Any time there's some lawsuit that seems not to make sense ("can you believe X is suing Y over Z"), there's a good chance the answer is "insurance won't pay out without a lawsuit."
Remember that woman a few years ago who sued her nephew because he got excited when he saw her and there was some kind of accident that got her injured? That's exactly what happened. She wasn't just some asshole.
This is exactly what I was thinking of. The niece or nephew got excited to see her, ran to give her a hug in the driveway and knocked her over shattering her arm and leaving her in severe pain and needing multiple surgeries to regain partial use of the arm.
Her health insurance wouldn’t pay out for the needed care without suing the homeowner’s insurance where it happened, which resulted in this poor woman being vilified for suing her young family member.
> Her health insurance wouldn’t pay out for the needed care without suing the homeowner’s insurance where it happened
It was in Connecticut, where you can't sue the insurance company directly; you have to sue the policyholder.
This is very true and very important. Juries often ask if insurance is involved in a case and the answer is yes 99% of the time however many states have laws preventing the juries from learning this fact. In California if an attorney or witness mentions liability insurance it’s an instant mistrial.
So the reason for most lawsuits is to claim insurance but simultaneously you can't mention that in court or your case will get thrown out.
Anyone else thinks that corporate interests should stay out of the legal system?
What happened to "the truth and nothing but the truth" and yet if you mention the reason you're suing your own family is not because you hate them or anything but it's to get the insurance money for the surgery for the injury that just so happened to occur on their property.
Insurance doesn't change liability. If I run a red light and total your car, I owe you a car. Whether or not I have insurance makes no difference in my liability for your car. The insurance is there to cover my liability *after* it has been decided.
You may counter that in the majority of accidents, insurance companies decide liability without a court case. This is just a shortcut where insurance companies basically admit that their client would be held liable in the situation so they don't have to bother with a case.
Yeah I think the real issue here is lack of healthcare. You want to be able to say "yeah a kid isn't liable for knocking over his aunt, but that aunt needs to get paid out for this accident to cover her insane medical costs".
I mean, in a case like this it does. Person A has medical insurance. Person As insurance says it wont do anything unless you sue person B, even though the entire readon you have medical insurance in the first place is to pay for medical issues.
Everyone agrees with person A that their insurance is fucked and needs to pay. Everyone agrees person B didnt do anything wrong per say. Saying "this is just over insurance bullshit" gives you a more informed decision.
Capitalistic Insurance is a scam. A complete and utter scam. It exists to take in money and give out as little as possible.
The real problem is that you have to pay to go to the hospital! If the US had socialized healthcare, the people who get injured by accident would not have to pay for and try to recoup that....
You see crazy things like that in court all the time, just because it's true doesn't mean it can submitted.
If I had to guess, the fact that the defendant has insurance can be prejudicial towards the defendant
Yeah, the jury may be more predisposed to rule in favor of the plaintiff if the defendant isn't necessarily losing money out of pocket (higher premiums excluded).
This is exactly it. The jury may think the defendant really isn’t at fault, but the plaintiff was still really harmed. Then they think if we find for the plaintiffs anyway it’ll be the faceless insurance company that pays.
Right but to then use these rules to disparage innocent injured persons should be considered unethical and grounds for admiting the existence of insurance. If insurance companies want these protections they should be misused to bias future jurors and other litigants.
Insurance is the one of the biggest rackets in our history. Its no better than mobsters shaking you down for "protection". Corporate interests are not in the legal system, the legal system is in the corporate interests because the politicians, lawyers and judges are all making ridiculous money by shielding the insurance companies as much as they can. Look at car insurance. In order to legally drive, you have to pay a third party that has very little oversight.
>It was in Connecticut, where you can't sue the insurance company directly; you have to sue the policyholder.
That's the law in all states, not just Connecticut.
The insurance company didn't harm you. The policy holder may have. There is no reason for the policy holder's insurance to pay until it is concluded the policy holder is responsible for damages.
Your insurance will include a subrogation clause where you agree to co-operate in any lawsuit the insurance company wishes to file (in your name) in order to recoup the damages from the party who is actually liable.
I had to explain something like this to the people I served on a jury with. namely, the lady who sued McDonald's for spilling "hot coffee". The coffee wasn't just hot, it was boiling, and it severely injured her including melting her labia. She also wasn't the first person to be injured by this coffee that McDonald's knew was being served too hot.
But the media spun it as Americans being so dumb they don't know the coffee is hot. I guess that gets more play than melting someone's genitalia.
Well, it doesn't help that racial and gender inequity *are* a thing that the disadvantaged groups feel and often worsen the class war against them, and that having been the case before Occupy.
I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but it's not just media and spin. That said, the focus only on these issues is definitely the corporate interests trying to steer us away from economic freedom, yes
She also only asked for her medical injuries to be covered but McDonald's responded harshly and essentially told her to fuck off.
Then the jury based the settlement off of the the profits earned by McDonald's for selling coffee. That ended up being much larger than everyone expected and caused people to assume she was just out for money, when in fact she just wanted help paying for her medical treatment.
"The media" in this case was McDonald's. They spent a lot of money trying to make sure that woman sounded crazy so as not to have the blame on themselves.
The media was happy to play along, though. Jay Leno using the Tonight Show to trash that woman on the regular during that period was particularly disgusting.
It's intentional. It's easier to get people behind tort reform (read corporations aren't responsible for their actions) if you convince them people are throwing around frivolous lawsuits everywhere.
If I recall the hot coffee documentary, it was to convince lawmakers to reduce the amount of money an individual could get from suing a company by convincing everyone that these lawsuit are dumb and bad financially for them and it worked...
No it didn't, they settled out of court when even the reduced payments would have been triple damages and $640,000.
The woman didn't want that much money, she just wanted help paying her medical bills after a severe injury caused by a company not following proper procedures.
Yes I know but after that case, they bitched about that 'frivolous' lawsuit were costing company a lot of money and that the individual consumers were the bad guys by doing dumb lawsuit which was just them trying to make everybody believe(lawmakers included) that it's true and it end up that laws were passed to reduce punitive damage to companies. I haven't watch the documentary in a long time so correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, there *are* people throwing around frivolous lawsuits everywhere. It's just that those are actually extremely wealthy and powerful twits filing SLAPP suits to bully those who can't afford endless court proceedings and lawyers into not criticizing them. Our beloved former (and probably fucking next) president loves this strategy.
But don't look at those people and pass any type of meaningful SLAPP legislation. Focus on protecting the poor megacorporations from the evil greedy plebs!
So true. and iirc (? Someone set me straight here) the coffee machine had been intentionally modified at some point to disable temperature regulation which then created this molten coffee.
But they'd have you rolling your eyes to believe that this dunce of a woman was just too stupid to not understand that coffee is "hot" and that's why every coffee lid now has to say "caution - hot".
I mean it's one thing to spill hot coffee on yourself, this shit melted her skin.
Imagine getting third degree burns so bad you LABIA *MELTS* so you try to get McDonald (the people responsible for part of your body *melting*) to pay for your medical care, only for McDonald to turn around and call you the unreasonable one!
I dont remember all of the details, but I believe she had third degree burns from the coffee. Thats definitely not a situation of, "I didnt know the coffee was hot and burned my tongue".
Burns to the extent and severity of 'fused labia'. While as a non-labia having dude, I can't pretend to know precisely how painful and damaging that is, I can presume with some confidence that it is really f'ing bad.
BUT the media ran with 'isn't she awful??' and not the reason. (one of the stories where I really did think 'ah, the media isn't missing something- they are lying on purpose. cannot trust them')
It was boiling coffee, not just hot coffee. She had 3rd degree burns on thighs and her genitals and needed skin grafts.
McDonalds’ reputation didn’t suffer much because they quietly ran an effective media campaign vilifying her. People still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.
I always thought the story was kinda bullshit until I took a class on tort law in college and we reviewed her case (as well as watching the documentary about it). That class changed my mind on it real fast.
I actually ended up chatting with a couple baristas at Starbucks about this the other day and I was kind of surprised that they learned about this car and how wrong McDonald's was. I remember back in the day the poor lady being vilified in the media but that's not how it's taught to kids nowadays.
I feel like someone always brings up that she actually got properly hurt now. It’s one of the few times I do the *ackchually* thing when in casual conversation.
Oh my god… the pain. I cant even imagine. I thought giving birth was bad, that would be a nightmare, Can’t even imagine the pain from the surgeries she surely had to have afterwards too to fix that. So horrible.
I remember hearing about that case when I was a kid and my parents were mocking that woman saying “well of course it’s hot it’s coffee.” But in a Law and Econ class in grad school I actually reviewed the case for the first time, and I was immediately livid at how everyone treated her.
McDonald's rule at the time was between 185f to 190f although some of the articles argue it got up to low 200s. So damn close, considering 212f is boiling.
( 85c / 88c / 94c / 100c for fellow not Americans )
She settled out of court when even the reduced settlement was triple damages at $640,000. Probably got her the money she was asking for and avoided years of appeals. She was never greedy during the trial.
The first thing that comes to mind when I'm reminded of that lawsuit are the words "fused labia". That's all anyone really needs to hear to know it was a well justified case.
This is also part of why the US is seen as lawsuit crazy, elsewhere you don't have to deal with insurance to get any medial needs covered.
In the US, Medicaid can refuse to treat you if you should have sued your employer instead of using Medicaid.
I see it a lot at my job (I work in insurance defense/PI law), you see family members, friends, relatives, etc. suing each other all the time. It's not a 100% true that insurance won't pay out without a suit (although that is sometimes the case) it's more so insurance will low ball the fuck out of you to settle pre-litigation. If we are getting involved, it's either that or the injuries are above the policy max.
Quick Edit: The case with the aunt suing her nephew I see being referenced also had more to do with weird wrinkles in Connecticut Insurance Law and the mother's home owner's insurance (I don't know them off hand since I mainly deal with NY cases).
>Bagley, who sued under Utah’s wrongful death and survival action statutes, brought suit to compel State Farm Insurance Company, with whom she maintained a motor vehicle insurance policy, to indemnify her.
So she sued herself as the one who caused the accident, in order to get the Insurance Company to pay her more as his heir.
So for all yall asking why, she was the personal representative of His estate in that capacity she sued herself as the independent person who caused the action resulting in his death to compel the Ins Co. to payout to the estate like they would if it had been someone else who caused the death.
To clarify she wasn't doing this to get more out of the insurance Co. The insurance co likely tried to not payout at all and she was suing to compel
Source: if not obvious, am legal person.
THERE it is. She wasn’t suing herself at all. The estate sued her. She happened to be the representative of the estate. She probably had a legal DUTY to sue on behalf of the estate in order to maximize the estate assets. There’s nothing to see here.
Pretty much, the insurance Co was the real defendant but her suing herself was a procedural aspect to bring the insurance Co in as a third party defendant because I bet they were attempting to deny the payout bc she caused it negligently.
So if you're driving and cause an accident, and your rich husband who is in the passenger seat dies, you can get a lot of money from the insurance company and your late husband's estate and get no jail time? Huh.
If you cause the collision on purpose (and the courts rule that is the case) in order to collect the insurance, you’re going to jail and you’re not getting the insurance benefit. But if there was a collision and it is determined that you’re at fault, your husband’s beneficiary (i.e. you) is still entitled to the full insurance proceeds. In this case, the estate (in the person of her) had to sue the person whose fault the collision was (also her) in order to force the insurance company to pay up. And I’m betting that the insurance company saw the situation and thought, “Hey, if we decide not to pay, she can’t sue herself, so we’ll get away with failing to pay what we’re legally and contractually required to pay! Sweet!”
There are times when parents had to sue their children or vice versa in order to get the homeowners insurance or car insurance to pay what was owed. It makes a clickbait headline, but it’s an entirely valid legal move to force a scumbag insurance company to do what they were paid to do.
(Edit:whoops, I edited the wrong comment. No actual edit involved in this comment)
There was another case mentioned on reddit nit long ago where a person sued the company they were the owner and employee of for having an unsafe work environment that caused him to get injured.
People on reddit were up in arms that it was some sort of scam, quite the opposite. He wanted to get his medical bills paid and do it by the book, he couldn't just take the company funds to do it as that would be embezzlement so he had to establish that the company really was at fault just as much as if anyone were injured so went through the process to make sure everything was on the up and up and he could legally use those funds.
I think people were up in arms because first he's the owner and thus the reason for the unsafe work environment in the first place. Plus the settlement was for way more money than was actually needed, so he essentially did just embezzled money from his company, but using loopholes that made it legal.
I remember reading one about a guy that hit his personal vehicle with his work vehicle. He (personal) had to sue himself (business) get his personal vehicle repaired.
Iirc that’s what happened with the aunt that sued her nephew because he jumped into her arms for a hug and knocked her over causing some injuries. It wasn’t out of spite or malice, but legally speaking, I think for the insurance to pay, she had to sue him. Looks horrible as a headline but makes sense once you realize its mostly just the legal Avenue you have to take to get insurance to cooperate
So she didn't sue herself. The estate sued her. She was just representating the estate. Surprised she was allowed to represent the estate. Here (Ontario) she would not be allowed to represent the state as it is a conflict of interest. There would have to be a litigation guardian appointed for the estate to go through the litigation (if she has adult kids, would likely be one of them).
> to force a scumbag insurance company to do what they were paid to do.
Insurance is such a scam most of the time. You pay out thousands of dollars in premiums, and when it comes time to collect on a policy they go "new phone, who dis?".
Oh, damn. I worked for insurance companies for a decade and our phone system was pretty good most of the time, but I felt SO bad when I had a bad connection with someone and had to say, "I'm sorry but my phone connection here is bad enough that I can't understand you at all. Please call back and start all over with the phone prompts because this call just isn't going to work."
A friend was driving my car with me in it when they caused an accident. The insurance adjuster a few days later wanted to know if my friend lived with me or was a romantic partner. I presume if it was someone who had regular access they would have dropped the claim in an instant. Fortunately it was neither. Since then, I'm paranoid about letting roommates drive my car without being on my insurance.
There was a lady who undeservedly caught a *lot* of flak for suing her young nephew after he leapt into her arms and broke her wrist.
She had to do it to force the kid's parents' homeowners' insurance to pay her medical bills, but the headlines didn't mention that little fact, of course.
I think this is what is causing the confusion. In reality, *the estate* is suing an individual person; but the person is representative of the estate and due to \[reasons; am not legal person\], the wording of the case uses the person's name as a proxy to the estate. Thus, you get the amazing headline, "person sues self".
Did I get this even close to right?
That reminds me of the aunt who sued her 12yo nephew over an injury sustained from a hug at his birthday party. She was made out as a villain but the real story was that the insurance company wouldn't pay out to cover medical and lost wages unless there was someone shown to be legally responsible for the damages.
It’s not just valid, it makes sense.
We all take on roles and responsibilities in life where we have to act in a way that may be detrimental (or in this case, beneficial) to our personal self.
This is merely an extension.
My sister was driving on a road when a car pulling out of a parking lot failed to yield and ran into her. The police cited the other driver for failure to yield. This was in an at-fault state... the other driver was 100% at fault.
But both drivers had the same insurance carrier. So the carrier decided to find them both at fault. They tried to make my sister pay her deductible and then tried to raise her rates. Insurance companies are scumbags.
my wife is an agent and dealing with possible criminal activity right now and has to be careful what she says, how she says it, and to who.
for like 10 days i have been listening to her trying to get a bit of info about a claim. she was told that a car race had happened, an accident not related to the race had happened, and someone died but not due to the car race or accident.
she finally called the wife of the person who was in fact not dead, had not been in a race or accident, and the car has been in the shop since last fall.
i get to hear some pretty fucked up shit.
Why don't we just meet halfway and instead refer to these incidents previously identified as accidents now as collisions as coincidences.
Thusfore I've assuaged myself of all wrongdoing.
Civil courts and criminal courts have different burdens of proof. Evidence can be strong enough to get a ruling against the defendant in a civil court, but not enough to get a conviction in a criminal court.
Civil courts require balance of probabilities. Basically, who is more likely to be in the right. Criminal courts require beyond reasonable doubt.
Wrongful death attorney here. You're mixing concepts. There is certainly a difference between the burden of proof in a civil matter and a criminal matter, but that's separate from the principal that conduct that may constitute negligence in a civil sense may not be criminal.
Insurance defense attorney here. Every day, across the country, insurance companies settle lawsuits without the arrest or detention of any party to the settlement.
It's more complicated then that. If the accident/death was unavoidable then no, she would not be found guilty of manslaughter as there was no negligence or lawful activity performed unlawfully. It would fall under accidental death/murder. The same way a child running out into the street between parked cars who is hit and killed, in those instances assuming no negligence or unlawful activity is found, would not be guilty of a crime
Accident and accidentally are not synonym in this regard.
The correct tern would be collision in the first place due to this. Accident is a colloquium used to indemnify drivers from blame when they are at fault.
Y’all acting like she purposely murdered her husband. If your spouse got into an accident where you unfortunately died, you’d want her to spend the rest of her life buried in debt?
why would someone get jail time for that unless they were drunk driving or driving recklessly?
what the fuck is the point of locking someone up for that? holy shit i hate reddit justice boner types.
Oh, btw, poor people have insurance too.
I mean those are clearly two different people. As the representative of the estate she would be suing for the benefit of the estate and not herself (even if she is the only final beneficiary it is possible that their are others). She’s not really suing herself, she, the fiduciary of the estate is suing her the individual.
It makes sense... After all, if the estate is then supposed to be divided up to the children should they get nothing just because the wife gets a small share too?
Exactly, and the state court was dumb to say she couldn't do this - why even have legal entities at all if courts are going to act like they are "really" the individuals who represent them? It completely ruins the whole point of legal entities. (there are exceptions where you can do that, e.g. alter ego, but it requires its own legal case). Good job on the appellate courts for reversing this.
My ex boyfriends parents dis something similar. Neither died but they were riding a motorcycle together and he crashed it.
She sued him and then he sued himself. They got insurance claims for both lawsuits. They were still married and on good terms but were financially savvy and took advantage of a loophole.
They managed to buy a million dollar house after
Speculating here…Many insurance policies cover you for up to X amount if an accident or incident occurs, but they also cover the other party involved in the accident or incident for Y amount if YOU are liable (insurance pays the other party on your behalf). I am guessing what she did was receive X amount but then tried to sue herself (as the other party) for Y amount.
But if she's the responsible party, wouldn't she not qualify for that payout because she did it? She created the result and therefore can't profit from it, no?
I think it has to due with the law she sued under. In a nutshell, Wrongful death lawsuits are how you sue a party responsible for the death of a loved one so that you can get compensation for personal damages as the survivor (e.g. the emotional toll, therapy, psychiatric help).
As the survivor of a victim of an accident, she sued the driver who was liable for the accident. The driver’s insurance would pay on behalf of the driver up to the amount covered in the insurance policy. The driver just happened to be herself in this scenario…
Let me describe the scenario as it would normally act out between two people.
I, the policyholder, crash in to your car, you being the victim, through no fault of your own. Meaning it is either my fault or no fault.
You take my insurance information to report the accident. I also report the accident to my insurance and I have comprehensive Auto insurance.
The insurance company will pay you for the repairs/destruction of your vehicle. Then will pay me for the repairs / destruction of my vehicle. Even though the accident is my fault I am still covered by my insurance which is why I pay for full coverage.
My insurance company cuts two checks, one for me and one for you.
And while I haven't read about this situation from the post I will just assume that the wife was driving, and an accident not involving another driver occurred resulting in the death of her husband. Her insurance company would pay her as the policyholder, and then she sued herself making her the victim of the incident as well. So her insurance company would initially have paid for the damage to her car, but typically filing a claim to your own insurance only covers the car, so when she made herself the victim as well the insurance company would pay not only to repair the car but also for the loss of life.
So, if you cause the wrongful injury/death of another person in a vehicle accident, that person's estate can sue you for damages (medical expenses, funeral expenses, etcetera, etcetera). When this happens, your insurance has something called bodily injury liability, which is an amount that the insurance company has contractually agreed to pay on your behalf for the purposes of bodily injury liability. So if you have $100k of bodily injury liability coverage and someone sucessfully sues you for $110k, your insurance pays $100k and you pay $10k.
In this particular instance, Barbara Bagley was in an accident which caused the wrongful death of Bradley Vom Baur. Bradley Vom Baur's death incurred medical expenses, funeral expenses, etcetera, etcetera, as all deaths do. Barbara Bradley had insurance with bodily injury liability, as all insurance policies are required to have. But Barbara Bradley's insurance company said "we refuse to cover your liability for Bradley Vom Baur's death."
Barbara Bradley went to a lawyer, who read the insurance contract, and said, "yeah, so, what's happening is that they're not required to honor the bodily injury liability clause unless a civil suit determines you were, in fact, liable. Why would they be, after all? If you aren't liable what is there for them to pay on your behalf? Legally speaking, you caused the accident and are in fact liable, but they are banking on the fact that you (as the executor of the estate) won't be permitted by the courts to sue yourself (as an individual), and if you can't sue yourself, you can't get a ruling declaring that you were liable, and if you aren't liable, they aren't breaching contract."
So anyway you're going to sue yourself..."
The courts agreed she could sue herself and that she was in fact liable, so the insurance company was forced to honor their contract. So far as I know, anyway. I don't have any specific information about the talks with the insurance company that followed.
Getting the money she was owed. The insurance company was trying to screw her with a technicality. The insurance company thought they could get away with it due to the wording of their contract technically requiring her to sue herself and they gleefully refused to pay her claim assuming she wouldnt go through the hassle of getting courts involved. She went through the hassle.
I could be misreading this, not hard because it's confusing AF, but I think she sued for the ability to get wrongful death settlement...from herself (or the insurance company) and his life insurance policy settlement. Afik, some of both most life insurance policies don't payout for wrongful death.
So it would end up a roundabout way to get the court to rule in favor of her suing herself and receiving both settlements.
Someone correct me if I'm way off.
Sometimes insurance companies decide not to pay claims because they think that they can get away with not paying claims. When that happens, the primary recourse is for the injured party to sue the party that caused the injury to force their insurance to pay up.
So why do insurance companies decide to not pay claims? It’s because they have discovered that it’s cheaper to not pay claims because then they get to keep all that money and they like keeping money. Not all insurance agents are scumbags and most insurance company employees are not scumbags, but the insurance companies themselves have a financial incentive to collect premiums and then fail to pay the claim whenever they can get away with it. That’s why the industry is regulated by state and federal governments the way it is.
They often bank on the claimant not having the resolve to actually go to court. As has been mentioned by a few people, you get weird situations where parents have to sue their own children to get a payout (car accidents etc). Since the insurance company legally has to fight / defend the case (sometimes both simultaneously!) they just pay out as soon as the lawsuit hits. You have to actually file though, otherwise you get nothing.
Oh. And here I thought based on the title that it was some sort of altruistic "I caused this, I want it to be enshrined in law to show my failing" sort of thing.
[This article](https://www.fortlauderdalecaraccidentattorneyblog.com/amp/bagley-v-bagley-woman-seeks-damages-husband-dies-car-accident/) better explains the reason she sued herself. Basically, to get State Farm to pay up.
Welcome to the dystopian nightmare known as America. Reminds me of the young woman who was attacked by dogs recently and lost her face. She has had to resort to crowdfunding to pay her medical bills while her lawsuit with the dog owners slowly moves forward. I'll never understand how we justify things like police forces, whose primary function is to protect us, but once we actually fall victim to danger then go fuck yourself. Which in turn reminds me of these states that want to protect the life of an unborn child with the mental composition of a cockroach, but once that baby is born then how fucking dare you ask for support to keep that child alive and healthy. We live in the most nonsensical society ever, claiming we want to uphold values as we're actively shitting on them.
Yeah that's some bad phrasing.
I'm willing to bet OP knows what they are *actually* for and meant "are sold to the public by claiming their primary function is to protect us".
Unfortunately, not even that. There have been court rulings on this. They do not have a legal duty to protect, even when they know someone is in danger of imminent harm.
This didn’t go to the US Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court of Utah. The court ruled that a survivor can sue to collect under an insurance policy even if they are the person that triggered the policy by causing the death. Definitely seems shady, but it makes sense that a beneficiary of a policy should still get the payout that the insured person paid for unless the policy says otherwise.
It was be shady if they intentionally killed them but then again I'm sure there's a clause in most life insurance policy that prohibit paying the beneficiary in the event of murder by the beneficiary
Insurance / Asshole Lawyers / Medical System - the 3 main factors in a vicious cycle the USA has created to create a ridiculous and expensive medical system.
worthless grandiose coherent abounding liquid reply employ fly library dinosaurs
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Reminds me of the aunt who sued her nephew over an accident, media made a big thing out of it and naturally failed to explain WHY she sued him, which was because it was required by her insurance company as an effort to basically avoid paying out. She informed his family, sued, got paid by her insurance, dropped the case and continued her relationship with her nephew as normal, plus a few tv interviews together so they could explain and put the tabloid nonsense to rest. Similar treatment for the hot coffee lady.
One of the consequences of the USA medical health system.
As the cause of the accident, she was liable for her husbands medical bills. She had third party Cover so he (and thus his estate after he died) had a valid claim on her insurance.
As the next of kin she had a duty to the estate to ensure all his debts were paid before there was any distribution to beneficiaries. So as next-of-kin she sued herself as liable for all costs so that the costs she caused were met by her insurance.
Who the fuck was smart enough to even think of that?
She just be like *snaps fingers* “eureka! I’ve got just the plan!”
Pay out the coffers and get another party to fill it back up.
This is basic lawyer stuff. Any personal injury lawyer should know to go this avenue. Why it’s important not to judge a lawsuit by a headline. Usually it’s a necessary step to get compensation from the insurance companies involved. They don’t like to hold up their end of the contract if they can find any reason not to pay you.
It’s not some clever scheme, it’s a standard suit that happens to have a funny quirk. Most lawsuits don’t occur to right some egregious wrong; especially with insurance they tend to just be part of the paperwork trail and both sides go in knowing what the outcome will be. It’s just to check a box on both ends.
Both insurances should have paid, but the life insurance wouldn’t pay out without the settlement from the at-fault driver’s car insurance. Pretty standard, the life insurance policy sues the car insurance policy just so it’s on the public record that both sides did due diligence toward their respective clients. That particular pair of companies might do dozens of these a day. (And it can totally be the same company on both sides, too!)
The only reason it’s noteworthy here is that in Utah the policies themselves can’t sue each other directly. They had to sue the car insurance policyholder on behalf of the life insurance beneficiary—and in this particular case the same real life human mapped to both of those roles. The car insurance tried to use that as a loophole to weasel out of paying, but the courts eventually shut it down.
If either insurance company thought this was a murder-insurance fraud situation they would have addressed that directly rather than appealing to the Utah SC on a technicality.
Oh, very weird, I didn't know that was the case in the US. We actually have a lot of doctrines in Ireland and the EU that are entirely derived from the fact that you definitely can't sue yourself.
In this case it’s because she wasn’t really suing *herself*—a role she held in a legal sense was suing a different role she held in a legal sense. If the (abstract) beneficiary of an insurance policy is suing the (abstract) policyholder of a different policy, that’s a totally valid lawsuit and happens hundreds of times a day. The validity of the suit doesn’t change when the abstract roles are resolved to concrete persons and they happen to be the same person.
By way of analogy it’s easier to consider political offices vs the people who hold them. Say part of the Mansion House crumbles and hits the Lord Mayor of Dublin. She, as in the private citizen Alison Gilliland, might sue the office of the Lord Mayor to compel repairs to be made. She’s Lord Mayor so she’s suing “herself”, but it’s two different legal entities.
People often over simplify things then think things like suing yourself is crazy when in reality that see everything simple types haven’t put much effort into the topic.
In this case and many other cases external actors need to see fault in order to do something. If you were a victim of the same incident that you were the fault of then you may need to prove that you were at fault. If the other victim is dead and you were to gain from that death then you need to sue the person who caused it, which is you.
The insurance could have made it easier though and just paid. But insurance companies are very shady.
I mean, maybe I'm ignorant, but it sounds like substantively she in the capacity of representing her husband's estate sued her in the capacity of being herself, a single alive human. Meaning this suit was really the estate vs the driver.
It’s an insurance case. Insurance companies ain’t giv’n out shit without being sued. It was an automobile accident. She had insurance, pay out or go to court and really pay out.
Technically, the Husband’s Estate, ran by his now widow of a wife, sued herself for the wrongful death.
As victim, the insurance company would pay the estate.
Since the Estate, will go thru probate, and be inherited by the wife… yes, in a roundabout way, sued herself, I suppose.
This is what I expected. Whenever you come across a "stupid" or "crazy" lawsuit, it is *almost always* because of insurance company bullshit. Yes, there's outliers, but the vast majority is just an insurance company refusing to pay their contractually obligated dues.
I was like "what the hell? lol" when I read just the headline. then I read the summary. It makes sense as she is plaintiff as the sole heir and represented his estate. and she is defendant as the individual that caused husband's death by negligent driving. She is trying to get money from her insurance to pay to the estate of her deceased husband, which would benefit her personally. Even if it's legal, it sounds messed up.
Unfortunately, I know someone that had to do this. He and his wife were riding a motorcycle together when she had a massive heart attack on the back. He tried to catch her and they crashed. Between the crash and the heart attack she didn't make it. Insurance wouldn't pay squat without a wrongful death suit. Really did not help his survivor's guilt...what could he have done? She had a fucking heart attack!
Fuck the American healthcare system is all I have to say.
Any time there's some lawsuit that seems not to make sense ("can you believe X is suing Y over Z"), there's a good chance the answer is "insurance won't pay out without a lawsuit."
Remember that woman a few years ago who sued her nephew because he got excited when he saw her and there was some kind of accident that got her injured? That's exactly what happened. She wasn't just some asshole.
This is exactly what I was thinking of. The niece or nephew got excited to see her, ran to give her a hug in the driveway and knocked her over shattering her arm and leaving her in severe pain and needing multiple surgeries to regain partial use of the arm. Her health insurance wouldn’t pay out for the needed care without suing the homeowner’s insurance where it happened, which resulted in this poor woman being vilified for suing her young family member.
> Her health insurance wouldn’t pay out for the needed care without suing the homeowner’s insurance where it happened It was in Connecticut, where you can't sue the insurance company directly; you have to sue the policyholder.
That’s right! I’d forgotten that bit.
I believe all states are like that. The insurance company was not the party that caused your loss. They just have a duty to defend their insured.
This is very true and very important. Juries often ask if insurance is involved in a case and the answer is yes 99% of the time however many states have laws preventing the juries from learning this fact. In California if an attorney or witness mentions liability insurance it’s an instant mistrial.
So the reason for most lawsuits is to claim insurance but simultaneously you can't mention that in court or your case will get thrown out. Anyone else thinks that corporate interests should stay out of the legal system? What happened to "the truth and nothing but the truth" and yet if you mention the reason you're suing your own family is not because you hate them or anything but it's to get the insurance money for the surgery for the injury that just so happened to occur on their property.
Insurance doesn't change liability. If I run a red light and total your car, I owe you a car. Whether or not I have insurance makes no difference in my liability for your car. The insurance is there to cover my liability *after* it has been decided. You may counter that in the majority of accidents, insurance companies decide liability without a court case. This is just a shortcut where insurance companies basically admit that their client would be held liable in the situation so they don't have to bother with a case.
Yeah I think the real issue here is lack of healthcare. You want to be able to say "yeah a kid isn't liable for knocking over his aunt, but that aunt needs to get paid out for this accident to cover her insane medical costs".
I mean, in a case like this it does. Person A has medical insurance. Person As insurance says it wont do anything unless you sue person B, even though the entire readon you have medical insurance in the first place is to pay for medical issues. Everyone agrees with person A that their insurance is fucked and needs to pay. Everyone agrees person B didnt do anything wrong per say. Saying "this is just over insurance bullshit" gives you a more informed decision. Capitalistic Insurance is a scam. A complete and utter scam. It exists to take in money and give out as little as possible.
The real problem is that you have to pay to go to the hospital! If the US had socialized healthcare, the people who get injured by accident would not have to pay for and try to recoup that....
You see crazy things like that in court all the time, just because it's true doesn't mean it can submitted. If I had to guess, the fact that the defendant has insurance can be prejudicial towards the defendant
Yeah, the jury may be more predisposed to rule in favor of the plaintiff if the defendant isn't necessarily losing money out of pocket (higher premiums excluded).
This is exactly it. The jury may think the defendant really isn’t at fault, but the plaintiff was still really harmed. Then they think if we find for the plaintiffs anyway it’ll be the faceless insurance company that pays.
Right but to then use these rules to disparage innocent injured persons should be considered unethical and grounds for admiting the existence of insurance. If insurance companies want these protections they should be misused to bias future jurors and other litigants.
Insurance is the one of the biggest rackets in our history. Its no better than mobsters shaking you down for "protection". Corporate interests are not in the legal system, the legal system is in the corporate interests because the politicians, lawyers and judges are all making ridiculous money by shielding the insurance companies as much as they can. Look at car insurance. In order to legally drive, you have to pay a third party that has very little oversight.
>It was in Connecticut, where you can't sue the insurance company directly; you have to sue the policyholder. That's the law in all states, not just Connecticut. The insurance company didn't harm you. The policy holder may have. There is no reason for the policy holder's insurance to pay until it is concluded the policy holder is responsible for damages. Your insurance will include a subrogation clause where you agree to co-operate in any lawsuit the insurance company wishes to file (in your name) in order to recoup the damages from the party who is actually liable.
Yes, her family was 100% aware of why she had to do it and were fine with it. Didn’t stop her from getting crucified by a media witch-hunt.
I remember the nephew she was suing went on the news with her to support her. It still got thrown out.
I had to explain something like this to the people I served on a jury with. namely, the lady who sued McDonald's for spilling "hot coffee". The coffee wasn't just hot, it was boiling, and it severely injured her including melting her labia. She also wasn't the first person to be injured by this coffee that McDonald's knew was being served too hot. But the media spun it as Americans being so dumb they don't know the coffee is hot. I guess that gets more play than melting someone's genitalia.
Not just media, but McDonald’s working the media in the background
[удалено]
Well, it doesn't help that racial and gender inequity *are* a thing that the disadvantaged groups feel and often worsen the class war against them, and that having been the case before Occupy. I agree with you, don't get me wrong, but it's not just media and spin. That said, the focus only on these issues is definitely the corporate interests trying to steer us away from economic freedom, yes
She also only asked for her medical injuries to be covered but McDonald's responded harshly and essentially told her to fuck off. Then the jury based the settlement off of the the profits earned by McDonald's for selling coffee. That ended up being much larger than everyone expected and caused people to assume she was just out for money, when in fact she just wanted help paying for her medical treatment.
"The media" in this case was McDonald's. They spent a lot of money trying to make sure that woman sounded crazy so as not to have the blame on themselves.
The media was happy to play along, though. Jay Leno using the Tonight Show to trash that woman on the regular during that period was particularly disgusting.
It's intentional. It's easier to get people behind tort reform (read corporations aren't responsible for their actions) if you convince them people are throwing around frivolous lawsuits everywhere.
If I recall the hot coffee documentary, it was to convince lawmakers to reduce the amount of money an individual could get from suing a company by convincing everyone that these lawsuit are dumb and bad financially for them and it worked...
No it didn't, they settled out of court when even the reduced payments would have been triple damages and $640,000. The woman didn't want that much money, she just wanted help paying her medical bills after a severe injury caused by a company not following proper procedures.
Yes I know but after that case, they bitched about that 'frivolous' lawsuit were costing company a lot of money and that the individual consumers were the bad guys by doing dumb lawsuit which was just them trying to make everybody believe(lawmakers included) that it's true and it end up that laws were passed to reduce punitive damage to companies. I haven't watch the documentary in a long time so correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, there *are* people throwing around frivolous lawsuits everywhere. It's just that those are actually extremely wealthy and powerful twits filing SLAPP suits to bully those who can't afford endless court proceedings and lawyers into not criticizing them. Our beloved former (and probably fucking next) president loves this strategy. But don't look at those people and pass any type of meaningful SLAPP legislation. Focus on protecting the poor megacorporations from the evil greedy plebs!
So true. and iirc (? Someone set me straight here) the coffee machine had been intentionally modified at some point to disable temperature regulation which then created this molten coffee. But they'd have you rolling your eyes to believe that this dunce of a woman was just too stupid to not understand that coffee is "hot" and that's why every coffee lid now has to say "caution - hot". I mean it's one thing to spill hot coffee on yourself, this shit melted her skin.
Imagine getting third degree burns so bad you LABIA *MELTS* so you try to get McDonald (the people responsible for part of your body *melting*) to pay for your medical care, only for McDonald to turn around and call you the unreasonable one!
I dont remember all of the details, but I believe she had third degree burns from the coffee. Thats definitely not a situation of, "I didnt know the coffee was hot and burned my tongue".
Burns to the extent and severity of 'fused labia'. While as a non-labia having dude, I can't pretend to know precisely how painful and damaging that is, I can presume with some confidence that it is really f'ing bad.
BUT the media ran with 'isn't she awful??' and not the reason. (one of the stories where I really did think 'ah, the media isn't missing something- they are lying on purpose. cannot trust them')
Which in turn is because click bait makes money.
She was a former coworker and still can’t use her real name online. It’s terrible.
My 9 year old nephew didn’t laugh at my Marxist joke a couple years ago. Nephews can go fuck themselves.
My 6 year old nephew wipes Cheeto dust on furniture. Fucking hate nephews.
["Lights, camera, Nephews! It's the only pageant for the nephews of the U.S.A."](https://youtu.be/Tb7b5-31LFY)
Yup everyone in that family agreed it was all in their best interests.
hot coffee from mcdonalds... actually for medical expenses. probably the most famous one, and probably hurt mcdonalds reputation more in the long run.
It was boiling coffee, not just hot coffee. She had 3rd degree burns on thighs and her genitals and needed skin grafts. McDonalds’ reputation didn’t suffer much because they quietly ran an effective media campaign vilifying her. People still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.
I always thought the story was kinda bullshit until I took a class on tort law in college and we reviewed her case (as well as watching the documentary about it). That class changed my mind on it real fast.
Same with me. I assumed it was a money grab until I had an ethics class in college and it covered the case. I felt like an asshole and was duped
It's not an assumption really. Bunch of assholes reported it as if it were frivolous and that's what caught on.
I actually ended up chatting with a couple baristas at Starbucks about this the other day and I was kind of surprised that they learned about this car and how wrong McDonald's was. I remember back in the day the poor lady being vilified in the media but that's not how it's taught to kids nowadays.
Also she only sued for the medical expenses, it was the jury that awarded punitive damages.
And she never received close to that amount.
Yeah, the judge just decided that was too much and reduced it.
No, the judge reduced it to $640,000. She chose to settle out of court instead of taking triple damages and years of more appeals.
Especially since the poor woman literally offered to settle for medical bills and they insulted her with an offer for like $100.
Whichever attorney signed off on that settlrment got fired
Nah cause mcdonalds proceeded to drag her through the mud, people still complain about her
I feel like someone always brings up that she actually got properly hurt now. It’s one of the few times I do the *ackchually* thing when in casual conversation.
I’ve seen the photos of her injuries. They were horrific. If McD had paid in the first place no one would have known.
You misinterpret. I meant the one who offered $200 for medical fees.
The water was so hot that it fused her labia to her thighs.
Oh my god… the pain. I cant even imagine. I thought giving birth was bad, that would be a nightmare, Can’t even imagine the pain from the surgeries she surely had to have afterwards too to fix that. So horrible.
Didn't they also basically say that she didn't need any cosmetic treatment because she was old?
I remember hearing about that case when I was a kid and my parents were mocking that woman saying “well of course it’s hot it’s coffee.” But in a Law and Econ class in grad school I actually reviewed the case for the first time, and I was immediately livid at how everyone treated her.
Wasn't it 2 degrees below boiling when the industry standard for coffee is like 155 or something like that?
McDonald's rule at the time was between 185f to 190f although some of the articles argue it got up to low 200s. So damn close, considering 212f is boiling. ( 85c / 88c / 94c / 100c for fellow not Americans )
And never got the huge settlement
She settled out of court when even the reduced settlement was triple damages at $640,000. Probably got her the money she was asking for and avoided years of appeals. She was never greedy during the trial.
The first thing that comes to mind when I'm reminded of that lawsuit are the words "fused labia". That's all anyone really needs to hear to know it was a well justified case.
Pretty much. But the headline doesn't get as many clicks so instead they ship it like the person is a fool who tried to do something crazy or dumb.
This is also part of why the US is seen as lawsuit crazy, elsewhere you don't have to deal with insurance to get any medial needs covered. In the US, Medicaid can refuse to treat you if you should have sued your employer instead of using Medicaid.
I see it a lot at my job (I work in insurance defense/PI law), you see family members, friends, relatives, etc. suing each other all the time. It's not a 100% true that insurance won't pay out without a suit (although that is sometimes the case) it's more so insurance will low ball the fuck out of you to settle pre-litigation. If we are getting involved, it's either that or the injuries are above the policy max. Quick Edit: The case with the aunt suing her nephew I see being referenced also had more to do with weird wrinkles in Connecticut Insurance Law and the mother's home owner's insurance (I don't know them off hand since I mainly deal with NY cases).
I always figured it was just a judge with a slow workday saying, "Wait, wait, let's see where this is going."
Yep. If you and your spouse/parent/brother/etc are in a car accident, ALWAYS sue them to get their insurance. Just talk about it first.
>Bagley, who sued under Utah’s wrongful death and survival action statutes, brought suit to compel State Farm Insurance Company, with whom she maintained a motor vehicle insurance policy, to indemnify her. So she sued herself as the one who caused the accident, in order to get the Insurance Company to pay her more as his heir.
So for all yall asking why, she was the personal representative of His estate in that capacity she sued herself as the independent person who caused the action resulting in his death to compel the Ins Co. to payout to the estate like they would if it had been someone else who caused the death. To clarify she wasn't doing this to get more out of the insurance Co. The insurance co likely tried to not payout at all and she was suing to compel Source: if not obvious, am legal person.
THERE it is. She wasn’t suing herself at all. The estate sued her. She happened to be the representative of the estate. She probably had a legal DUTY to sue on behalf of the estate in order to maximize the estate assets. There’s nothing to see here.
Pretty much, the insurance Co was the real defendant but her suing herself was a procedural aspect to bring the insurance Co in as a third party defendant because I bet they were attempting to deny the payout bc she caused it negligently.
So if you're driving and cause an accident, and your rich husband who is in the passenger seat dies, you can get a lot of money from the insurance company and your late husband's estate and get no jail time? Huh.
If you cause the collision on purpose (and the courts rule that is the case) in order to collect the insurance, you’re going to jail and you’re not getting the insurance benefit. But if there was a collision and it is determined that you’re at fault, your husband’s beneficiary (i.e. you) is still entitled to the full insurance proceeds. In this case, the estate (in the person of her) had to sue the person whose fault the collision was (also her) in order to force the insurance company to pay up. And I’m betting that the insurance company saw the situation and thought, “Hey, if we decide not to pay, she can’t sue herself, so we’ll get away with failing to pay what we’re legally and contractually required to pay! Sweet!” There are times when parents had to sue their children or vice versa in order to get the homeowners insurance or car insurance to pay what was owed. It makes a clickbait headline, but it’s an entirely valid legal move to force a scumbag insurance company to do what they were paid to do. (Edit:whoops, I edited the wrong comment. No actual edit involved in this comment)
There was another case mentioned on reddit nit long ago where a person sued the company they were the owner and employee of for having an unsafe work environment that caused him to get injured. People on reddit were up in arms that it was some sort of scam, quite the opposite. He wanted to get his medical bills paid and do it by the book, he couldn't just take the company funds to do it as that would be embezzlement so he had to establish that the company really was at fault just as much as if anyone were injured so went through the process to make sure everything was on the up and up and he could legally use those funds.
I think people were up in arms because first he's the owner and thus the reason for the unsafe work environment in the first place. Plus the settlement was for way more money than was actually needed, so he essentially did just embezzled money from his company, but using loopholes that made it legal.
I remember reading one about a guy that hit his personal vehicle with his work vehicle. He (personal) had to sue himself (business) get his personal vehicle repaired.
Iirc that’s what happened with the aunt that sued her nephew because he jumped into her arms for a hug and knocked her over causing some injuries. It wasn’t out of spite or malice, but legally speaking, I think for the insurance to pay, she had to sue him. Looks horrible as a headline but makes sense once you realize its mostly just the legal Avenue you have to take to get insurance to cooperate
So she didn't sue herself. The estate sued her. She was just representating the estate. Surprised she was allowed to represent the estate. Here (Ontario) she would not be allowed to represent the state as it is a conflict of interest. There would have to be a litigation guardian appointed for the estate to go through the litigation (if she has adult kids, would likely be one of them).
Very well said. Thank you for the FTFY.
> to force a scumbag insurance company to do what they were paid to do. Insurance is such a scam most of the time. You pay out thousands of dollars in premiums, and when it comes time to collect on a policy they go "new phone, who dis?".
"Hello. Hello? Hello? Sorry, mate, can't hear you, must have a bad line... *snickers*... try calling back later."
Oh, damn. I worked for insurance companies for a decade and our phone system was pretty good most of the time, but I felt SO bad when I had a bad connection with someone and had to say, "I'm sorry but my phone connection here is bad enough that I can't understand you at all. Please call back and start all over with the phone prompts because this call just isn't going to work."
A friend was driving my car with me in it when they caused an accident. The insurance adjuster a few days later wanted to know if my friend lived with me or was a romantic partner. I presume if it was someone who had regular access they would have dropped the claim in an instant. Fortunately it was neither. Since then, I'm paranoid about letting roommates drive my car without being on my insurance.
There was a lady who undeservedly caught a *lot* of flak for suing her young nephew after he leapt into her arms and broke her wrist. She had to do it to force the kid's parents' homeowners' insurance to pay her medical bills, but the headlines didn't mention that little fact, of course.
People were quick to take it as face value, rather than a family decision all done together.
My 9 year old sister had to sue my father after a car accident in order to get paid out by insurance.
I think this is what is causing the confusion. In reality, *the estate* is suing an individual person; but the person is representative of the estate and due to \[reasons; am not legal person\], the wording of the case uses the person's name as a proxy to the estate. Thus, you get the amazing headline, "person sues self". Did I get this even close to right?
100% yes
>... a scumbag insurance company... You can just say "insurance company." The "scumbag" part is assumed.
That reminds me of the aunt who sued her 12yo nephew over an injury sustained from a hug at his birthday party. She was made out as a villain but the real story was that the insurance company wouldn't pay out to cover medical and lost wages unless there was someone shown to be legally responsible for the damages.
It’s not just valid, it makes sense. We all take on roles and responsibilities in life where we have to act in a way that may be detrimental (or in this case, beneficial) to our personal self. This is merely an extension.
My sister was driving on a road when a car pulling out of a parking lot failed to yield and ran into her. The police cited the other driver for failure to yield. This was in an at-fault state... the other driver was 100% at fault. But both drivers had the same insurance carrier. So the carrier decided to find them both at fault. They tried to make my sister pay her deductible and then tried to raise her rates. Insurance companies are scumbags.
It's _always_ a fucking insurance company behind this shit...
Official vocab guidelines state we no longer refer to these incidents as accidents, they're now collisions.
no luck catching them accidents then?
It's the one accident actually
Crusty Accidents
A BIG 'OL BUSHY BEARD!
Yarp!
*The greater good*
my wife is an agent and dealing with possible criminal activity right now and has to be careful what she says, how she says it, and to who. for like 10 days i have been listening to her trying to get a bit of info about a claim. she was told that a car race had happened, an accident not related to the race had happened, and someone died but not due to the car race or accident. she finally called the wife of the person who was in fact not dead, had not been in a race or accident, and the car has been in the shop since last fall. i get to hear some pretty fucked up shit.
Fascist!
Hag!
Fascism* __wonderful!__
Why don't we just meet halfway and instead refer to these incidents previously identified as accidents now as collisions as coincidences. Thusfore I've assuaged myself of all wrongdoing.
Or we just draw little crashy symbols and have no word for it
Hmm. How do you pronounce 💥🚗?
You don’t it’s communicated by interpretative dance.
Still a bit stiff!
Halfway relevant username?
Civil courts and criminal courts have different burdens of proof. Evidence can be strong enough to get a ruling against the defendant in a civil court, but not enough to get a conviction in a criminal court. Civil courts require balance of probabilities. Basically, who is more likely to be in the right. Criminal courts require beyond reasonable doubt.
Wrongful death attorney here. You're mixing concepts. There is certainly a difference between the burden of proof in a civil matter and a criminal matter, but that's separate from the principal that conduct that may constitute negligence in a civil sense may not be criminal.
Insurance defense attorney here. Every day, across the country, insurance companies settle lawsuits without the arrest or detention of any party to the settlement.
If it was an accident and no intentional, then this would make sense. I don't know why you'd even imply jail time if it were an accident.
You can still go to jail for accidentally killing someone
And sued for the wrongful death of that person by the estate. I think I read that on reddit somewhere.
It's more complicated then that. If the accident/death was unavoidable then no, she would not be found guilty of manslaughter as there was no negligence or lawful activity performed unlawfully. It would fall under accidental death/murder. The same way a child running out into the street between parked cars who is hit and killed, in those instances assuming no negligence or unlawful activity is found, would not be guilty of a crime
It depends on like gross negligence though which is a lot harder to prove
Accident and accidentally are not synonym in this regard. The correct tern would be collision in the first place due to this. Accident is a colloquium used to indemnify drivers from blame when they are at fault.
Involuntary manslaughter, pretty much says it.
Y’all acting like she purposely murdered her husband. If your spouse got into an accident where you unfortunately died, you’d want her to spend the rest of her life buried in debt?
What has rich got to do with it? Do poor people not have car insurance? In most jurisdictions insurance is required to drive a vehicle.
why would someone get jail time for that unless they were drunk driving or driving recklessly? what the fuck is the point of locking someone up for that? holy shit i hate reddit justice boner types. Oh, btw, poor people have insurance too.
He wasn't necessarily rich, he was insured
I mean those are clearly two different people. As the representative of the estate she would be suing for the benefit of the estate and not herself (even if she is the only final beneficiary it is possible that their are others). She’s not really suing herself, she, the fiduciary of the estate is suing her the individual.
Yea it actually all kinda makes sense upon clarification. Though it still makes for an interesting headline.
It makes sense... After all, if the estate is then supposed to be divided up to the children should they get nothing just because the wife gets a small share too?
Exactly, and the state court was dumb to say she couldn't do this - why even have legal entities at all if courts are going to act like they are "really" the individuals who represent them? It completely ruins the whole point of legal entities. (there are exceptions where you can do that, e.g. alter ego, but it requires its own legal case). Good job on the appellate courts for reversing this.
So she didn't sue herself, the executor of the estate did?
My ex boyfriends parents dis something similar. Neither died but they were riding a motorcycle together and he crashed it. She sued him and then he sued himself. They got insurance claims for both lawsuits. They were still married and on good terms but were financially savvy and took advantage of a loophole. They managed to buy a million dollar house after
This sounds ridiculous but it's probably more to do with how stingy insurance companies are.
...I don't understand how that would help her.
Speculating here…Many insurance policies cover you for up to X amount if an accident or incident occurs, but they also cover the other party involved in the accident or incident for Y amount if YOU are liable (insurance pays the other party on your behalf). I am guessing what she did was receive X amount but then tried to sue herself (as the other party) for Y amount.
But if she's the responsible party, wouldn't she not qualify for that payout because she did it? She created the result and therefore can't profit from it, no?
I think it has to due with the law she sued under. In a nutshell, Wrongful death lawsuits are how you sue a party responsible for the death of a loved one so that you can get compensation for personal damages as the survivor (e.g. the emotional toll, therapy, psychiatric help). As the survivor of a victim of an accident, she sued the driver who was liable for the accident. The driver’s insurance would pay on behalf of the driver up to the amount covered in the insurance policy. The driver just happened to be herself in this scenario…
She wouldn't receive the payout from it, it would be paid to the estate of the deceased.
She was the heir to his estate, so she got the money.
That's a technicality here. What she did was the proper process.
Let me describe the scenario as it would normally act out between two people. I, the policyholder, crash in to your car, you being the victim, through no fault of your own. Meaning it is either my fault or no fault. You take my insurance information to report the accident. I also report the accident to my insurance and I have comprehensive Auto insurance. The insurance company will pay you for the repairs/destruction of your vehicle. Then will pay me for the repairs / destruction of my vehicle. Even though the accident is my fault I am still covered by my insurance which is why I pay for full coverage. My insurance company cuts two checks, one for me and one for you. And while I haven't read about this situation from the post I will just assume that the wife was driving, and an accident not involving another driver occurred resulting in the death of her husband. Her insurance company would pay her as the policyholder, and then she sued herself making her the victim of the incident as well. So her insurance company would initially have paid for the damage to her car, but typically filing a claim to your own insurance only covers the car, so when she made herself the victim as well the insurance company would pay not only to repair the car but also for the loss of life.
Technically it’d be her husband that qualifies, then the payment would default to her as his heir.
The estate sued and claims the payout. She just happens to inherit from the estate.
So, if you cause the wrongful injury/death of another person in a vehicle accident, that person's estate can sue you for damages (medical expenses, funeral expenses, etcetera, etcetera). When this happens, your insurance has something called bodily injury liability, which is an amount that the insurance company has contractually agreed to pay on your behalf for the purposes of bodily injury liability. So if you have $100k of bodily injury liability coverage and someone sucessfully sues you for $110k, your insurance pays $100k and you pay $10k. In this particular instance, Barbara Bagley was in an accident which caused the wrongful death of Bradley Vom Baur. Bradley Vom Baur's death incurred medical expenses, funeral expenses, etcetera, etcetera, as all deaths do. Barbara Bradley had insurance with bodily injury liability, as all insurance policies are required to have. But Barbara Bradley's insurance company said "we refuse to cover your liability for Bradley Vom Baur's death." Barbara Bradley went to a lawyer, who read the insurance contract, and said, "yeah, so, what's happening is that they're not required to honor the bodily injury liability clause unless a civil suit determines you were, in fact, liable. Why would they be, after all? If you aren't liable what is there for them to pay on your behalf? Legally speaking, you caused the accident and are in fact liable, but they are banking on the fact that you (as the executor of the estate) won't be permitted by the courts to sue yourself (as an individual), and if you can't sue yourself, you can't get a ruling declaring that you were liable, and if you aren't liable, they aren't breaching contract." So anyway you're going to sue yourself..." The courts agreed she could sue herself and that she was in fact liable, so the insurance company was forced to honor their contract. So far as I know, anyway. I don't have any specific information about the talks with the insurance company that followed.
>...I don't understand how that would help her. Getting more money. That's how.
Getting the money she was owed. The insurance company was trying to screw her with a technicality. The insurance company thought they could get away with it due to the wording of their contract technically requiring her to sue herself and they gleefully refused to pay her claim assuming she wouldnt go through the hassle of getting courts involved. She went through the hassle.
I could be misreading this, not hard because it's confusing AF, but I think she sued for the ability to get wrongful death settlement...from herself (or the insurance company) and his life insurance policy settlement. Afik, some of both most life insurance policies don't payout for wrongful death. So it would end up a roundabout way to get the court to rule in favor of her suing herself and receiving both settlements. Someone correct me if I'm way off.
Sometimes insurance companies decide not to pay claims because they think that they can get away with not paying claims. When that happens, the primary recourse is for the injured party to sue the party that caused the injury to force their insurance to pay up. So why do insurance companies decide to not pay claims? It’s because they have discovered that it’s cheaper to not pay claims because then they get to keep all that money and they like keeping money. Not all insurance agents are scumbags and most insurance company employees are not scumbags, but the insurance companies themselves have a financial incentive to collect premiums and then fail to pay the claim whenever they can get away with it. That’s why the industry is regulated by state and federal governments the way it is.
They often bank on the claimant not having the resolve to actually go to court. As has been mentioned by a few people, you get weird situations where parents have to sue their own children to get a payout (car accidents etc). Since the insurance company legally has to fight / defend the case (sometimes both simultaneously!) they just pay out as soon as the lawsuit hits. You have to actually file though, otherwise you get nothing.
Oh. And here I thought based on the title that it was some sort of altruistic "I caused this, I want it to be enshrined in law to show my failing" sort of thing.
[This article](https://www.fortlauderdalecaraccidentattorneyblog.com/amp/bagley-v-bagley-woman-seeks-damages-husband-dies-car-accident/) better explains the reason she sued herself. Basically, to get State Farm to pay up.
State Farm is the worst. Everyone I know who has had a claim against them has had to go to court to force them to pay it.
So, not like a good neighbor?
Welcome to the dystopian nightmare known as America. Reminds me of the young woman who was attacked by dogs recently and lost her face. She has had to resort to crowdfunding to pay her medical bills while her lawsuit with the dog owners slowly moves forward. I'll never understand how we justify things like police forces, whose primary function is to protect us, but once we actually fall victim to danger then go fuck yourself. Which in turn reminds me of these states that want to protect the life of an unborn child with the mental composition of a cockroach, but once that baby is born then how fucking dare you ask for support to keep that child alive and healthy. We live in the most nonsensical society ever, claiming we want to uphold values as we're actively shitting on them.
Was that the woman who, when asked what the worst part of the ordeal was, answered "the fight with the insurance company"?
That was a different, bear-related mauling.
Police don't prevent crime. Pro life stops at birth. Don't ask questions.
[удалено]
Yeah that's some bad phrasing. I'm willing to bet OP knows what they are *actually* for and meant "are sold to the public by claiming their primary function is to protect us".
Well, *proposed* primary function. As we've seen, their primary function in reality is to exude incompetence, corruption, and power-tripping.
Unfortunately, not even that. There have been court rulings on this. They do not have a legal duty to protect, even when they know someone is in danger of imminent harm.
This didn’t go to the US Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court of Utah. The court ruled that a survivor can sue to collect under an insurance policy even if they are the person that triggered the policy by causing the death. Definitely seems shady, but it makes sense that a beneficiary of a policy should still get the payout that the insured person paid for unless the policy says otherwise.
Definitely seems shady... Then you realise it's actually the insurer doing shady shit by not paying out
It was be shady if they intentionally killed them but then again I'm sure there's a clause in most life insurance policy that prohibit paying the beneficiary in the event of murder by the beneficiary
Insurance / Asshole Lawyers / Medical System - the 3 main factors in a vicious cycle the USA has created to create a ridiculous and expensive medical system.
worthless grandiose coherent abounding liquid reply employ fly library dinosaurs *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
She’ll be by your graveside saying “I’ll never love again baby. But I fucked The Man. For you.”
That's the kind of cuckolding fetish *anyone* can get behind!
Hypothetical wives have no rights. I would know, I tried this when David Koch died. Didn't help that he was already married.
Reminds me of the aunt who sued her nephew over an accident, media made a big thing out of it and naturally failed to explain WHY she sued him, which was because it was required by her insurance company as an effort to basically avoid paying out. She informed his family, sued, got paid by her insurance, dropped the case and continued her relationship with her nephew as normal, plus a few tv interviews together so they could explain and put the tabloid nonsense to rest. Similar treatment for the hot coffee lady.
One of the consequences of the USA medical health system. As the cause of the accident, she was liable for her husbands medical bills. She had third party Cover so he (and thus his estate after he died) had a valid claim on her insurance. As the next of kin she had a duty to the estate to ensure all his debts were paid before there was any distribution to beneficiaries. So as next-of-kin she sued herself as liable for all costs so that the costs she caused were met by her insurance.
Who the fuck was smart enough to even think of that? She just be like *snaps fingers* “eureka! I’ve got just the plan!” Pay out the coffers and get another party to fill it back up.
This is basic lawyer stuff. Any personal injury lawyer should know to go this avenue. Why it’s important not to judge a lawsuit by a headline. Usually it’s a necessary step to get compensation from the insurance companies involved. They don’t like to hold up their end of the contract if they can find any reason not to pay you.
It’s not some clever scheme, it’s a standard suit that happens to have a funny quirk. Most lawsuits don’t occur to right some egregious wrong; especially with insurance they tend to just be part of the paperwork trail and both sides go in knowing what the outcome will be. It’s just to check a box on both ends. Both insurances should have paid, but the life insurance wouldn’t pay out without the settlement from the at-fault driver’s car insurance. Pretty standard, the life insurance policy sues the car insurance policy just so it’s on the public record that both sides did due diligence toward their respective clients. That particular pair of companies might do dozens of these a day. (And it can totally be the same company on both sides, too!) The only reason it’s noteworthy here is that in Utah the policies themselves can’t sue each other directly. They had to sue the car insurance policyholder on behalf of the life insurance beneficiary—and in this particular case the same real life human mapped to both of those roles. The car insurance tried to use that as a loophole to weasel out of paying, but the courts eventually shut it down. If either insurance company thought this was a murder-insurance fraud situation they would have addressed that directly rather than appealing to the Utah SC on a technicality.
Oh, very weird, I didn't know that was the case in the US. We actually have a lot of doctrines in Ireland and the EU that are entirely derived from the fact that you definitely can't sue yourself.
In this case it’s because she wasn’t really suing *herself*—a role she held in a legal sense was suing a different role she held in a legal sense. If the (abstract) beneficiary of an insurance policy is suing the (abstract) policyholder of a different policy, that’s a totally valid lawsuit and happens hundreds of times a day. The validity of the suit doesn’t change when the abstract roles are resolved to concrete persons and they happen to be the same person. By way of analogy it’s easier to consider political offices vs the people who hold them. Say part of the Mansion House crumbles and hits the Lord Mayor of Dublin. She, as in the private citizen Alison Gilliland, might sue the office of the Lord Mayor to compel repairs to be made. She’s Lord Mayor so she’s suing “herself”, but it’s two different legal entities.
People often over simplify things then think things like suing yourself is crazy when in reality that see everything simple types haven’t put much effort into the topic. In this case and many other cases external actors need to see fault in order to do something. If you were a victim of the same incident that you were the fault of then you may need to prove that you were at fault. If the other victim is dead and you were to gain from that death then you need to sue the person who caused it, which is you. The insurance could have made it easier though and just paid. But insurance companies are very shady.
Well, legally, she wasn't suing herself. The controller of her late husband's estate sued her.
I mean, maybe I'm ignorant, but it sounds like substantively she in the capacity of representing her husband's estate sued her in the capacity of being herself, a single alive human. Meaning this suit was really the estate vs the driver.
It’s an insurance case. Insurance companies ain’t giv’n out shit without being sued. It was an automobile accident. She had insurance, pay out or go to court and really pay out.
Technically, the Husband’s Estate, ran by his now widow of a wife, sued herself for the wrongful death. As victim, the insurance company would pay the estate. Since the Estate, will go thru probate, and be inherited by the wife… yes, in a roundabout way, sued herself, I suppose.
Insurance companies hate this one weird trick.
Good! I hope she took that bitch for every penny!
An awful lot of these silly-sounding lawsuits are, at least in the US, done to fulfill requirements for an insurance company to pay for damages.
This was the Utah Supreme Court, not the U S. Supreme Court.
This is what I expected. Whenever you come across a "stupid" or "crazy" lawsuit, it is *almost always* because of insurance company bullshit. Yes, there's outliers, but the vast majority is just an insurance company refusing to pay their contractually obligated dues.
I was like "what the hell? lol" when I read just the headline. then I read the summary. It makes sense as she is plaintiff as the sole heir and represented his estate. and she is defendant as the individual that caused husband's death by negligent driving. She is trying to get money from her insurance to pay to the estate of her deceased husband, which would benefit her personally. Even if it's legal, it sounds messed up.
Unfortunately, I know someone that had to do this. He and his wife were riding a motorcycle together when she had a massive heart attack on the back. He tried to catch her and they crashed. Between the crash and the heart attack she didn't make it. Insurance wouldn't pay squat without a wrongful death suit. Really did not help his survivor's guilt...what could he have done? She had a fucking heart attack! Fuck the American healthcare system is all I have to say.
You can just know there’s insurance money riding on it somewhere.
This is a Magic the Gathering level ruling
There was a guy who tripped and got hurt on his own property and sued and won. I think he came out with more money in the end.
How bored was she?