Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

ANyway, for my own local paper,  for a couple that is married for 58 years, the wife is suing the husband over a car accident

 

(snip)

 

She insist she isn't doing this to make her husband feel bad, but to get compensation (which given they didn't mention a divorce, I don't know how she will be getting money she doesn't already have access to, unless it is some insurance thing.

 

I'd bet money it's an insurance thing.  I'd heard before about people having to sue people they didn't really want to sue, in order for medical care to be covered.  Although in the case I heard, it was someone suing a family member over, IIRC, a slip-and-fall that happened in that family member's driveway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd bet money it's an insurance thing.  I'd heard before about people having to sue people they didn't really want to sue, in order for medical care to be covered.  Although in the case I heard, it was someone suing a family member over, IIRC, a slip-and-fall that happened in that family member's driveway.

 

Well, in today's paper the jury ruled against her, though they did expand on it that if they had ruled in her favor that insurance would have past a certain point (though they didn't mention what that point might have been).  Given his testimony for himself, I suspect he wasn't on board though.  

 

Oh well, I don't think my morality code would allow myself to pull that and live with myself.  And I could never properly describe my feeling on certain legal shenanigans (or I couldn't in a safe for work way).   Maybe I am too straight forward in these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the caveat that I don't know the details in this case...

 

I have a longstanding, deep distrust of the way insurance companies operate.  Some are legit -- when a tornado caused damage to our home, our insurance company paid quickly and without questioning every cost.  However, I heard that some of our neighbors, going through other insurance companies, had problems getting them to pay for repairs.  It's not unknown for insurance companies to go to fairly extreme lengths to avoid paying off claims, throwing various obstacles in the way or pulling technicalities out of their bungholes.  (I'm having flashbacks to the scene in Incredibles with Jack's former boss dressing him down.  I know that was exaggerated for comedic effect, but y'know, there's a certain level of truth in parody.)

 

Since the woman was suing her own husband, I'm guessing they were trying to get their own insurance company to pay for health coverage.  Which makes me wonder whether the car that initially crossed the line (and presumably at fault) was insured at all; otherwise, I'd think she'd be suing the estate of the other driver.  So I'm presuming that she was trying to get coverage that her and her husband had paid for.  Given their age (married over 58 years - bravo to them!) and admitting that I'm making a broad assumption, I'm guessing they've been with that insurance company for years.  Older people tend to do that more than younger people.

 

I could be wrong - perhaps they are new clients of that insurance company.  Maybe they didn't understand what coverage they did (and more importantly, didn't) have.  Maybe her husband shouldn't be driving - not impossible in his upper 70s or lower 80s; maybe he didn't even have a valid license, though I'd think it's just as likely he's been able to renew without getting tested.  All of these are possibilities which could alter my thinking drastically.

 

However, speaking for myself, my own morality code might allow me to go through that if the insurance company is denying legitimate benefits I'd paid for over many years.  In other words, if the insurance company is the one pulling the legal shenanigans, I'd have no problems playing by their own rules and taking it to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possible.  I don't know, I really don't pretend to have any nuance to the legal system, when I get right down to it.  I do have a habit of feeling like it take common sense morality and twist it like a pretzel.   Or like I am trying to deal with an alien society in real time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subway is suing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for claiming that their chicken isn't.

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/17/subway-seeking-210-million-in-lawsuit-against-cbc-after-factually-incorrect-chicken-report

 

Mind you if their chicken is half soy I'm kind of impressed. Tastes like meat to me.

It's not half soy. Half the DNA is soy, but there is much more to either chicken or soy than DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...