|
Did Watson pay them through settlement agreements ? I don’t know I am asking
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Deshaun or John H.?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Shine posted:Buy an umbrella liability policy. Make sure that said umbrella policy actually covers what you need to cover as well so you don't end up in a situation where your forestry contractor burns down half a city and only has the base $1m insurance policy because the umbrella explicitly does not cover wildfire damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 14:42
|
|
|
Watson
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
His civil suits are still pending and he's successfully delayed depositions in them. He was supposed to finally be deposed yesterday for some of them, but I think the can got kicked again. e: Also, Adam Schefter continues to be a parrot for Watson's attorney: https://twitter.com/adamschefter/status/1502399203007471616
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
No idea why he’s not being prosecuted then I mean besides corruption
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No idea why he’s not being prosecuted then It doesn't take corruption to imagine that a rich man and star athlete in texas is allowed to rub his dick on masseurs. Our criminal system is horrible at actually prosecuting the sexual battery suffered by more than a quarter of women in this nation. If you have four adult sisters, at least one of them has either been raped or someone attempted to rape her at some point in her life. Very few of the perpetrators ever face any criminal punishment. The women are actively shamed for their suffering. Conservatives believe that a woman should try to enjoy herself while she's getting raped because there's nothing she can do about it (see Clayton Williams from Texas and Robert “RJ” Regan from Michigan). Spousal rape was still lawful in this nation in our lifetime. Revenge of the Nerds told the nation that it's alright to rape someone so long as you make them cum because they'll fall in love with you. Our society is really hosed when it comes to consent. Tragically, a lot of sexual crimes go uninvestigated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:A competent lawyer can get it done, at least in my state the standard isn't about who does or doesn't want someone to have a guardianship, the standard is whether the judge thinks that the person needs a guardianship. Regardless the process is fraught with legal details and can only be navigated by an attorney. But it should not be astronomically expensive or onerous. I know it's been a while (guess why!), but I just wanted to thank Blarzgh and Hieronymus Bosch for the good advice. Turns out I knew an elder law lawyer through a mutual friend, who was independently recommended by a different friend. As you might have guessed, family unity crumbled in the mention of lawyers and things have gotten very messy. I try to remind myself that relationships can be mended over time, but the risk of serious injury is too high to let this slide in the name of peace. Thanks again for the help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:I know it's been a while (guess why!), but I just wanted to thank Blarzgh and Hieronymus Bosch for the good advice. Turns out I knew an elder law lawyer through a mutual friend, who was independently recommended by a different friend. As you might have guessed, family unity crumbled in the mention of lawyers and things have gotten very messy. I try to remind myself that relationships can be mended over time, but the risk of serious injury is too high to let this slide in the name of peace. Thanks again for the help. Sorry you have to deal with this, but good job stepping up and taking care of your people
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
The Midniter posted:My company is granting me an equity award for performance. However, it comes with a catch should I accept - a non-compete clause that runs for my employment period plus 18 months afterward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
A non compete basically means they're worried you're going to go work for a competitor. Why would they be worried about that unless they don't think they can retain their staff? It's basically says 'instead of being attractive to work for we'd rather make it less attractive to leave'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Heh in some case it’s a business owner who’s afraid someone is going to run away with the secret sauce recipe that makes their company so special. (The secret recipe can usually be found in ten minutes of googling.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Do new employees have to sign a non compete? Sounds like they're trying to figure out a way to get one on you when they realized they didn't already
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Do new employees have to sign a non compete? Sounds like they're trying to figure out a way to get one on you when they realized they didn't already it may be that the local state law requires specific consideration for the non-compete besides just getting the job, which i recall is a thing in some states
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Reinterpreting their thing as charitably as possible as an incompetent attempt at "We don't want you to give you a bonus and then have you immediately quit", the more normal way that is done is with options vesting over time (i.e. you get 1/18th of the total every month for the next 18 months)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Reinterpreting their thing as charitably as possible as an incompetent attempt at "We don't want you to give you a bonus and then have you immediately quit", the more normal way that is done is with options vesting over time (i.e. you get 1/18th of the total every month for the next 18 months) A bonus is for work done not work you might do. If someone earns a bonus and immediately quits that's their perogative. Holding it hostage is still shitbag behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Outrail posted:A bonus is for work done not work you might do. If someone earns a bonus and immediately quits that's their perogative. Holding it hostage is still shitbag behavior. retention bonuses exist, payments specifically to keep you around for a certain time as a random legal fact it’s specifically prohibited to pay execs of bankrupt companies retention bonuses
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Do auto insurance companies ever offer over coverage limits just to avoid trial expense, like coverage limit + 50% of expected trial cost? Not really relevant in my case but I was just curious, seems like it could be something that would make fiscal sense if the insurance company was pretty sure it was going to lose anyway. In Washington state, there are a few laws that create a very strong "Duty to Defend." IIRC, insurance companies have been known to pay out over policy limits occasionally due to the trouble they could get in loving over their insured. Not a lot over, mind, and it's not super-common. IANAL, this is just what I remember from working at a law firm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 08:51
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:In Washington state, there are a few laws that create a very strong "Duty to Defend." IIRC, insurance companies have been known to pay out over policy limits occasionally due to the trouble they could get in loving over their insured. Not a lot over, mind, and it's not super-common. Duty to defend is pretty much universal. It’s how auto insurance works. Excess liability is where one causes more damage than their insurance covers. Depending on circumstances, the insurance company might have to pay more than policy limits, but these are exceptions. One, in FL, is failing to setting for an amount offered within the policy limits. This is considered failing to operate within the insurance company’s duty of good faith. For example, driver A runs a stop sign and causes a collision with driver B. A is clearly at fault as noted by police and witnesses. Driver B and passenger are severely injured and hire an attorney to seek compensation. A’s insurance policy is $100k/person and $200k/incident. This means the insurance policy will pay up to $100k for any individual injury and up to $200k for the total incident. Assume that A and B both have hospital bills in excess of the policy limits and have injuries that justify significant compensation. The insurance company for A will hire a local insurance defense attorney for the case. There are a few ways this scenario plays out: Insurance company offers full policy limits with release of excess liability for A. If A is insolvent, this will likely be the only recovery and is accepted. You cannot get a bad faith claim for failure to settle inside the policy limits if the insurance company offers policy limits. If A is not insolvent, then B would reject policy limits and demand extra compensation to come from A’s pocket personally. Note, I have seen real property be used to satisfy excess liability. If the insurance company does not offer policy limits, and instead B demands policy limits, things shift. For example, A’s lawyer says injuries to B’s passenger were caused by their own actions, so they refuse to pay more than $50k for B. If this goes to trial and the jury finds that B was entitled to $250k from A, then the insurance company for A will have to pay our the full judgment because they did not accept a good faith settlement offer. If there is no bad faith or other exception, insurance offers policy limits, B declines, they go trial, and jury finds total damages to B and passenger are $250k, they’ll get $200k from the insurance company and have a judgment against A for the remaining $50k and must collect that themselves (if possible).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
Some states also limit how much the plaintiff can sue for depending on their own level of coverage . Which is bizarre to me but that is policy I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Some states also limit how much the plaintiff can sue for depending on their own level of coverage . Which is bizarre to me but that is policy I guess. And lay people might not know this, but States typically have an agency devoted to the management and promulgation of car/home/other insurance policy and standard insurance forms and terms - they are very intertwined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Some states also limit how much the plaintiff can sue for depending on their own level of coverage . Which is bizarre to me but that is policy I guess. What? So I'm limited to what I can sue for based on my insurance policy? What if I dont have insurance because I'm a pedestrian or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
NOTICE TO NAMED INSUREDS A. “Limited Tort” Option—The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania give you the right to choose a form of insurance that limits your right and the right of members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses, but not for pain and suffering or other nonmonetary damages unless the injuries suffered fall within the definition of “serious injury” as set forth in the policy or unless one of several other exceptions noted in the policy applies. The annual premium for basic coverage as required by law under this “limited tort” option is $ . Additional coverages under this option are available at additional cost. B. “Full Tort” Option—The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also give you the right to choose a form of insurance under which you maintain an unrestricted right for you and the members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses and may also seek financial compensation for pain and suffering and other nonmonetary damages as a result of injuries caused by other drivers. The annual premium for basic coverage as required by law under this “full tort” option is $ . Additional coverages under this option are available at additional cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
More c) Full tort alternative.—Each person who is bound by the full tort election remains eligible to seek compensation for noneconomic loss claimed and economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person pursuant to applicable tort law. (d) Limited tort alternative.—Each person who elects the limited tort alternative remains eligible to seek compensation for economic loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident as the consequence of the fault of another person pursuant to applicable tort law. Unless the injury sustained is a serious injury, each person who is bound by the limited tort election shall be precluded from maintaining an action for any noneconomic loss, except that: Not including the exceptions
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
I remember when I first started googling, Florida has something similar to the "serious injury" verbiage in that IIRC you can't seek a cent for pain and suffering unless you have a "permanent injury" or similar. When you're seriously injured in an accident and you don't know poo poo about it and just start googling in the hopes you'll reassure yourself that maybe you'll get some kind of fair compensation after all the poo poo you went through, you're pretty much guaranteed to first see only scary headlines like "no fault state sorry you're boned" and "nope, your injury isn't permanent enough so nothing for you" and "sorry but your underinsured motorist coverage doesn't stack with the other guys BI insurance." At least that was my experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
When you're seriously injured in an accident and you don't know poo poo about it CALL A LAWYER
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A is clearly at fault as noted by police and witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Sure but you're thinking of a different question or scenario like every hour and from my experience most lawyers don't answer questions that promptly so you start googling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
My lawyer sends me a one paragraph email on average every 3 months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Outrail posted:What? So I'm limited to what I can sue for based on my insurance policy? What if I dont have insurance because I'm a pedestrian or something? State governments are completely captured by some interests. Auto insurance, health insurance, doctors, and auto dealers are all massive lobbies at the state/local level. "Tort reform" always comes from on of these sources, and the goal is always to minimize who you can sue, what you can sue for, and for how much you can sue. For example, doctors in Florida have been able to prevent most medmal suits from ever starting. The "tort reform" passed in Florida for medmal works like this: Before you can even file a medmal suit, you have to retain an expert to draft an opinion detailing the malpractice. This is an upfront cost of multiple thousands of dollars presuit. So in your limited two year statute of limitations, you have to nearly develop an entire case without discovery. You have to get hospital records which can cost $1/page even when provided electronically. I have personally received invoices for $6k+ for a single hospital stay because the person was so hosed up by a car wreck. If someone is in a hospital for weeks/months, those records are gonna be deep. Once you have that, you have to pay an expert thousands of dollars to review the records and write an opinion. Some experts will charge a lower rate to review the records and see if there's a case, but you're still spending a grand or so at a minimum. If, after the thousands of dollars spent and all of the time collecting records hasn't exhausted the already short statute of limitations, you can then file a medmal suit that may or may not recover anything. Here's another fun case. Mom's daughter was mentally disabled, lived with mom, and was fully dependent on her mother. She was 36. Daughter gets arrested for allegedly stealing $300 worth of drugs from CVS. Healthcare contractor at local jail neglected her obvious issues, gave her a bunch of drugs that had a counteraction with other prescribed meds, caused her liver to fail, and she died in the hospital shortly thereafter. Mom sued healthcare contractor. FL statute restricts wrongful death recoveries of adult children to their lifetime earning capacity. There is no loss of companionship or anything else. This essentially prevented mom from collecting anything for the loss of her daughter because her daughter was unable to work due to aforementioned mental disabilities. Mom got a pittance as a settlement to end litigation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:How does that get decided without expensive litigation? When the guy who was driving the at fault vehicle tells police "yeah, I didn't see him and I turned in front of him" it's really easy to assign blame. The insurance company can very easily come out and say "yeah, we're at fault" and negotiate a settlement within the policy limits with that as the starting point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
That statement is not hearsay if you are wondering at home
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That statement is not hearsay if you are wondering at home Is it not hearsay, or is it admissible hearsay
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Depends on state but I’m sticking with “not hearsay “ Although it probably is also an exception to hearsay as wel
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Share your stories about excited utterances or other fun ways that you got around the hearsay rule
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:When the guy who was driving the at fault vehicle tells police "yeah, I didn't see him and I turned in front of him" it's really easy to assign blame. The insurance company can very easily come out and say "yeah, we're at fault" and negotiate a settlement within the policy limits with that as the starting point. Are you suggesting i shouldn't... talk to cops?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Here's another fun case. Mom's daughter was mentally disabled, lived with mom, and was fully dependent on her mother. She was 36. Daughter gets arrested for allegedly stealing $300 worth of drugs from CVS. Healthcare contractor at local jail neglected her obvious issues, gave her a bunch of drugs that had a counteraction with other prescribed meds, caused her liver to fail, and she died in the hospital shortly thereafter. Mom sued healthcare contractor. FL statute restricts wrongful death recoveries of adult children to their lifetime earning capacity. There is no loss of companionship or anything else. This essentially prevented mom from collecting anything for the loss of her daughter because her daughter was unable to work due to aforementioned mental disabilities. Mom got a pittance as a settlement to end litigation. Jesus loving Christ. Money aside did the healthcare contractor / their parent company get punished in any way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:Jesus loving Christ. Money aside did the healthcare contractor / their parent company get punished in any way?  no they’re still a healthcare provider for prisons and jails across the nation. gently caress corizon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:How does that get decided without expensive litigation? In the vast majority of car accidents, it's pretty clear whose fault it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Some states also limit how much the plaintiff can sue for depending on their own level of coverage . Which is bizarre to me but that is policy I guess. Read this and was like "here come words about Pennsylvania  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 06:10
|
|
