Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[Ambitious_Kate]

@BigMama1

Because something discussed here rattled LK / IM into taking action. Hard to predict what sets them off. Last time it was discussion about her current trainer not being a BNT. This time the outburst occurred right after the conversation wandered into the escort and exotic dance industries. Maybe those are hot button issues for the family. Who knows.

Maybe they should be more supportive of SWs.

[SillyHorse]

@Ambitious_Kate

Maybe they should be more supportive of SWs.

SWs?

Never mind, I figured it out.

[eggbutt]

@Knights_Mom

Be prepared for every slippery move they can get away with. These cases are not about decorum or appearances. It’s about winning any which way you can.

Bingo! Wise words from a dust buster posting on a obscure forum reserved for middle-aged women with nothing else to do. (I love I have been recategorized to middle-aged rather than elderly.) I wonder how on earth the subject of the CoTH forums came up in conversation between Jonathan Kanarek and Steve Tarshish? My money is on daddy whining about the influence he thinks a bunch of women have in the equestrian world. We apparently are the only thorn he can’t relieve himself of.

[MHM]

@eggbutt

We apparently are the only thorn he can’t relieve himself of.

Like an online hydra! Lol.

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

@Ambitious_Kate

Also, if RC already settled with LK, then wouldn’t there be something in the filings indicating that she’s not a defendent in LK’s suit any more?

I’ve also been wondering about that. RC is still named as a defendant, so what happens when this thing finally goes to trial and they get to arguments regarding her liabillity? Does the judge simply dismiss the charges against her because of the settlement (before the case goes to the jury)?

The caption never changes even if a party’s part in the case is over. If a settlement occurs for a party there is a either a dismissal or withdrawal filed by the compensated party for that one defendant when the check clears. Or the Stipulation of Settlement is filed by one of those parties. The judge is usually uninvolved in all of this.

In my court we were always at least a month behind updating the system. We’d get about 50 a day.

[DownYonder]

@hut-ho78

I don’t think @Inigo-montoya is JK. He never said he was. I’m starting to wonder if @Seeker1 is truly KK. I’ve always doubted recording devices were planted, missed by the sweep, and retrieved. If someone was passing on gossip and LK was being creative on SM about recordings, that could certainly have the same effect. She did testify about some but only on her locker area. Then RG seemed to like to record conversations he was in.

Someone was in LaLa Land last night.

[DownYonder]

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you have the actual audios, which are the original source, what is the purpose of the unofficial transcripts of the audios?

@CurrentlyHorseless, this is a very sincere question.

Why do you re-ask questions that you have asked so many times and we have answered so many times?
I can not think of a good reason, so I am asking you to clarify it

Willfully ignorant or willfully obtuse?

[Unfforgettable]

@Inigo-montoya

Are you a complete fool? When someone is instructed to “get up here ASAP and bring your gun” and willingly complies and then that gun is used to try to murder your child……then we’ll see if you wanna cry for that poor elderly person.
Yeah, poor Ruth Cox.

The same Ruth Cox who was sleeping in front of her horse’s stall to prevent your twisted child from getting at RC’s horse in order to hurt MHG?

Don’t go spending that cool quarter of a mil quite yet. You’ve got attorneys to pay.
*edited to correct the $.

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you have the actual audios, which are the original source, what is the purpose of the unofficial transcripts of the audios?

@CurrentlyHorseless, this is a very sincere question.

Why do you re-ask questions that you have asked so many times and we have answered so many times?
I can not think of a good reason, so I am asking you to clarify it

Willfully ignorant or willfully obtuse?

Playing games.

[Knights_Mom]

@Unfforgettable

@Inigo-montoya

Are you a complete fool? When someone is instructed to “get up here ASAP and bring your gun” and willingly complies and then that gun is used to try to murder your child……then we’ll see if you wanna cry for that poor elderly person.
Yeah, poor Ruth Cox.

The same Ruth Cox who was sleeping in front of her horse’s stall to prevent your twisted child from getting at RC’s horse in order to hurt MHG?

Don’t go spending that cool three quarters of a mil quite yet. You’ve got attorneys to pay.

It’s ONE quarter of a mil

[McGurk]

Good catch, Trub!

“slightly higher than nil” =/= “has less than nil liability”

Reading comprehension fail? Or deliberate twist?

[DownYonder]

@TBLover

Question for those who are knowledgeable about insurance coverage. What kind of insurance policy would cover this sort of claim against RC? Some sort of umbrella policy?

I’m no longer in the insurance industry but once upon a time, I worked as a claims adjuster for a carrier. Personal liability policies cover up to their specified limits but I’m thinking this may have been more like a personal umbrella policy (PUP) that provides excess liability and is often recommended for folks who have something on their property that could be considered an “attractive nuisance” such as a swimming pool or trampoline or they are on a beachfront and have a dock or watercraft in or near the water. It is also recommended for those who have dogs (esp. of a certain size or of certain breeds), and those who have horses or other livestock or exotic animals such as large birds (parrots and the like), snakes, monkeys/chimpanzees, etc.

[DownYonder]

@erinmeri

Apparently gun owner liability policies don’t exist,

There are several that provide coverage for various circumstances. I am familiar with US Lawshield and USCCA.

I am not sure they would apply in this case even if RC did have a policy with them as they are mainly focused on helping the insured if he/she is involved in a self defense shooting.

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

@TBLover

Question for those who are knowledgeable about insurance coverage. What kind of insurance policy would cover this sort of claim against RC? Some sort of umbrella policy?

I’m no longer in the insurance industry but once upon a time, I worked as a claims adjuster for a carrier. Personal liability policies cover up to their specified limits but I’m thinking this may have been more like a personal umbrella policy (PUP) that provides excess liability and is often recommended for folks who have something on their property that could be considered an “attractive nuisance” such as a swimming pool or trampoline or they are on a beachfront and have a dock or watercraft in or near the water. It is also recommended for those who have dogs (esp. of a certain size or of certain breeds), and those who have horses or other livestock or exotic animals such as large birds (parrots and the like), snakes, monkeys/chimpanzees, etc.

I have an umbrella policy through an insurance carrier who insures my cars and home. Would that be considered a personal umbrella policy or just an auto? I’m embarrassed to have to ask.

[erinmeri]

@DownYonder

There are several that provide coverage for various circumstances. I am familiar with US Lawshield and USCCA.

I am not sure they would apply in this case even if RC did have a policy with them as they are mainly focused on helping the insured if he/she is involved in a self defense shooting.

I was perhaps misreading this quote:

“There’s a potential problem, however, for gun owners who don’t already have firearm liability insurance through their homeowners or renters insurancepolicies: “No major national or regional insurer offers separate gun liability coverage,” says Mark Friedlander of the Insurance Information Institute, which represents the property-casualty insurance industry.“

[DownYonder]

@Knights_Mom

I have an umbrella policy through an insurance carrier who insures my cars and home. Would that be considered a personal umbrella policy or just an auto? I’m embarrassed to have to ask.

Again, I have been away from the insurance world for some time, but personal umbrella policies don’t cover damage to your vehicle or property but instead are designed to help cover costs of injury to others or damage to someone else’s property once your auto or property insurance limits are reached.

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

@Knights_Mom

I have an umbrella policy through an insurance carrier who insures my cars and home. Would that be considered a personal umbrella policy or just an auto? I’m embarrassed to have to ask.

Again, I have been away from the insurance world for some time, but personal umbrella policies don’t cover damage to your vehicle or property but instead are designed to help cover costs of injury to others or damage to someone else’s property once your auto or property insurance limits are reached.

Yes it’s for things like additional med coverage should the auto policy amount not cover the amount. But I have no idea if it would cover injury to another by gun.

[DownYonder]

@erinmeri

I was perhaps misreading this quote:

“There’s a potential problem, however, for gun owners who don’t already have firearm liability insurance through their homeowners or renters insurancepolicies: “No major national or regional insurer offers separate gun liability coverage,” says Mark Friedlander of the Insurance Information Institute, which represents the property-casualty insurance industry.“

Right - you can’t buy it through Travelers or Prudential or USAA, etc. And again, the ones I mentioned focus on providing the insured with legal advice and assistance should they be involved in a self-defense shooting. They help defend you against criminal charges and also in the case of civil litigation, but their coverage applies to legal assistance only. They don’t pay out to a plaintiff who wins a judgement against you - that’s when a PUP comes in handy.

[Moderator_1]

We removed some insults/inappropriate language, and a tangential line of discussion re: activities not yet addressed in any court docs, and some responses to those comments from the thread.

[DownYonder]

[quote=“Knights_Mom, post:1260, topic:782326, full:true”]

@DownYonder

@Knights_Mom

I have an umbrella policy through an insurance carrier who insures my cars and home. Would that be considered a personal umbrella policy or just an auto? I’m embarrassed to have to ask.
[/quote]

Again, I have been away from the insurance world for some time, but personal umbrella policies don’t cover damage to your vehicle or property but instead are designed to help cover costs of injury to others or damage to someone else’s property once your auto or property insurance limits are reached.

Yes it’s for things like additional med coverage should the auto policy amount not cover the amount. But I have no idea if it would cover injury to another by gun.

It’s probably a good idea to read your policy. Some of those policies have an exclusion, esp. if you are criminally charged/found guilty. IOW, even if you are assaulted in your own home and shoot your attacker with your legally owned firearm, you may be charged depending on what state you are in and whether the DA is trying to push an “anti-gun” agenda (even for law-abiding citizens - a world view that is much more prevalent in some states and jurisdictions than in others).

So if you are charged and found guilty, your PUP may not pay and you may be forced to depend on your own assets to cover a judgement.