BINGO!!!
6 Likes
So, lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong. The SGF filing says that there was a mediation that was unsuccessful. They also say that all has yet to provide a legal argument for how they are liable.
Wouldn’t a part of that mediation to have been to point out the legal evidence/argument of your position for the other side to consider?
7 Likes
I’ll refresh your memory, since you are using this as evidence to bolster an argument:
Party A sues Party B for intentionally inflicting an STD on her. In pursuit of that lawsuit, party B is required to reveal and file claims with all his insurance policies, including his homeowners and vehicle policies.
As part of that, party A alleged that she contracted the STD in party Bs vehicle. As part of the terms of the insurance agreements, party A and party B entered arbitration.
In arbitration, the arbitrator determined a judgement of $5.2m and apportioned that judgement to the vehicle carrier.
At that time, GEICO filed suit to appeal the arbitrator’s decision, and the judgement was affirmed due to the rules of arbitration and NOT ON THE MERITS OF LIABILITY OR COVERAGE.
That decision is currently under appeal.
20 Likes
Yes and no. Mediation usually involves the question of how much money someone wants and how much liability one party will have to admit. Even so, the “arguments” presented there aren’t legal necessarily, it’s just “here’s why I think you should pay me” and “here’s why I think you should not.” Mediation is an extralegal process meant to reduce cost in the cases where both parties are amenable; I think it was obvious to all that one party here would not be amenable to much.
10 Likes
Regarding the bolded and how it relates to the LK lawsuit… has SGF been required to reveal any liability insurance policies yet, or file any claims yet?
3 Likes
No, if you’re asking for summary judgement you’re saying that there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts of the case, and that the law supports you being the successful party. This standard is often applied to totally legitimate claims where the law is clear and the facts are not in dispute
A frivolous claim would fall under this, (think of a Venn diagram) but would add weight to the successful party’s request for attorney’s fees.
9 Likes
Unknown but surely they would have opened a claim when the suit was filed, if they intended to make use of their coverage.
5 Likes
@lazaret you are amazing at explaining complicated legal stuff so we can understand it. Your patience is amazing as well.
All of our legal posters have truly been incredible in keeping us on topic and preventing really winding rabbit holes displaying our ignorance 
32 Likes
Thank you. I had read just a short synopsis.
So if SGF corresponds to Party B, SGF would be, of probably has, revealed and filed claims with its insurance company.
In the STD case it was an arbitrator who awarded a judgement of 5.2 million against the insurance company.
I’m not sure what you mean by the judgement being affirmed “NOT ON THE MERITS OF LIABILITY OR COVERAGE”. The arbitrator could not have “apportioned” the judgement to the vehicle carrier if the vehicle carrier had not written the coverage.
Agreed. I’ve been mystified all along about the exact pathway by which the lawsuit might eventually result in an insurance company payout. Essentially… how does it get from the current point to a payout? At what point might the insurance company itself devote lawyers to fighting the case… assuming they aren’t already (maybe Silver is being paid by SGFs insurance company, and I am oblivious to the obvious? 
)
Anyway… Thanks for spelling out key details @lazaret
6 Likes
Thank you.
@AbbyGRP do you know if there is a NJ Court calendar posted online accessible by the public?
2 Likes
If SGG has an insurance policy that covers LK’s personal injury claim and the insurance company has accepted that it has potential liabilty for the claim (which could be a big IF as many policies have exclusions for “intentional acts” - and I am NOT going to even start going down thae rabbit hole as to whether an intentional act exclusion would apply here - that is another big can of worms) then the insurance company would be defending the claim - with attorneys it has chosen and/or approved of.
13 Likes
If the insurance company is on the hook for an eventual judgement, I’m assuming it’s the lawyers for the insurance company who are defending the suit. That’s part of the liability insurance.
1 Like
It’s part of it, but only if the insurance company has already accepted that they may have liability for a covered incident. That’s not a guarantee.
13 Likes
That’s what I thought.
I agree the “intentional act” is a particularly bad, but unavoidable, rabbit hole here, as we get back to the issue of MB being capable of forming intent.
That’s not the meaning of intentional act as it applies to insurance coverage.
22 Likes
I wonder though if “intentional act” with reference to SGF, would be willful/knowing negligence and if the major interest owners didn’t know of MB’s mental state, could they even be held liable?
You mean the insurance company may claim to SFG that their liability coverage does not cover MB shooting LK?
In general, parties can be held liability for injury occurring on their property even without negligence, though.
If you park in my driveway, and a tree limb falls on your car, I think my liability insurance pays for the damage even though there’s no negligence.
