coverage and liability are two separate things. You can’t deny coverage because there is no liability. If there is coverage, and it would have to be a LLCP since the CGL has an exclusion for alcohol related claims if you are in the business of selling alcohol, then you need to defend. Especially if you think there is no liability. Thats the whole essence of insurance. If we denied claims everytime we thought there was no liability, we’d be in big time bad faith. We defend whether we think there is liability or not.
This is one of the most retarded decisions. Now the bartenders, who in this case showed to prudent by not serving Hamby is still liable. The bartender was wrong, even being right. The judges are definately giving mixed signals, they now have to determine what is intoxicated and are liable if they don’t serve since they used proper judgement. It’s always someone else’s fault, I just can’t be held responsible for my actions.
Problem is that included in most liability policies is a provision to provide legal defense against suit. Even if the suit is frivilous or merit-less, a defense still needs to be prepared and presented. If by some miracle the case is settled as having no merit to show liability toward the bar or server it will still tie up the legal system (as well as racking up legal costs) which gets passed onto all policy holders.
Sadly, there’s no such thing as filing a suit to see what happens. The plaintiff may not worry since most ambulance chasing PI attorneys don’t charge unless you’re awarded a settlement. The point of most of these suits is to never get to court. File a rediculous lawsuit hoping that the defendant will realize that paying “go away money” voulentarily is more cost effective than actually trying to defend and risk being ordered to pay more.
Watch “A Civil Action” to see a great example of PI law proceedings.
If an individual needs to be of legal age to drink and that supposes the individual, by being of age, is responsible – then why would the establishment (especially one who did not serve him any alcoholic beverage) be responsible. Until we put the responsibility for actions back on the individual we are going to continue to see our society decline.
I agree, this just goes too far. I guess if they turned them away at the door for being too drunk to enter, the family could sue because the doorman “forced them” to drive to another bar? Plus, if you look at a whole picture, it gets worse. The now-deceased passenger couldn’t drive because his own license was suspended for drinking & driving, so obviously he had no judgement when it came to this matter. They drank enough beer & rum in the car prior to entering the bar that, even after several hours of not drinking, the driver’s bac was twice the legal limit, which means they really had to be falling down drunk when they came in. Ad the driver apparently has no problem to admitting to drinking beer and rum in the car–isn’t that much worse than passengers drinking in a bar? What exactly was the bar supposed to do w/these guys–get them a hotel room? If a bar is supposed to protect passengers from getting into a car with drunk drivers, what’s next–do they need to protect drunken customers from having sex with strangers, and pay child support if they don’t & someone ends up pregnant?
Aside from the asinine ruling by these judges; here’s what I’m wondering…
So the family of this idiot can now sue the bar, OK.
Just how much could a drunk, retarded, a-hole that whips his talley-whacker out in the middle of a public place to show off his “Prince Albert” really be worth?
I mean really; if we are going to put a number on stuff like this, let’s get a baseline.
I’d assume a stand-up member of society that actually contributes something meaningful to those around them would be worth quite a bit.
A priest, a doctor, school teachers, a loving mother, the occasional philanthropist.
All would be a tragic loss and worth their weight in gold.
But a substance abusing, weiner piercing, drunk retard that clearly has no regard for decency or the quiet enjoyment of anyone around him…
Screw ’em.
Throw his parents 200 bucks for the ambulance costs and a condom so they can’t produce another worthless offspring.
Here’s an idea…If your license is suspended for DUI, not only may you not drive, but you are also forbidden to be in an establisnment that serves alcohol for the suspension period. If you are caught, it is a mandatory sentence of 6 months. You can use GPS ankle braclets to monitor and enforce. That’s one way to keep the drunken idiots home.
To help a drug addict, get rid of the pushers.
Bars and bartenders push alcohol, and nothing is done about it. Everywhere in New Jersey, patrons come in and drink for hours and hours, opening to closing, and they keep getting served, even when they’re drivers. We need more stringent laws and more examples of bartenders being held personally liable and losing their homes for ignoring how much they have served a patron and just continuing to ring up the cash register and the tips. After working in the court system for many years, it is painfully evident that alcohol destroys lives. Pushers of alcohol who do not obey the law should be held accountable and punished!
When I tended bar during college, I refused to serve intoxicated patrons. Sometimes the owner would serve them personally then, depending on who they were. He took that liability on himself.
I agree with any lawsuits making bar owners and bartenders take heed of the law and help to save lives — both of alcoholics and the innocent public!
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.
coverage and liability are two separate things. You can’t deny coverage because there is no liability. If there is coverage, and it would have to be a LLCP since the CGL has an exclusion for alcohol related claims if you are in the business of selling alcohol, then you need to defend. Especially if you think there is no liability. Thats the whole essence of insurance. If we denied claims everytime we thought there was no liability, we’d be in big time bad faith. We defend whether we think there is liability or not.
This is one of the most retarded decisions. Now the bartenders, who in this case showed to prudent by not serving Hamby is still liable. The bartender was wrong, even being right. The judges are definately giving mixed signals, they now have to determine what is intoxicated and are liable if they don’t serve since they used proper judgement. It’s always someone else’s fault, I just can’t be held responsible for my actions.
Better? I beg to differ. Safer, probably. The safest the world can be is by sterilization of idiots.
Problem is that included in most liability policies is a provision to provide legal defense against suit. Even if the suit is frivilous or merit-less, a defense still needs to be prepared and presented. If by some miracle the case is settled as having no merit to show liability toward the bar or server it will still tie up the legal system (as well as racking up legal costs) which gets passed onto all policy holders.
Sadly, there’s no such thing as filing a suit to see what happens. The plaintiff may not worry since most ambulance chasing PI attorneys don’t charge unless you’re awarded a settlement. The point of most of these suits is to never get to court. File a rediculous lawsuit hoping that the defendant will realize that paying “go away money” voulentarily is more cost effective than actually trying to defend and risk being ordered to pay more.
Watch “A Civil Action” to see a great example of PI law proceedings.
If an individual needs to be of legal age to drink and that supposes the individual, by being of age, is responsible – then why would the establishment (especially one who did not serve him any alcoholic beverage) be responsible. Until we put the responsibility for actions back on the individual we are going to continue to see our society decline.
I agree, this just goes too far. I guess if they turned them away at the door for being too drunk to enter, the family could sue because the doorman “forced them” to drive to another bar? Plus, if you look at a whole picture, it gets worse. The now-deceased passenger couldn’t drive because his own license was suspended for drinking & driving, so obviously he had no judgement when it came to this matter. They drank enough beer & rum in the car prior to entering the bar that, even after several hours of not drinking, the driver’s bac was twice the legal limit, which means they really had to be falling down drunk when they came in. Ad the driver apparently has no problem to admitting to drinking beer and rum in the car–isn’t that much worse than passengers drinking in a bar? What exactly was the bar supposed to do w/these guys–get them a hotel room? If a bar is supposed to protect passengers from getting into a car with drunk drivers, what’s next–do they need to protect drunken customers from having sex with strangers, and pay child support if they don’t & someone ends up pregnant?
Aside from the asinine ruling by these judges; here’s what I’m wondering…
So the family of this idiot can now sue the bar, OK.
Just how much could a drunk, retarded, a-hole that whips his talley-whacker out in the middle of a public place to show off his “Prince Albert” really be worth?
I mean really; if we are going to put a number on stuff like this, let’s get a baseline.
I’d assume a stand-up member of society that actually contributes something meaningful to those around them would be worth quite a bit.
A priest, a doctor, school teachers, a loving mother, the occasional philanthropist.
All would be a tragic loss and worth their weight in gold.
But a substance abusing, weiner piercing, drunk retard that clearly has no regard for decency or the quiet enjoyment of anyone around him…
Screw ’em.
Throw his parents 200 bucks for the ambulance costs and a condom so they can’t produce another worthless offspring.
And that’s being generous.
RIGHT ON! THESE IDIOTS REPRODUCE AND VOTE. DON’T YOU THINK ANY ORGANISM WITH AN IQ LESS THAN 37 SHOULD HAVE HIS PRINCE ALBERT RETIRED?
Here’s an idea…If your license is suspended for DUI, not only may you not drive, but you are also forbidden to be in an establisnment that serves alcohol for the suspension period. If you are caught, it is a mandatory sentence of 6 months. You can use GPS ankle braclets to monitor and enforce. That’s one way to keep the drunken idiots home.
To help a drug addict, get rid of the pushers.
Bars and bartenders push alcohol, and nothing is done about it. Everywhere in New Jersey, patrons come in and drink for hours and hours, opening to closing, and they keep getting served, even when they’re drivers. We need more stringent laws and more examples of bartenders being held personally liable and losing their homes for ignoring how much they have served a patron and just continuing to ring up the cash register and the tips. After working in the court system for many years, it is painfully evident that alcohol destroys lives. Pushers of alcohol who do not obey the law should be held accountable and punished!
When I tended bar during college, I refused to serve intoxicated patrons. Sometimes the owner would serve them personally then, depending on who they were. He took that liability on himself.
I agree with any lawsuits making bar owners and bartenders take heed of the law and help to save lives — both of alcoholics and the innocent public!