Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

Just a friendly reminder that we have no criminal act by MB or MB dressage. Acquittal, and all.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

Clarification: all parties have requested a jury trial so the court won’t be determining liability. Random jurors who are going to get to read 19,000 pages of SM posts, listen to 70+ secret recordings, hear testimony about barefoot ninja, hear further testimony that the plaintiff refused to leave after her dad negotiated an exit and relocation plan are going to decide.

[smoofox]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m going with IM and logic here.

I’m going with giant shrimp.
Dull roar.
Same difference.
Original copy.
Exact estimate.

That kinda thing.

[Knights_Mom]

@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.

Adjudicated as not a criminal act.

[eggbutt]

Shame on you! You know the verdict was guilty on all counts…where have you been?

The Kanareks are looking for a huge payout regardless where it comes from. They’ve lost what respect they had in the community and all that’s left is to try and salvage something from the Plan That Went South. Yes indeed, this trial will be more fascinating than the criminal trial except this time, the bombshells may be coming from the Barisone Team.

[Scribbler]

About insurance. I’ve dealt wth facility insurance. The big thing if you’ve got multiple entities or individuals involved is to set things up so for instance ance the barn is not liable for something that happens under a visiting trainers watch.

Your insurance company will insist on it. Riding has its risks and people fall off or get kicked etc.

I am sure that SGF as an entity was set up to keep the assets of the farm shielded from anything that happened.

I am also pretty sure that a civil trial would reach the conclusion we’ve been harrangued for hinting at, and in a chain of cause and effect end up yup, blaming the victim. I’m very interested to watch this happen.

[Sdel]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

Clarification: all parties have requested a jury trial so the court won’t be determining liability. Random jurors who are going to get to read 19,000 pages of SM posts, listen to 70+ secret recordings, hear testimony about barefoot ninja, hear further testimony that the plaintiff refused to leave after her dad negotiated an exit and relocation plan are going to decide.

Don’t forget the CPS and SS reports. What a pickle that will be if there is some false claims about the gun in there……

[MHM]

@ekat

Anyone can sue anybody and allege just about anything. But, as opposed to a criminal case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove their loss, the proximate cause of their loss, and the damages.

Of the two of them, it certainly seems like MB would have an easier time proving loss and damages, based on the fact that he spent 2 1/2 years in jail, lost his business, the farm got sold, etc., etc.

And MB actually had a demonstrable career to lose, unlike LK.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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 SHF’s answer.

Exactly. Did you see the percentages in the list of mine you quoted?

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

Being a liability insurer must be a great gig if you can take in premiums every year, and “just say no” to court awarded damages.

The liability insurer for MB may be able you decline to pay, given it was a criminal act. Although I’m not sure how the insanity finding factors in.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

Just a friendly reminder that we have no criminal act by MB or MB dressage. Acquittal, and all.

I’m not sure how the insanity finding enters in.

[eggbutt]

Along with all those ugly hidden gems Bilinkas was prohibited from admitting in the criminal trial, conspiracy being a large one detailing who was involved, when the plan was actually hatched, and so much more.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

Clarification: all parties have requested a jury trial so the court won’t be determining liability. Random jurors who are going to get to read 19,000 pages of SM posts, listen to 70+ secret recordings, hear testimony about barefoot ninja, hear further testimony that the plaintiff refused to leave after her dad negotiated an exit and relocation plan are going to decide.

By “court” I was including the court jury, not just the judge.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

So now we know just how delusional they really are.

[MHM]

@MorganSercu

@DownYonder

IIRC, the FI testified that he saw their email at 10 pm, and he wasn’t going to go back out there at that hour to verify. So he took them at their word - which makes me wonder if that was standard protocol for that division. If so, it is another instance of the sloppy, sloppy way that town is managed. I hope the citizens are demanding some hard answers from their city manager/city council.

I am going to be surprised if that person keeps the job. That is extraordinarily slipshod.

I mean, he still has his job after 2 1/2 years have passed, right? He was wearing his official fire marshal shirt on the witness stand.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

Yes, if a jury (Not the Court) listens to all that testimony and somehow comes to that absurd conclusion, the insurance will deny the claim if SGF had an Indemnify and Hold Harmless Contract with MB Dressage. That is the ENTIRE appoint of SGF’s Cross-Claim against MB and MB Dressage, LLC.

Again: THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL ACT BY MICHAEL BARISONE. SHOULD I SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK?

Also, if you had read the civil suit and answer, you would see exactly where MB’s State of Mind will again be a GIGANTIC apart of the civil suit.

[KurPlexed]

I noticed some youtube videos of body language experts reviewing the testimony in the Depp trial. It would be fun to see that done this this case.

Eta not that you need to be an expert to see but still fun. Lol

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

So if SGF has a $3 million liability policy, and the court finds SGF liable for $2 million in damages, you think the insurance company can say to SGF, “no we’re rejecting your claim”?

Yes, if a jury (Not the Court) listens to all that testimony and somehow comes to that absurd conclusion, the insurance will deny the claim if SGF had an Indemnify and Hold Harmless Contract with MB Dressage. That is the ENTIRE appoint of SGF’s Cross-Claim against MB and MB Dressage, LLC.

Again: THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL ACT BY MICHAEL BARISONE. SHOULD I SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK?

The indemnify and hold harmless clause in their contract with MB Dressage would mean that MB could not sue them. Doesn’t mean that LK can’t sue them.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

given it was a criminal act.

Which criminal act are we speaking of? Barisone was acquitted. That leaves possible extortion, illegal surveillance, harassment, destruction of property, conspiracy, fraud…pick one or two or three. So many possible options.

[ekat]

NOOOOOOOOO.

The Indemnify and Hold Harmless Clause means that SGF Is to be Held Harmless by any activity engaged in by MB, MB Dressage, etc…

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

Which criminal act are we speaking of? Barisone was acquitted. That leaves possible extortion, illegal surveillance, harassment, destruction of property, conspiracy, fraud…pick one or two or three. So many possible options.

You forgot defamation and libel……