Injured Indiana Steelworker Sues Company for $55 Million

September 2, 2008

  • September 2, 2008 at 1:39 am
    Insurance Watchdog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The injured parties are certainly entitled to damages, but their attorney is the most self-serving/promoting individual in N.W. Indiana. He does an excellent job getting his name out which in turn results in new clients. I believe he has every newspaper/TV station on speed dial to promote himself when he gets a case and if he wins, look out they are all over the press coverage.

  • September 2, 2008 at 1:55 am
    Compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know Indiana WC laws, but if they can’t prove negligence on the part of the company, isn’t the injured worker stopped in his tracks due to the “exclusive remedy” clause? Maybe Indiana doesn’t have this. Does anybody know?

  • September 2, 2008 at 2:00 am
    rusty bucket says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I say go for it all, heck, why not $500M for that matter.

  • September 2, 2008 at 2:35 am
    Hmmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Because they need to leave some money for the rest of the injured workers to go after. Then, when the companies they sue go bankrupt they will scream foul and tell of how poorly they were treated by the system.

  • September 2, 2008 at 3:26 am
    spaldy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Indiana is a sole remedy state. There has never been a sucessful EL claim against an employer that purchases a WC policy.

    This incident, while horrific, is just an excuse for an ambulance chaser to file suit. This certianly won’t blast out sole remedy. It’s not like this is a totally unexpected event at a mill.

    Mills are inherently dangerous places to work and there will be horrible accidents. The lost time rate is hundreds of time less than it was just 40 years ago.

  • September 2, 2008 at 3:36 am
    Sole Remedy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sole remedy and the exclusivity of workers’ compensation have nothing to do with employers’ liability coverage.

    Employers’ liability provides coverage for injuries suffered by third parties not the employer (except in third-party-over and dual capacity situations). Such as loss of consortium and consequential injury.

  • September 2, 2008 at 5:16 am
    Former Indiana WC case manager says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Spaldy and Sole Remedy you are right on both counts. I know the WC Judge in this district and he is a former plaintiffs attorney and will do whatever he can to give the benefit of the doubt to the employee. However, if the employee has accepted any WC benefits he may be limited as to what he is able to sue for. I had a claim about 10 years ago that they where claiming EL outside of the WC system and it went to the State Supreme Court and was shut down by the Justices. It is a shame when people get drawn in by the ambulance chasers out there and just give away some of there benefits. His wife states that he is back working so it would be very difficult for him to claim a permanent and total disability as well.

    What a shame!

  • September 2, 2008 at 5:38 am
    Insurance Watchdog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I appreciate the comments of the former IN Work Comp Case manager along with others.

    If we are thinking of the same person as the WC Judge, I totally agree with you on their generous support for Plaintiffs.

    Knowing Ken Allen and his shanningans he tries to pull with judges and juries are very theatrical and if I didn’t know better he was a Theatre Major in college before going to law school. Of course, he had to take a course in law school on how best to present himself to a jury and sure he brown-nosed for an “A” because he is quite orchestrasted!

  • September 3, 2008 at 10:31 am
    Ratemaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Also, the Supreme Court recommended a “single digit multiple” standard for the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. Punitive awards larger than 9 times compensatory have a good chance of being overturned as excessive.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*