Also, perhaps a script for this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alendronic_acid
2 Likes
Former insurance adjuster (property) here. Granted, Iâm in Canada, and somewhat less clear on US insurance law, but I never ever saw a subrogation suit that wasnât Company A v. Company B.
4 Likes
Today is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life. Welcome.
This is Tranya. I hope you relish it as much as I.
Me -
2 Likes
Donât fall for it. Clearly sheâs running a long con: she filed this suit and made those absurd comments in order to get some random person reading about her angry enough to punch her in the face, so she can sue them for real.
11 Likes
This kid got the best judicial defense money canât buy: A raging asshat for the plaintiff.
2 Likes
Sheâs always been a very aggressive litigator.
9 Likes
I thought so until I read about the childâs family situation.
what if there is no company B though?
Then one Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy is going to be out of a jobâŚ
6 Likes
I am very confused by this. The facts are so slim that itâs hard to tell what is going on. Hereâs the options:
a) Worst aunt ever, flaming hors dâoeuvre loving bitch
b) Some kind of insurance thing AKA money + policy requirements
c) Some kind of inheritance laws thing AKA money + sheâs still a bitch
or
d) Thereâs a whole bunch of facts missing from the article
Iâm voting d.
14 Likes
Exactly. This woman sued, not her insurance company, which probably wouldnât have touched it with a ten-foot pole.
Highly unlikely. With subrogation, the insurance company does all of the work. Your name doesnât even appear in the lawsuit except (IIRC) as an assignee, since most policies require you to do so. Then they have to subpeona you, and if you really donât want your kid nephew to be lose the case, then you can wreck their case without even telling a lie. If you read her statements, this case waited a few years before she attempted to collect. Very coincidentally within the realm of time that a final disposition of the motherâs estate might have been resolved.
EDIT:
NOPE. I was mistaken. In CT, the insurance company isnât named. She was going for the homeownerâs insurance. Itâs not subrogation at all. Her nephew was never on the hook.
9 Likes
IAAL and this is certainly right. Insurance is often the only pile of money to go after.
2 Likes
Her lawyerâs comment, from that link:
[quote]From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeownerâs insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeownerâs insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didnât want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough[/quote]
Sigh⌠America, this is why you need to get your fucking shit together with medical insurance. A nephew enthusiastically hugs his aunt, resulting in accidentally breaking her wrist. She gets billed $130k to fix it, and her options are:
1 - (likely) face complete financial ruin, or at the very least financial hardship for many years to come.
2 - sue her nephew in order to go after the home ownerâs insurance to get them to pay for it, due to stupid rules that mean the insurance company canât be named as a defendent.
Also, a good case of âDonât judge somebody based on internet outrage without knowing all the factsâ. Another missing fact: sheâs not actually even his aunt (source)- he is the son of her cousin, though he calls her âAuntie Jenâ. My kids call any of our friends âAunt/Uncle [insert name]â, so thatâs not a surprise. Though it would be something that most journalists should have picked up on.
18 Likes
Is it any surprise that a state with a population of 93.2% (statistic fabricated) insurance companies / employees would have weird laws favoring insurance companies�
3 Likes
Itâs not insidious. It they still have to pay, but technically she is suing the minor for negligence because insurance would cover that. I donât like the state of insurance in this country any more than anyone else, but the insurance would protect the kid from paying damages, it doesnât become the entity responsible for the damages, if that makes sense.
1 Like
Right⌠But if she was suing an insurance company, instead of a 12 year old boy, I think the outcome would have been much different.
3 Likes
Thatâs a good point, and yet;
and
Now maybe you have to play hardball and appear uncaring in the court in order to secure a win, but it really doesnât look good once it all comes out in the wash.
4 Likes
Well, if sheâs forced to sue the child for negligence in order to go after the insurance company, she canât very well say in court âHe wasnât negligent, but this is the only way I can get his dadâs insurance company to pay for my injuriesâ. She actually has to try to win a negligence case against him, which requires her to say stupid shit like that.
3 Likes
Wouldnât she be covered by some sort of medicaid in her HR job? Itâs a fucked-up situation to have to pay your medical bills through home insurance.
