Fraud with the injury being a broken ankle? I doubt it. A subjective injury like back injury might be a scam but not a broken bone. Why go to the trouble of breaking a bone when all you have to do is lay down in the driveway and call 911? It is true the daughter might not have sued except for the money coming from an insurance company instead of good old Mom but isn\’t one of the reasons we buy insurance is our wanting to avoid messy fights with relatives and neighbors? I am sure lots of us have had accidents with friends and neighbors and things were much more pleasant because of there being insurance. I have and I was glad I didn\’t have to get into a nasty fight with some one I had gotten along with till then.
The daughter is an idiot – First of all – no one can \”walk on water\” especially when it\’s frozen – You live in a climate where the snow melts and overnight it freezes – unless she was raised in a bubble – it is only common sense to watch you step – Also refer to the Illinois Statues for Civil Immunities:
(745 ILCS 75/0.01) (from Ch. 70, par. 200)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Snow and Ice Removal Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.)
(745 ILCS 75/1) (from Ch. 70, par. 201)
Sec. 1. It is declared to be the public policy of this State that owners and others residing in residential units be encouraged to clean the sidewalks abutting their residences of snow and ice. The General Assembly, therefore, determines that it is undesirable for any person to be found liable for damages due to his or her efforts in the removal of snow or ice from such sidewalks, except for acts which amount to clear wrongdoing, as described in Section 2 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 81‑591.)
(745 ILCS 75/2) (from Ch. 70, par. 202)
Sec. 2. Any owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential property, or any agent of or other person engaged by any such party, who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton.
(Source: P.A. 81‑591.)
The judge is just as foolish to even hear the case.
I/m glad you aren\’t a claims adjuster for my company, but if I ever have a claim….you\’re my man ! You sound as though your settlemnts would be quite generous.
DC:
Don\’t count your chickens yet if you have a claim with me. I see lots of liability problems for the daughter, i.e., the ice was an obvious danger to be expected in the winter but I don\’t see the fact that it involes a daughter/mother to be a big deal. I never said the claim was worth much if anything.
The letter written long after the fall sounds made up to help the daughter but it may cause some serious coverage problems for the mother if used at trial as it sounds like a voluntary assumption of liability and a breach of policy conditions.
I live near Rockford, Il and saw this story on the local news. I have handled a case similar to this several years ago. I am in agreement with Dasfuk. This is not personal in any way, shape or form….its about the money…deep pocket theory remember?????
It seems to me the daughter is suing the mother, not the insurance company. It appears that the insurance company denied the claim for the daughter’s lost wages and medical bills. Obviously this means the mother must have a deep pocket and the daughter feels its due. As for the letter, I’m sure the mother felt guilty for what had happened on her property, and that is why she wrote the letter. I know ice can melt and refreeze in the matter of hours. It appears maybe the daughter is negligent.
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.
If I was that parent I would disinherit my child. That child is pure evil.
Fraud with the injury being a broken ankle? I doubt it. A subjective injury like back injury might be a scam but not a broken bone. Why go to the trouble of breaking a bone when all you have to do is lay down in the driveway and call 911? It is true the daughter might not have sued except for the money coming from an insurance company instead of good old Mom but isn\’t one of the reasons we buy insurance is our wanting to avoid messy fights with relatives and neighbors? I am sure lots of us have had accidents with friends and neighbors and things were much more pleasant because of there being insurance. I have and I was glad I didn\’t have to get into a nasty fight with some one I had gotten along with till then.
The daughter is an idiot – First of all – no one can \”walk on water\” especially when it\’s frozen – You live in a climate where the snow melts and overnight it freezes – unless she was raised in a bubble – it is only common sense to watch you step – Also refer to the Illinois Statues for Civil Immunities:
(745 ILCS 75/0.01) (from Ch. 70, par. 200)
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Snow and Ice Removal Act.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1324.)
(745 ILCS 75/1) (from Ch. 70, par. 201)
Sec. 1. It is declared to be the public policy of this State that owners and others residing in residential units be encouraged to clean the sidewalks abutting their residences of snow and ice. The General Assembly, therefore, determines that it is undesirable for any person to be found liable for damages due to his or her efforts in the removal of snow or ice from such sidewalks, except for acts which amount to clear wrongdoing, as described in Section 2 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 81‑591.)
(745 ILCS 75/2) (from Ch. 70, par. 202)
Sec. 2. Any owner, lessor, occupant or other person in charge of any residential property, or any agent of or other person engaged by any such party, who removes or attempts to remove snow or ice from sidewalks abutting the property shall not be liable for any personal injuries allegedly caused by the snowy or icy condition of the sidewalk resulting from his or her acts or omissions unless the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton.
(Source: P.A. 81‑591.)
The judge is just as foolish to even hear the case.
I/m glad you aren\’t a claims adjuster for my company, but if I ever have a claim….you\’re my man ! You sound as though your settlemnts would be quite generous.
1) If mom had a HO policy the medical would cover the daughter\’s bills.
2) Mom must not have a HO policy in effect.
Anyone who thinks this was not set up is nuts or totally out of tune with what is going on these days.
DC:
Don\’t count your chickens yet if you have a claim with me. I see lots of liability problems for the daughter, i.e., the ice was an obvious danger to be expected in the winter but I don\’t see the fact that it involes a daughter/mother to be a big deal. I never said the claim was worth much if anything.
The letter written long after the fall sounds made up to help the daughter but it may cause some serious coverage problems for the mother if used at trial as it sounds like a voluntary assumption of liability and a breach of policy conditions.
I live near Rockford, Il and saw this story on the local news. I have handled a case similar to this several years ago. I am in agreement with Dasfuk. This is not personal in any way, shape or form….its about the money…deep pocket theory remember?????
Fact is, the letter is a good idea from a smart and evil lawyer. The ins co. will settle out of court for anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000.
It seems to me the daughter is suing the mother, not the insurance company. It appears that the insurance company denied the claim for the daughter’s lost wages and medical bills. Obviously this means the mother must have a deep pocket and the daughter feels its due. As for the letter, I’m sure the mother felt guilty for what had happened on her property, and that is why she wrote the letter. I know ice can melt and refreeze in the matter of hours. It appears maybe the daughter is negligent.