I think that NC does not have comparative negligence. I believe the state is a state that if someone is 51% at fault, they are responsible for 100% of the claim. I could be wrong, but that is what I had heard about the state.
Running in front of a vehicle to stop it only works in the movies. Not knowing the terms of the policy I can’t really comment on the settlement, but it does seem to me that insurance companies need to start putting “reasonable care” clauses into their contracts. I think most people would file “don’t run in front of a vehicle being operated by a drunk person” under “reasonable care”.
If it had been a privately owned vehicle (not a “company car”) would the settlement have been that high? I doubt we would even be reading about this. Can you say, “Deep Pockets?” I agree with lastbat that running in front of a moving vehicle is also part of the problem as well but until we put limits on how much one can sue for this type of thing is never going to end. $18 million? Had he run out in front of his friend driving his personal 6-year old, privately insured sedan I bet the settlement would have been $180,000.
All the tlk about personal responsibility for oneself is great. One should never run in front of a moving vehicle with any driver , let alone an impaired one.
The better question is why was a court not understanding the idiocy of this move when they granted a $75 mil award ? Where was the prudence then ? This whole thing smacks of trial lawyers getting rich because the employer bought enuogh insurance limits to allow it. shame on them all.
Yes, it is a Big settlement.
But where was the insurance company at the trial? They didn’t show up! That is what people buy insurance for! Coverage, which includes defense.
Yes, the company was wrong, but the settlement of $18Mil. is too high.
Facts: both the plaintiff and defendant were drinking on New Years Eve. It was late and dark. The defendant had every right to leave the party. If the plaintiff darted out in front of him, it diminishes liability on the driver. At a minimum, I would think comparative negligence was 50-50. How that translates to $18M is beyond me. Of course somebody at AIG should be summarily dismissed for not having representation at the trial. Another factor is the issue of the scope of permissive use. If the defendant was limited to business use, a disclaimer of coverage should have issued to the employee.
NC is one of only five remaining contributory negligence states. If you contribute to the accident in any way, the other party is not liable. There are a few exceptions, but they are rarely upheld.
InsIsMyPassion is correct. NC is a contrib state. The result is that: Plaintiff recd a 75m award that was not warranted because the carrier did not show up for trial in a severe injury case.
The carrier is paying 18m for not defending the underlying action.
The result does not strike me as too unfair. Maybe AIG will have a defense attorney at trial next time.
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.
Dread,
I think that NC does not have comparative negligence. I believe the state is a state that if someone is 51% at fault, they are responsible for 100% of the claim. I could be wrong, but that is what I had heard about the state.
Running in front of a vehicle to stop it only works in the movies. Not knowing the terms of the policy I can’t really comment on the settlement, but it does seem to me that insurance companies need to start putting “reasonable care” clauses into their contracts. I think most people would file “don’t run in front of a vehicle being operated by a drunk person” under “reasonable care”.
If it had been a privately owned vehicle (not a “company car”) would the settlement have been that high? I doubt we would even be reading about this. Can you say, “Deep Pockets?” I agree with lastbat that running in front of a moving vehicle is also part of the problem as well but until we put limits on how much one can sue for this type of thing is never going to end. $18 million? Had he run out in front of his friend driving his personal 6-year old, privately insured sedan I bet the settlement would have been $180,000.
All the tlk about personal responsibility for oneself is great. One should never run in front of a moving vehicle with any driver , let alone an impaired one.
The better question is why was a court not understanding the idiocy of this move when they granted a $75 mil award ? Where was the prudence then ? This whole thing smacks of trial lawyers getting rich because the employer bought enuogh insurance limits to allow it. shame on them all.
Yes, it is a Big settlement.
But where was the insurance company at the trial? They didn’t show up! That is what people buy insurance for! Coverage, which includes defense.
Yes, the company was wrong, but the settlement of $18Mil. is too high.
Don’t stand in front of moving Trucks!
I’m just glad that the attorneys were paid. It would have been a travesty if they had received one penny less than the victim.
Facts: both the plaintiff and defendant were drinking on New Years Eve. It was late and dark. The defendant had every right to leave the party. If the plaintiff darted out in front of him, it diminishes liability on the driver. At a minimum, I would think comparative negligence was 50-50. How that translates to $18M is beyond me. Of course somebody at AIG should be summarily dismissed for not having representation at the trial. Another factor is the issue of the scope of permissive use. If the defendant was limited to business use, a disclaimer of coverage should have issued to the employee.
NC is one of only five remaining contributory negligence states. If you contribute to the accident in any way, the other party is not liable. There are a few exceptions, but they are rarely upheld.
InsIsMyPassion is correct. NC is a contrib state. The result is that: Plaintiff recd a 75m award that was not warranted because the carrier did not show up for trial in a severe injury case.
The carrier is paying 18m for not defending the underlying action.
The result does not strike me as too unfair. Maybe AIG will have a defense attorney at trial next time.
It’s only our tax dollars being used to pay these outlandish judgements. What’s the big deal?