so — if we need checks and balances, think about all those frivilous lawsuits — like the example of the judge/lawyer whom sued the dry cleaners for a lost pair of pants for $54 million even when the owner of the cleaners even paid $150 for the lost pair of pants….they still serve him as a customer in the store despite the lawsuit…
If you traveled with me each day, you would see more crimes committed BY insurers than against them. Checks and balances are good for everybody. The only ones who wouldn’t agree they are necessary are those with something to hide.
Does anyone know anything about the Host Liquor Liability coverage? Host or just Liquor Liability?
It may just be that the form excludes the owner over-serving himself. If this is the case, the company may not be responsible for anything and it was an unfair judgement (the 75M).
I haven’t seen any posts from someone familiar with the form. Been a long time since I worked with these forms too, so I am not sure.
While I agree that both liab and damages in excess of policy limits were pretty clear, I’m not sure it’s bad faith simply to take a case to court. I’m wondering since the article has the language re: assigning rights and failing to settle w/in policy limits if what actually happened here is that the insured had a stowers claim against the carrier which they assigned to the plaintiff. It might then be called “bad faith” because it was being brought by a 3rd party???
Isn’t Princeton the same carrier that went bust on Med Mal?
I too question the form including the owner as a “patron”. Did he pay the price for each of his drinks? Is it company policy to include alcoholic beverages as an “employee benefit”?
If I worked in a deli and I helped myself to a sandwich, it is questionnable whether that could be construed as employee theft.
More questions than this article gives answers. What we do know is that Tuski’s attorneys made out better than Tuski. Whether Tuski sees any of THAT money, after paying the attorneys, hospital, rehab, therapists, pharmacies – I’m sure there’s nothing left for Tuski of that $1,000,000. I just hope Princeton can raise the funds.
I think most of you are missing the point about the “Bad Faith” award…the key to “Bad Faith” is not whether the insurance company offered their policy limits. The key is that they failed to offer up their policy limits when such an offer would have settled the claim. In other words, if the insurance company had an opportunity to settle the claim in its entirety against their insured by payment of its policy limits and did not do so when the claim’s value clearly exceeds their policy limit, then they acted in “Bad Faith” by exposing their insured to a judgment in excess of his policy limits.
The underlying plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with a patron of the tavern who was oversold alcohol. Straightforward dram shop claim. While we don’t know why Princeton did not settle for the $1MM demand (was the patron an alchololic who did not display any signs of intoxication to the bartender?), they clearly made the wrong decision.
i agree, because if u look at earlier comments, it was said that the driver was the actual owner of the bar…so query is was the driver and the owner of the bar one and the same? if so, why shud the bar be held liable or its insurance be liable? the story lacks any verifiable points that could help resolve our validity…
We finally got a little relief,” Denton said. “We’re pleased that we were able to get our current State Farm cases resolved. What it indicates to me is that we have finally reached some middle ground with State Farm that has created a basis on which we can settle our State Farm cases.”
More than 200 lawsuits are pending against the insurer in U.S. District Court. Evidence unearthed so far indicates State Farm denied payments for wind damage in coastal areas also subjected to storm surge. State Farm relied on a clause in its policies that purports to say wind damage is not covered when water contributes.
Under pressure from state officials, and with an unfavorable court ruling early in the year, the insurer is now re-evaluating claims and offering wind-damage payments to policyholders whose property the storm swept away, leaving only slabs or pilings. The insurer also will review the claims of other Coast policyholders who request it.
State Farm, the state and nation’s largest property insurer, has about 35,000 customers in the three Coast counties. The company has paid more than $1.2 billion for hurricane damage statewide.
Its claims re-evaluation process is being overseen by Insurance Commissioner George Dale, whose office, because of consumer complaints, is investigating how the insurer handled Katrina claims.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
so — if we need checks and balances, think about all those frivilous lawsuits — like the example of the judge/lawyer whom sued the dry cleaners for a lost pair of pants for $54 million even when the owner of the cleaners even paid $150 for the lost pair of pants….they still serve him as a customer in the store despite the lawsuit…
If you traveled with me each day, you would see more crimes committed BY insurers than against them. Checks and balances are good for everybody. The only ones who wouldn’t agree they are necessary are those with something to hide.
Does anyone know anything about the Host Liquor Liability coverage? Host or just Liquor Liability?
It may just be that the form excludes the owner over-serving himself. If this is the case, the company may not be responsible for anything and it was an unfair judgement (the 75M).
I haven’t seen any posts from someone familiar with the form. Been a long time since I worked with these forms too, so I am not sure.
While I agree that both liab and damages in excess of policy limits were pretty clear, I’m not sure it’s bad faith simply to take a case to court. I’m wondering since the article has the language re: assigning rights and failing to settle w/in policy limits if what actually happened here is that the insured had a stowers claim against the carrier which they assigned to the plaintiff. It might then be called “bad faith” because it was being brought by a 3rd party???
Isn’t Princeton the same carrier that went bust on Med Mal?
I too question the form including the owner as a “patron”. Did he pay the price for each of his drinks? Is it company policy to include alcoholic beverages as an “employee benefit”?
If I worked in a deli and I helped myself to a sandwich, it is questionnable whether that could be construed as employee theft.
More questions than this article gives answers. What we do know is that Tuski’s attorneys made out better than Tuski. Whether Tuski sees any of THAT money, after paying the attorneys, hospital, rehab, therapists, pharmacies – I’m sure there’s nothing left for Tuski of that $1,000,000. I just hope Princeton can raise the funds.
I think most of you are missing the point about the “Bad Faith” award…the key to “Bad Faith” is not whether the insurance company offered their policy limits. The key is that they failed to offer up their policy limits when such an offer would have settled the claim. In other words, if the insurance company had an opportunity to settle the claim in its entirety against their insured by payment of its policy limits and did not do so when the claim’s value clearly exceeds their policy limit, then they acted in “Bad Faith” by exposing their insured to a judgment in excess of his policy limits.
The underlying plaintiff was involved in an auto accident with a patron of the tavern who was oversold alcohol. Straightforward dram shop claim. While we don’t know why Princeton did not settle for the $1MM demand (was the patron an alchololic who did not display any signs of intoxication to the bartender?), they clearly made the wrong decision.
i agree, because if u look at earlier comments, it was said that the driver was the actual owner of the bar…so query is was the driver and the owner of the bar one and the same? if so, why shud the bar be held liable or its insurance be liable? the story lacks any verifiable points that could help resolve our validity…
We finally got a little relief,” Denton said. “We’re pleased that we were able to get our current State Farm cases resolved. What it indicates to me is that we have finally reached some middle ground with State Farm that has created a basis on which we can settle our State Farm cases.”
More than 200 lawsuits are pending against the insurer in U.S. District Court. Evidence unearthed so far indicates State Farm denied payments for wind damage in coastal areas also subjected to storm surge. State Farm relied on a clause in its policies that purports to say wind damage is not covered when water contributes.
Under pressure from state officials, and with an unfavorable court ruling early in the year, the insurer is now re-evaluating claims and offering wind-damage payments to policyholders whose property the storm swept away, leaving only slabs or pilings. The insurer also will review the claims of other Coast policyholders who request it.
State Farm, the state and nation’s largest property insurer, has about 35,000 customers in the three Coast counties. The company has paid more than $1.2 billion for hurricane damage statewide.
Its claims re-evaluation process is being overseen by Insurance Commissioner George Dale, whose office, because of consumer complaints, is investigating how the insurer handled Katrina claims.