Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[hut-ho78]

I thought everyone was so happy with the acquittal. It seems more like people must have just misunderstood NGRI. A few of us tried to explain it would be a while before he would be released and he had to do some work in order to do so. As I recall, that was poorly received and ridiculed at the time. Now the same ones who ridiculed are the same ones stating the jury was railroaded into an unfair verdict of acquittal. Once MB is deemed no longer a threat to himself or others, he can be released and get back to his life without a criminal record. He can apply to be reinstated by SafeSport which may not be a slam dunk (since a jury found the prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that he committed the act (he shot a client twice in the chest) that would have been a crime except the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he was insane at the time) but it is a possibility. If he takes advantage of every therapy opportunity, group or individual, his doctors can continue to move him through the levels as they have so far, Level 3.

Interesting that Dienenger walked back the $400,000 to $75,000 and wants the trial moved back to New Jersey. I am so surprised that he doesn’t have at least a ballpark number in mind for what is owed. I believe law firms like other professions such as CPAs have accountants and closely watch billable hours by client and event. Copy machines, printers, time spent online all have ways to capture the status of billable hours. If I had to guess, I would be more at the $1M level for all of the court cases combined. However, the insurance companies still are from New York and Texas so that doesn’t sound like that will suffice.

I was surprised that they were still using the the same old blame the victim with the insurance companies. That tactic may work for a criminal jury or injury civil trial but it has no bearing that I can come up with on this one. This one really hangs on intent and per Google searches, an NGRI verdict is not a pass in federal court.

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If they settle Barisone’s case, they’ll be setting a precedent that they’ll roll over and pay out when anyone else sues them for not providing defense.

Settling actually helps them not create precedent.
Their obligation to pay in such a situation would only become precedent if the insurance company loses on appeal.. If they settle it has no bearing on any subsequent case.

[BrownDerby]

@LilRanger

Settling actually helps them not create precedent.
Their obligation to pay in such a situation would only become precedent if the insurance company loses on appeal. . If they settle it has no bearing on any subsequent case.

Sheesh, even I knew that.

[SoCoPony]

[eggbutt]

These threads have become Groundhog Day! Good Lord, give it a break everyone.

[BrownDerby]

Busted.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@LilRanger

@CurrentlyHorseless

If they settle Barisone’s case, they’ll be setting a precedent that they’ll roll over and pay out when anyone else sues them for not providing defense.

Settling actually helps them not create precedent.
Their obligation to pay in such a situation would only become precedent if the insurance company loses on appeal.. If they settle it has no bearing on any subsequent case.

I didn’t mean precedent in the sense of a legal precedent.

I meant a pattern of behavior that leads other insured parties to expect them to settle whenever they’re sued. It’s important for them to create a reputation that they will defend their denials of coverage rather than settle. Settling would encourage other lawsuits.

It’s an issue of reputation, not legal precedence.

[eggbutt]

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@Kitty64

I can’t even believe you typed this out. Or maybe I do, considering everything else you get wrong on this forum.

I know. I mean, that was Deininger citing case law…which means it’s something that has already been decided. And apparently already in Barisone’s favor. Such sour grapes.

The case law was referring to teenagers with a BB gun, not an adult with a Ruger.

[Maria]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Settling would encourage other lawsuits.

I have news for you, this will not encourage or discourage other lawsuits. People are going to sue, whether for a worthy cause or not a worthy cause, whether they can win or not, whether it has merit or not.

If you haven’t noticed, we live in a VERY litigious society. Just look at the threats the K’s throw around.

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I meant a pattern of behavior that leads other insured parties to expect them to settle whenever they’re sued

I see. I think that ship has sailed, but thank you for the clarification.

[DownYonder]

@hut-ho78

He can apply to be reinstated by SafeSport which may not be a slam dunk (since a jury found the prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that he committed the act (he shot a client twice in the chest) that would have been a crime except the defense met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that he was insane at the time) but it is a possibility.

Good Lord, that sentence is worthy of the Ken Braddick Award for Excellence in Writing.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I meant a pattern of behavior that leads other insured parties to expect them to settle whenever they’re sued.

Ummm……didn’t you argue that this was the exact reason why LK sued and could expect to get a settlement? Because the insurance companies “pay out” rather than fight?

Your sounding a lot like LK on this particular backstroke.

[DownYonder]

[quote=“CurrentlyHorseless, post:1561, topic:785728, full:true”]

@LilRanger

@CurrentlyHorseless

If they settle Barisone’s case, they’ll be setting a precedent that they’ll roll over and pay out when anyone else sues them for not providing defense.
[/quote]

Settling actually helps them not create precedent.
Their obligation to pay in such a situation would only become precedent if the insurance company loses on appeal. . If they settle it has no bearing on any subsequent case.

I didn’t mean precedent in the sense of a legal precedent.

I meant a pattern of behavior that leads other insured parties to expect them to settle whenever they’re sued. It’s important for them to create a reputation that they will defend their denials of coverage rather than settle. Settling would encourage other lawsuits.

It’s an issue of reputation, not legal precedence.

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I meant a pattern of behavior that leads other insured parties to expect them to settle whenever they’re sued.

Ah, you mean sort of like how the K-Klan expects other parties to fold like a napkin whenever they threaten to sue them?

[SoCoPony]

[Sdel]

@DownYonder

Ah, you mean sort of like how the K-Klan expects other parties to fold like a napkin whenever they threaten to sue them?

And how a certain group insisted that LK would get insurance settlements rather than have them fight it….

But now they expect the insurance companies to “fight it” rather than pay out……

[SoCoPony]

[thoroughbred22]

@CurrentlyHorseless

No release for MB at this time. Next Krol hearing is in November.

It seems to me a clear conflict of financial interest for Greystone staff, i.e. people getting their paycheck from retaining patients, to testify that a patient needs to be retained. No one who is remotely $$$ benefiting from keeping him in their custody should have any say in keeping him in their custody versus supervised release.

That the staff seem both under-experienced and neglectful of their duties is just icing on the poison cupcake.

[BrownDerby]

Gosh I hate seeing a horse dragging his feet during the back. But with that kind of riding I guess he can’t help it.