|
Is it Pa only ?
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Is it Pa only ? I can’t speak for all fifty states, but in the three in which I’ve lived and purchased auto insurance, I don’t recall any such strata of limitations. (TX, FL, HI) I’m guessing that the policies that allow you to sue for everything cost more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
NJ has similar limitations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:NOTICE TO NAMED INSUREDS Why does this exist? Why not assume full tort?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
I have no idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
The full tort insurance is more expensive, I think for me at least $1000 a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Isn't the question: Why on earth do you need insurance to sue someone else for something they did?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Is it that duty to defend thing, your own insurance company has a more costly, longer lawsuit to pursue? Because it sounds almost like a "well if you weren't willing to pay more for insurance to cover injuries you might cause someone else, why should everyone else have to cover the injuries you could have predicted you might get" sort of tit-for-tat bullshit that in practice actually just punishes the poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
The stratified policies and recovery options is an example of tort reform in action. If it doesn't make sense and it seems like it was designed to gently caress over consumers so that insurance companies would have to pay out less, you've figured out the goals of tort reform!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Is it that duty to defend thing, your own insurance company has a more costly, longer lawsuit to pursue? Ding ding ding Save $500 a year or whatever on insurance, but you can't recover enough to make you whole if something awful happens I wonder which product poor people will be forced to use
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
On car insurance chat I have a hypothetical. Say driver A hits driver B. A is at fault for sure. Driver B was not wearing a seatbelt and got hurt as expensively as possible. Would the lack of a seatbelt offer any kind of defense for driver A? Would it make a difference if there was a passenger in driver Bs car that was wearing a seatbelt and was uninjured?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:Would the lack of a seatbelt offer any kind of defense for driver A? Depends on the state: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SEAT-BELT-DEFENSE-CHART.pdf
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:On car insurance chat I have a hypothetical. This is exactly what I was thinking of earlier when I typed up this scenario: Mr. Nice! posted: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. In that post I had the jury award $250k. In Florida, if the jury finds, however, the 50% of the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the plaintiff not wearing the seatbelt, the judgment would be reduced by 50% and the party would only be awarded $125k. For an egregious example of this, take Gregory Hill Jr. He was murdered by police in his garage. They arrived at his house because of a noise complaint from neighbors. He told the cops to buzz off and shut his garage door on them. They fired through the door, killing him. He had an unloaded gun in his back pocket according to police. The jury found Hill 99% at fault and the cop 1%. They awarded each of his kids $1 for their loss, which was reduced 99% to 1 penny each.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is exactly what I was thinking of earlier when I typed up this scenario: Except for that exact fact pattern, many states specifically preclude presenting evidence about non-use of seatbelts, per this handy chart. You take your victim as you find him  Unamuno posted:Depends on the state: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/SEAT-BELT-DEFENSE-CHART.pdf Also, LOL if you live in a contributory negligence state
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Devor posted:Except for that exact fact pattern, many states specifically preclude presenting evidence about non-use of seatbelts, per this handy chart. That's why I specified in FL. Florida sucks so god damned bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:-snip- Jeeeesus
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:Jeeeesus Appeals court tossed the $4 judgement out in 2020 which is about the most recent news article I can find. Don't know if there was a retrial planned, I'm guessing that Covid threw a wrench in everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Appeals court tossed the $4 judgement out in 2020 which is about the most recent news article I can find. Don't know if there was a retrial planned, I'm guessing that Covid threw a wrench in everything. Checked on PACER and the retrial is scheduled for May.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
It seems like PACER should be something that's publicly accessible, at least for criminal cases. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
I had just looked that up myself. It looks like the reason the original trial was tossed is the judge allowed the defense to make a big deal about the fact that he was on probation which neither cop knew until after he was murdered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Lawyers have docket access and if you are at a point when you need to look at a docket you should probably be or have a lawyer So making them free doesn’t really serve a function. Imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:It seems like PACER should be something that's publicly accessible, at least for criminal cases. Agreed. You can use the courtlistener recap archive to look at a lot of things for free, though! In FL you can generally access anyone's criminal court records for free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:It seems like PACER should be something that's publicly accessible, at least for criminal cases. Call your Senator/Rep and ask them to support the Open Courts Act (S2614/HR5844). PACER fees have basically become the judiciary slush fund; it should be free to all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Free access to courts is horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Free access to courts is horrifying. A number of states already have free access to records, and the only result is you hear a little more crazy poo poo in the news for some criminal cases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:It seems like PACER should be something that's publicly accessible, at least for criminal cases. So just to expand on this - anyone can request a PACER account, it isn’t limited to lawyers. (ECF is different but that’s only needed if you’re actually filing papers.) The problem is that PACER charges extremely excessive fees - $0.10 per page of each document retrieved, plus 0.10 per page of search results/docket entries/etc. If your usage is under $30 per quarter you don’t have to pay, but it’s real easy to rack up more than 30 bucks just looking at one case. It’s a huge problem for researchers (you can in theory get fee waivers but it’s a huge PITA and fairly limited) and for public interest organizations with limited budgets. But it’s also just offensive to say that the records of the law shouldn’t be freely accessible to the public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
I already refer as many clients to the public index with their "I was just calling to see if there were any updates" questions as I possibly can. Five hundred clients x one percent of them calling on any given day "just to check in" == never getting a goddam single thing done, ever
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
10c is excessive now that the courts are not doing as much scanning When they had to scan everything It made more sense
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
If you all ever decide gently caress lawyering you would probably make excellent insurance sales people. Brb looking at umbrella policies again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Insurance is such a scam. It is required by law for so much stuff yet the providers are private ?? And frequently gently caress up their investments and get bailed out or don’t have the money to cover loses and get bailed out . There are some public insurance schemes tho in the USA Edit Not to mention routinely denying valid claims just to make insureds “work for it “
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
It’s been almost 20 years of near-universal electronic filing. That excuse no longer flies. But if they lose their PACER fees, the courts wouldn’t get to illegally use the fees on fancy A/V equipment for their courtrooms. They might have to actually ask Congress to appropriate funds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:If you all ever decide gently caress lawyering you would probably make excellent insurance sales people. Brb looking at umbrella policies again. If you don't already have it, make sure you have uninsured/underinsured coverage on your auto insurance, as well. That way when someone with a bare minimum liability policy puts you into the hospital, you're not stuck footing the bill yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
On the topic of scanning, when I need old records that are no longer available online and have to ask the clerk to dig out the microfiche, I don't mind paying for that. Even still, most times they'll do it and email a pdf to you with zero charge and only bill for certified copies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This is exactly what I was thinking of earlier when I typed up this scenario: I dearly hope every member of that jury is haunted non-stop for the rest of their lives. There's 'well here's what the law says we can do' and then there's going out of your way to be cruel about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
Does anyone know about employer drug testing laws in Canada, BC specifically? The company I work for has a customer that requires any contractors on site to have completed basically a pre employment fitness test, and that includes a drug screen, so the handful of us who could potentially be sent to that site are being sent for it. But like, random drug testing isn't legal outside of a few circumstances, and so how is arbitrarily picking employees to test any different? As far as I know there are no plans to send me there, and it would in fact be extremely impractical to do so until the end of summer. Do I have a leg to stand on to refuse it? If anyone has any resources indicating one way or another that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
If a trial says Call 9/16/22 (friday) and Trial 9/19/22 (monday) and 4 day jury am I probably gonna need to be there Friday or not until Monday? I assume Monday? its out of town so I don't want to spend a weekend in a hotel if I don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If you don't already have it, make sure you have uninsured/underinsured coverage on your auto insurance, as well. That way when someone with a bare minimum liability policy puts you into the hospital, you're not stuck footing the bill yourself. That I do have already but I appreciate you looking out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
EKDS5k posted:Does anyone know about employer drug testing laws in Canada, BC specifically? The company I work for has a customer that requires any contractors on site to have completed basically a pre employment fitness test, and that includes a drug screen, so the handful of us who could potentially be sent to that site are being sent for it. But like, random drug testing isn't legal outside of a few circumstances, and so how is arbitrarily picking employees to test any different? As far as I know there are no plans to send me there, and it would in fact be extremely impractical to do so until the end of summer. Do I have a leg to stand on to refuse it? If anyone has any resources indicating one way or another that would be great. I don’t know BC law, but having worked for a similar company in Quebec, the drug test is usually conditional to admission to site and they can bar you from site for any reason they want. What your employer does after that though idk, but they can’t use you on that particular contract. Since weed is legal though most companies have switched to targeted cheek swabs. Natural resource companies don’t gently caress around with drugs and alcohol and medical screenings at remote camps, because it gets really ugly otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I don’t know BC law, but having worked for a similar company in Quebec, the drug test is usually conditional to admission to site and they can bar you from site for any reason they want. What your employer does after that though idk, but they can’t use you on that particular contract. The test they'll be doing is a 13 panel urine test, where they dip a little card into my piss and it changes colour based on what substances are there. I don't really care about being able to get on site or not. My company doesn't have to use me there, and since it's out of town they can't require me to go anyway. I'm more asking about whether or not my company can still force me to take a drug test with no incident and no reason to suspect I've been showing up to work impaired (I haven't). I'm working under the assumption that if I refuse it, they'll count it as a failed result. Then I'll be suspended without pay, made to go to counseling, and barred from returning to work until I pass a test. So if random testing isn't legal, isn't this basically the same thing? Seems like an easy loophole for the company if they can get around it just by saying I might possibly be sent somewhere in the indeterminate future that requires it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
They won’t have you do the test if you don’t go to the customer site, why would they spend the money? It’s not a random test, it’s systematic. At least in the federal labor code, it’s not illegal - oil tanker crews do it on the reg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2022 18:27
|
|