Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[clipper]

@Knights_Mom

I like sage. I like growing it. Looking at it. Smudging with it.

It is one of my favourite teas!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

What LLC owning a large horse facility would not have liability insurance? When the LLC is sued, it’s up to their liability insurer to defend the suit or settle.

I know we talked about insurance denying claims before.

I’m going to quote just one line from SGF’s answer to the suit, dated BEFORE they had the opportunity to see the plaintiff in action, under oath:

“Plaintiff’s damages were caused by Plaintiff’s own negligence”

Does that sound like they’d be more likely to settle now, after watching her lie on the stand AND admitting she had a plan to ruin MB on the stand?

Re bolded. Most states have a provision that liability is not 100% assigned to A or B, but instead there can be a finding that liability is xy% assigned to A and (1-xy)% assigned to B.

There is no contradiction that SGF’s lawyers will simultaneously a) try to settle, and b) try to assign as much blame on LK for precipitating the shooting in case the they get get in settled.

In fact, in the process of reaching a settlement, you would want to build as strong a case as possible that it was mostly the other guy’s fault in order to negotiate a smaller settlement. That’s exactly why they would push ahead for discovery.

In terms of homeowner’s insurance, the insurance company may reject my claim, as the insured, that they pay for the water damage from an overflowing bathtub, but I doubt a liability insurer can “reject” a court judgement against SGF, if SGF has a liability policy with them.

[Salty]

I want to chime in to defend the house cleaners!

I had a friend who went from cleaning a few houses to employing a bunch of people. She watched house cleaning videos and took notes. She also had a business degree. There is no way in which she was not a professional, engaged in a profession.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Sdel

We’ve only heard bits and pieces about them…but it seems the LLC was this couple’s way to structure their retirement….

The farm sold…I’m sure they want it over so they can recover their money and retire.

Absolutely. My point was more that this is the exact opposite move from rolling over and handing out settlements.

What LLC owning a large horse facility would not have liability insurance? When the LLC is sued, it’s up to their liability insurer to defend the suit or settle.

You really don’t understand how this works do you? SGF’s Insurance is not involved in the suit and has no power to settle anything or not.

Are you saying SGF had no liability insurance?

IM says they did. Logic says they would have.

I’m going with IM and logic here.

[Angela_Freda]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Since we now know that he was delusional in August, 2019, and a danger to himself and others, it was a fault of SGF to have him employed as a trainer for as long as they did. That’s what the civil suit is about.

I mean, seriously? Alternate at the Olympics, awards galore [we all saw that foyer and Club room!] and a trainer to several riders on the OLYMPIC Eventing team…

[eggbutt]

Perhaps @Inigo-montoya will pop back on and give us their insider take on the Civil Trial(s) since they may know all the attorneys and Judge involved. That didn’t work out so well in the criminal trial but maybe there is insight other than all the discovery and depositions we don’t know about. Finish the Bastard! should play well in a civil suit.

[EADoug]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM and logic here.

A contradictory sentence…

[Angela_Freda]

@Sdel

MB wasn’t employed by SGF. He leased the farm, with indemnity clauses, through MB Dressage. LLC’s are specifically designed to protect the owners of the LLC from liability and indemnity clauses further protect the LLC from the actions of others.

huh, sounds like a very astute move of a shrewd business man.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

I repeat my question to you.

It wasn’t rhetorical?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

Do you understand contributory negligence?

Again, have you read the civil suit and answers, etc…?

Also, from SGF’s answer:

“ At all times relevant hereto, Michael Barisone, either individually or through his entity Michael Barisone Dressage Stables LLC were parties to a contract which calls for the contractual indemnification of Sweet Grass by Michael Barisone, either individually or through his entity Michael Barisone Dressage Stables LLC. While denying any and all liability to Plaintiff, if Plaintiff is successful in proving her case against Sweet Grass as a result of the acts or omissions of Michael Barisone, then, as a result of the Contract between Sweet Grass and Michael Barisone, either individually or through his entity Michael Barisone Dressage Stables LLC, then Sweet Grass asserts that it is entitled to be indemnified and saved harmless from all loss or liability, including attorneys’ fees and costs arising from the instant litigation, by Michael Barisone, either individually or through his entity Michael Barisone Dressage Stables LLC pursuant to express and implied contractual agreements.

Again, that was before the criminal trial. That doesn’t sound very settlement-y to me.

Yes, I understand contributory negligence.

[Angela_Freda]

@Sdel

Definitely need a lot of that lately…

wish we could send a crop duster to fly over Morris Co Jail with some… sheesh

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM and logic here.

Of course you are. There was never any doubt.

[eggbutt]

Nope, it most certainly was not.

[Sdel]

Oh….that reading comprehension again. The insurance company can not settle the suit. They have no power to force SGF to take any actions within a suit since they are not named parties. They are only on the hook for whatever amount the court finds the LLC liable for.

I don’t think that will be very much, if any at all. I think it is very telling that you keep ranting about all the entities that have “insurance” but you are only fixated on SGF’s insurance that has to settle big and pay out when there are arguably other entities who hold much more liability. Seems like there is a personal grudge there that is coloring your perceptions. Maybe y’all are mad that SGF refused to sell the farm to LK “for a steal” since y’all are so fixated on it being “their property”. Maybe that is what all the contract forging was all about…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

@Sdel

MB wasn’t employed by SGF. He leased the farm, with indemnity clauses, through MB Dressage. LLC’s are specifically designed to protect the owners of the LLC from liability and indemnity clauses further protect the LLC from the actions of others.

huh, sounds like a very astute move of a shrewd business man.

Which would explain why SGF is suing MB dressage, which would have liability insurance. I don’t think liability insurance covers liability from a criminal act, except for drunk driving.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

Nope, it most certainly was not.

Well, my question to you was rhetorical.

Hint: one doesn’t answer rhetorical questions.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Re bolded. Most states have a provision that liability is not 100% assigned to A or B, but instead there can be a finding that liability is xy% assigned to A and (1-xy)% assigned to B.

But we aren’t talking about most states. We are specifically talking about NJ, and their laws re: contributory negligence. From New Jersey Statutes 2A:15-5:

“… Any damages sustained shall be diminished by the percentage sustained of negligence attributable to the person recovering.”

We just heard sworn testimony that her father negotiated an exit plan that she refused, and that she had a plan to ruin him. And that’s just what Mr B got into evidence in the criminal trial. In a civil suit, he’s going to get in all those prior bad acts, all those texts and recordings etc that were excluded because the victim wasn’t on trial. She is now, in essence in her civil suit. All that stuff is fair game. And it absolutely contributed to the situation.

Re: insurance companies: they absolutely can deny it especially if the insured has an “indemnify and hold harmless” contract. See SGF’s answer.

[MHM]

@ekat

@Ambitious_Kate

But what if she claims she was on the path to a professional career

That path is still going to include missed trainings, scratched competitions, etc. It’s hard to prove you had a serious path to anything when actual records show you didn’t actually take it serious enough to show up.

I could claim I’m on the path to becoming Miss America. That doesn’t make it true. Lol.

[eggbutt]

Uh-huh. Typically you once again are unable or unwilling to explain or defend your absolutely blind loyalty to people you say you’ve never met and have no connection with.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

Oh….that reading comprehension again. The insurance company can not settle the suit. They have no power to force SGF to take any actions within a suit since they are not named parties. They are only on the hook for whatever amount the court finds the LLC liable for.

I don’t think that will be very much, if any at all. I think it is very telling that you keep ranting about all the entities that have “insurance” but you are only fixated on SGF’s insurance that has to settle big and pay out when there are arguably other entities who hold much more liability. Seems like there is a personal grudge there that is coloring your perceptions. Maybe y’all are mad that SGF refused to sell the farm to LK “for a steal” since y’all are so fixated on it being “their property”. Maybe that is what all the contract forging was all about…

I think that as the party “on the hook” for whatever the court determines SGF is liable for, the insurance company will have a great deal of say in whether SGF settles or not.