect their associations’ financial records, they’re not protected from getting hit with crippling legal fees if their associations fight back, hire expert attorneys and win.

Last month, a Palm Beach County circuit judge ordered Breitkreutz to pay $395,554 that the association’s attorneys, members of the powerful Becker law firm — formerly known as Becker & Poliakoff — said she owes for the time they spent fighting her request. She still hasn’t seen the association’s financial records.






https://www.hastingstribune.com/florida ... ae5ef.html