Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[eggbutt]

I don’t they they ever think through their plans to end result. All of them are reactionary and never, ever consider consequences, primarily because they’ve never been held accountable for anything. I believe there comes a time in their relatationship with someone, or even a bump in their day, that a switch is turned on and it all becomes retaliation with no thought to their actions. I perceive they believe they are that entitled.

[BrownDerby]

When we had a peacock at the barn. Evil creature would jump off the roof and then go into full display.

Really bad windstorm came through and we believe he blew away.

[SoCoPony]

Of course there was a time when the men came and went up in the air in a big bucket with a noisy saw.

The tree came down.

Lesson today? Ok here’s a lesson for you. Stop, drop and duck. Bye.

[erinmeri]

@BrownDerby

When we had a peacock at the barn. Evil creature would jump off the roof and then go into full display.

Really bad windstorm came through and we believe he blew away.

We had peacocks on my family’s cattle ranch growing up (including a house peahen… but that is another story). All I can say is… maybe it was a good thing he blew away? Gorgeous, insufferable, evil animals. They delighted in ousting our chickens from the coop and killing their babies, crapped on cars (and everything, really…), and screamed like cats starting at sunrise.

ETA: my horse would die if she saw one.

[erinmeri]

@SoCoPony

Of course there was a time when the men came and went up in the air in a big bucket with a noisy saw.

The tree came down.

Lesson today? Ok here’s a lesson for you. Stop, drop and duck. Bye.

Shockingly my mare didn’t try to kill me when the guys took down a half dozen 60’ or bigger trees last year. It wasn’t fun, but she refrained from the spinning, dropping and ducking.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

This makes precisely no sense in a society where you can sue anyone for anything, and where capitalism reigns. You can settle for $1, you can settle for millions. We don’t exactly need to encourage people to sue in the US. Settling “nuisance” lawsuits happens ALL THE TIME and does exactly what you describe.

Settling for a small amount of money that costs less than what it would cost to defend (even when you are in the right) makes sense financially for many, many companies… including insurers.

I assume you know that insurers make money off of all the clients who pay their premiums and don’t file claims? And those who they deny coverage to and don’t have the will to argue? Or, for the truly bad actors, all the people they “cover” with really crummy fine print? I once had a provider cap burns at $500. When I incurred $15k in vet bills, they would not budge. I didn’t fight it,… I found a new provider. $$$$$$$ in the bank for them. I suppose I could have sued, but I didn’t have the money or the heart to do so.

Whenever an entity is sued, the decision to settle or litigate depends on 1) the likelihood they would lose at trial, 2) the amount they would be held liable got if they lose, 3) the cost of litigating the suit, versus the size of the settlement that would appease the plaintiff.

If, based purely on consideration of those factors regarding the immediate case, the entity was exactly indifferent between settling and litigating, there’s a final considerations having to do with creating a reputation for “being a soft touch” by taking the pathing least resistance and forking over a nuisance settlement, they increase the incentive for others to sue to get a nuisance settlement. Conversely, if they spend a hundred thousand and successfully defend a suit instead of paying a $40,000 settlement, they will see fewer nuisance suits in the future. That’s the reputation effect. The ($100,000 -&40,000) may well be a good investment in deterring future nuisance suits.

I profusely apologize for initially referring to the reputation effect as establishing “precedence”, That word has legal connotations that I did not intend to invoke. I appreciate your graciously permitting me to clarify.

[SoCoPony]

Send her to my pasture, I will show her how it’s done.

Free of charge.

[erinmeri]

@SoCoPony

Send her to my pasture, I will show her how it’s done.

Free of charge.

you incorrigible horse, you! She has enough tricks already!

[BrownDerby]

I may be wrong, because I am just a human, of course, but I think we have a genuine Houyhnhnm in our midst.

[eggbutt]

Careful! There are people on this forum that will think that is a bad word and flag your post!

[SoCoPony]

Really? Who?

I am just a horse of course.

[BrownDerby]

That section is often omitted from the book’s abridged versions because Gulliver is stark raving bonkers at that point.

[SoCoPony]

Well I can see that we do have Yahoo’s here, so why not a Houyhnhnm.

Buck fart because I couldn’t resist.

[BrownDerby]

Bow, bow.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Whenever an entity is sued, the decision to settle or litigate depends on 1) the likelihood they would lose at trial, 2) the amount they would be held liable got if they lose, 3) the cost of litigating the suit, versus the size of the settlement that would appease the plaintiff.

If, based purely on consideration of those factors regarding the immediate case, the entity was exactly indifferent between settling and litigating, there’s a final considerations having to do with creating a reputation for “being a soft touch” by taking the pathing least resistance and forking over a nuisance settlement, they increase the incentive for others to sue to get a nuisance settlement. Conversely, if they spend a hundred thousand and successfully defend a suit instead of paying a $40,000 settlement, they will see fewer nuisance suits in the future. That’s the reputation effect. The ($100,000 -&40,000) may well be a good investment in deterring future nuisance suits.

I profusely apologize for initially referring to the reputation effect as establishing “precedence”, That word has legal connotations that I did not intend to invoke. I appreciate your graciously permitting me to clarify.

So the companies who settle myriad nuisance lawsuits are, in your estimation, opening themselves up to further nuisance lawsuits? And it would make more sense to litigate to deter people, even if it would cost more money (potentially a LOT more $$$) in the long run to do so? I don’t know that’s how things work in our capitalist, litigious society, but okay. And I don’t think ANY entity is “indifferent” to litigating vs settling. I think they are pragmatic. Everyone wants to win, but sometimes you run a P&L or cost-benefit analysis and decide otherwise.

And just to be clear… nobody permitted you to clarify, as you’re free to post whatever you please*. There are no gatekeepers here.

ETA: whatever you please, acknowledging that they are within the rules of the board and you accept if they are not, or they are not truthful, there may be consequences.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

She had legitimate claims against the people they insured.

Interesting take. If so, why did she seem so reluctant to get the trial going, and why did she ultimately initiate the dismissal with prejudice?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

This makes precisely no sense in a society where you can sue anyone for anything, and where capitalism reigns. You can settle for $1, you can settle for millions. We don’t exactly need to encourage people to sue in the US. Settling “nuisance” lawsuits happens ALL THE TIME and does exactly what you describe.

Settling for a small amount of money that costs less than what it would cost to defend (even when you are in the right) makes sense financially for many, many companies… including insurers.

I assume you know that insurers make money off of all the clients who pay their premiums and don’t file claims? And those who they deny coverage to and don’t have the will to argue? Or, for the truly bad actors, all the people they “cover” with really crummy fine print? I once had a provider cap burns at $500. When I incurred $15k in vet bills, they would not budge. I didn’t fight it,… I found a new provider. $$$$$$$ in the bank for them. I suppose I could have sued, but I didn’t have the money or the heart to do so.

Whenever an entity is sued, the decision to settle or litigate depends on 1) the likelihood they would lose at trial, 2) the amount they would be held liable got if they lose, 3) the cost of litigating the suit, versus the size of the settlement that would appease the plaintiff.

If, based purely on consideration of those factors regarding the immediate case, the entity was exactly indifferent between settling and litigating, there’s a final considerations having to do with creating a reputation for “being a soft touch” by taking the pathing least resistance and forking over a nuisance settlement, they increase the incentive for others to sue to get a nuisance settlement. Conversely, if they spend a hundred thousand and successfully defend a suit instead of paying a $40,000 settlement, they will see fewer nuisance suits in the future. That’s the reputation effect. The ($100,000 -&40,000) may well be a good investment in deterring future nuisance suits.

I profusely apologize for initially referring to the reputation effect as establishing “precedence”, That word has legal connotations that I did not intend to invoke. I appreciate your graciously permitting me to clarify.

As settlements are largely confidential where are the people getting this information from? Is there a posting board for such, divided up by type of claim, jurisdiction and particular specific judges listed?

Also, what else did JK have to say?

[erinmeri]

@Ambitious_Kate

And Lauren’s prediction on her SM was that Michael would be in Greystone for years and years. I guess that’s not coming true, either.

To be fair, too soon to tell. That said, progressing to Level 3 seems a good indicator he won’t.

[erinmeri]

@Knights_Mom

As settlements are largely confidential where are the people getting this information from? Is there a posting board for such, divided up by type of claim, jurisdiction and particular specific judges listed?

Also, what else did JK have to say?

Exactly!

[erinmeri]

@Mondo

As a former insurance professional, I just had to laugh at this. Insurance companies don’t give 2 $hits about their “reputation.” They will, however, bend over backward to not settle because they LOVE the money and do not like to part with it. At some point, settling becomes cheaper than litigating however. Because this is a relatively small suit (in the grand scheme of insurance companies) I’m guessing they will settle if they can’t get their requests for dismissal to work.

Thank you for weighing in!! So refreshing to have someone who actually knows what they are talking about speak on the matter.