Mont. Jury Awards Woman $5.3M in Lawsuit

April 21, 2008

  • April 21, 2008 at 3:16 am
    Baxtor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder what Fireman’s fund defense was? I cannot believe an insurance company would deny such a claim without some good reasoning. Just goes to show you how reporting works. Nothing in this article about their defense so it makes them look bad. If they truly didn’t have a defense and just denied the claim, then they got what they deserved.

  • April 21, 2008 at 3:16 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A person with alledged brain damage can earn a doctorate degree in Montana after her injuries occurred? I should have gone to school in Montana!

  • April 21, 2008 at 3:43 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At a guess, suggest the Fund was standing on a policy provision defining ‘resident relative’. The plaintiff was a doctoral student so I am guessing she was well over 22 years of age and, further, had a ‘student residence’…I do NOT know any of this – just a guess. but fits the scimpy facts reported by ICJ. Sure hope the fund got out a Res.of Rights timely when they received first notice

  • April 21, 2008 at 3:54 am
    bb says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The carrier decided her injuries were faked. The rest of the story is at:

    http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/local/news02.txt

    CJ just plagarized part of the story.

  • April 21, 2008 at 4:17 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    BB – thanks for your post – just read the news article – what a mess – The Fund is lucky the award wasn’t larger and I will certainly be interested to learn the purported grounds for their promised Appeal

  • April 21, 2008 at 4:44 am
    Country Bumpkin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bob is either a FF employee or a political campaign staffer. No facts necessary.

  • April 21, 2008 at 6:25 am
    nancy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think there will be several grounds for appeal and a new trial entirely. Sounds like the jury was already extremely prejudiced against F/F. I love the “loss of established course of life”, that’s a new B.S. claim. Gotten love these scumbag attorneys who were once failed english lit majors.

  • April 21, 2008 at 6:51 am
    reality says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    how can you make such comments about a matter which you read only a few lines about? you are exposing you own ignorance.

  • April 22, 2008 at 7:02 am
    Jimmy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I did not concern myself with the name of the adjuster. I read it real fast.

  • April 22, 2008 at 8:53 am
    Fairness Fann says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At one point, Curtis (adjuster) asked for help from his superiors in dealing with the claim, stating, “I don’t have any way to disprove the allegations,” according to the file.

    Then, after reviewing a video of Chilcote’s seizures – since the accident, she has difficulty controlling her head movements – Curtis wrote “obviously staged” in his file without citing any medical support for the allegation.

    source:
    http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/local/news02.txt

    This Curtis guy is the pits.



Add a Comment

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

*