Anyone have a good apple tort recipe?
20 Likes
Or some new stick art figures?
5 Likes
Funniest pony line. Ever. 
12 Likes
What do you think a tort is??
Bad AK, Bad AK. Never go up against an unarmed opponant in a battle of wits.
18 Likes
OMG. Keeping me laughing during a long night at work. Oh my.
4 Likes
3 Likes
The thing is, I donāt think sheās faking it. I think its real.
10 Likes
One simple definition of a tort is:
A wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be sought in the form of damages or an injunction.
The issue of disagreement between @Sdel and me is whether one can file a civil suit in response to damages created by something other than a tort. Since a tort arises from an action which is not a breach of contact, civil suits based on a claimed breach of contract are one example of a suit not arising out of a tort. There are other types of civil suits based on actions other than torts or breach of contract.
The insurance companies did not commit a tort. They declined to defend Barisone under the insurance policies. Barisoneās civil suit against the insurance companies is based on his claim that the insurance companies committed a breach of contract by declining to defend him.
An insurance policy is a contract. Barisone claims the insurance companies breached the contract; the insurance companies maintain that that were not obligated to defend Barisone under the terms of the contract, and therefore that they did not breach the contract.
Many civil suits arise from torts. But not all. Some arise from other considerations, breach of contract as one example.
By referring to āan unarmed opponant [sic] in a battle of witsā, is that your clever and subtle way of calling me stupid? Not very subtle. Not very clever, either, @Ambitious_Kate.
One can certainly sue for breach of contract. A breach of contract is not a tort. Hence one can sue for causes other than a tort, contrary to the belief of Sdel.
1 Like
Apple Tort
Peach Tort
Plum Tort
Raspberry Fudge Tort
Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Tort, Torte
19 Likes
Fine, so what breach of contract/tort did the insurance companies assert that Barisone made in which they are counter suing him for? How exactly have they claimed that he harmed them?
Recovery of attorney fees are not a breach of contract or a tort and so one can not ācounter sueā for them. They are simply awarded based on the rules or judgeās discretion: usually loser pays the other parties attorney, but itās not a given. Besides, even if the insurance companies are successful, the likelihood that a judge will award attorney fees to a large corporation against an individual is close to nil. Lawsuits are the cost of doing business for the insurance company and it would be unfairly punitive to the individual who doesnāt have a standing multimillion dollar legal defense fund.
Answer: There is a ācounter suitā but it is not for āattorney feesā it is to find Barisoneās suit frivolous and requesting the judge dismiss the case.
17 Likes
Thank you to everyone for the education in these posts about raging narcissists.
I watched the Staircase Murders today. It was all there. The rage when he killed. The isolating of family members, the ostracism of a family member and the why are you doing this to me victim card played when called out on something.
Thank God they came back with Guilty.
11 Likes
Wait, are you talking about āThe Staircaseā? Which is about Michael Peterson and his wife who died and maybe he killed her or maybe it was an owl, and who, by the way, is a type of narcissist himself, or is there a different show called āThe Staircase Murdersā?
2 Likes
I could, you know, google and find outā¦
Oops, sorry about the elipsesā¦
2 Likes
There was no owl involved and it said based on true events. Murders because he moved after the first one, and it was deemed a cerebral haemorrhage, so it wasnāt picked up that she also āfell down stairsā until her sister came forward.
3 Likes
Actually, Peterson won and appeal and a new trial, during which he plead the Alfred plea and was released with time served. There were substantial mistakes found in the original trial, complex to go into here, but it is very interesting all that happened after the trial, which you can find in this synopsis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peterson_trial
The original prep for the trial and the original trial its self was filmed by his defense attorney as an eight part documentary called āThe Staircaseā with Michael Peterson himself filmed and looking very guilty and very narcissistic throughout, with his original attorney becoming very disillusioned with his client by the end.
The owl theory was developed years later, based on forensics of owl feathers and tree branch bits found in Kathleenās hair, which was ripped out of her head and clutched in her hand, and which also postulated the types of lacerations found on her head as possibly coming from the talons of an attack of an owl, which inculded an explaination to the problem that there were no bruises or brain bleed or trauma to explain being beaten in the head. It was thought to be a likely explaination for her death, but the theory was never conclusively determined and remained a theory.
Its a fascinating case. Its hard to see Michael Peterson as anything but guilty, given all the circumstantial evidence, but in the end thereās very little to actually tie him to Kathleenās death except that he was there and how suspiciously he was acting. Its a very bizzarre case.
4 Likes
IANAL but my layperson understanding is that there is contract law, and there is tort law. Contract law comes into play when there is an agreement/contract between two parties. Tort law comes into play when a party is injured or damaged in some way by an act (or non-act, including negligence) of another party they do not have an agreement with. For instance, if a display falls on you while you are shopping in a store, if you sue for damages, it would fall under tort law because you have no contract or agreement with the store.
MB apparently had several policies (contracts) with two of the insurance companies, and his lawsuit is arguing that they breached those contracts - so the case is being argued according to contract law. And although he did not have a direct contract with Farm Familyās parent company American National, if American National had drafted or provided Farm Family with contract or policy language, or acted in any way as a āmanaging entityā in its relationship with Farm Family, then it could possibly be argued that Am Nationalās involvement falls within the scope of MBās lawsuit.
(Attorneys, please correct me if I am wrong on any of my interpretations.)
[Edited because I was posting before my tea kicked in and I made an error. 
]
10 Likes
Adding to my previous post - as to whether Am National can recover legal expenses it incurred responding to MBās lawsuit, I wonder if it would depend on whether his claim against them is deemed to be frivolous, without basis, or not in good faith. Any legal eagles know how this point might be decided?
1 Like
One can sue for a tort, or for a breach of contract, or for other stuff.
In the US, the āAmerican ruleā says that, usually, each party pays their own legal costs. The system in which the loser pays the legal costs of the other party is the English system.
Of course itās the judge (or jury) that awards legal costs, but I doubt that the judge would award ANIC its legal costs if it did it did not request (assert a claim/counter sue) for them.
ANIC is requesting/asserting a claim/counter suing for the judge to dismiss Barisoneās suit and award them their legal costs incurred by having had to defend against his suit. Youāre just arguing semantics at this point. You donāt want to call the filing by ANIC a counter suit; I think it is a counter suit. Your refusing to call it a counter suit doesnāt change the substance of the filing.
1 Like
Aside from the consideration of whether Barisoneās suit was frivolous or without basis, there might be language in the insurance policy itself on this issue. I think a lot of contracts are written saying that if the customer or policy holder sues the company and loses, the policy holder is responsible for the legal costs of the company from defending the suit. If the insurance policy had such a clause, that would strengthen the companyās demand for its legal costs to be paid even if Barisoneās suit were not frivolous.
1 Like
