Any time there's some lawsuit that seems not to make sense ("can you believe X is suing Y over Z"), there's a good chance the answer is "insurance won't pay out without a lawsuit."
Remember that woman a few years ago who sued her nephew because he got excited when he saw her and there was some kind of accident that got her injured? That's exactly what happened. She wasn't just some asshole.
hot coffee from mcdonalds... actually for medical expenses. probably the most famous one, and probably hurt mcdonalds reputation more in the long run.
Pretty much. But the headline doesn't get as many clicks so instead they ship it like the person is a fool who tried to do something crazy or dumb.
This is also part of why the US is seen as lawsuit crazy, elsewhere you don't have to deal with insurance to get any medial needs covered.
In the US, Medicaid can refuse to treat you if you should have sued your employer instead of using Medicaid.
I see it a lot at my job (I work in insurance defense/PI law), you see family members, friends, relatives, etc. suing each other all the time. It's not a 100% true that insurance won't pay out without a suit (although that is sometimes the case) it's more so insurance will low ball the fuck out of you to settle pre-litigation. If we are getting involved, it's either that or the injuries are above the policy max.
Quick Edit: The case with the aunt suing her nephew I see being referenced also had more to do with weird wrinkles in Connecticut Insurance Law and the mother's home owner's insurance (I don't know them off hand since I mainly deal with NY cases).
I always figured it was just a judge with a slow workday saying, "Wait, wait, let's see where this is going."
Yep. If you and your spouse/parent/brother/etc are in a car accident, ALWAYS sue them to get their insurance. Just talk about it first.
Except for that one guy who got arrested, sued (himself) for getting arrested and limiting the freedoms of (himself). And then because he knew (himself) didn't have enough money wanted the state to cover it on (himself)'s behalf
There’s also a good chance than the article/headline your reading is completely mischaracterizing the case and glossing over important details because the author is lazy, ignorant, or is just trying to get views.
And access to document via disclosure
In this case, how would that be applicable ? That’s f*** up
Met a woman years ago who got in a car accident with her kids and had to sue herself so insurance would cover her kids medical bills.
Exactly. They probably had homeowners insurance and the wrongful death was “technically” the fault of the homeowner (I.e. roof collapsed on him or something), and the homeowner insurance wouldn’t pay out for his death because he (as homeowner) was technically at fault.
I’m also wondering if she was actually suing herself or if she was suing herself in her capacity as the executor of her husbands estate (which would create essentially a separate legal identity for the purpose of a lawsuit).
We need change in this country. A lot of shit is for-profit that has no business being so.
Or it is being spun by one of the parties involved. Truly insane cases (such as sovereign citizen BS) get thrown out very very quickly because no judge wants to deal with a nut job.
You can try to sue anyone for almost anything but that is mainly used to leverage a settlement (because paying you to go away is cheaper than paying the lawyer for a couple hours). But for lawyers (or at least remotely competent ones) and judges to invest time into the suit you have to have a case (or enough money to convince the lawyer that even if they lose spectacularly they will still get paid)
Capitalism is fun
Insurance, and especially health insurance, is peak capitalism evil. Tied with corporations endless lust for making the planet less inhabitable.
Isn't it X suing X over Y
I don’t miss working in insurance even a little bit.
Right. This is what happens when we don't have universal health care.
Whelp, you sure called that one
Ranked by Size