I also wonder if it's the insurance company suing..
Good point. I think if it was the insurance company, they'd be named as the plaintiff. In this case, it seems it's actually the skier going after the ski area.
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
I also wonder if it's the insurance company suing..
Why does everyone always think the insurance money is free money? If the insurance company has to pay out they are going to cover their losses by raising rates, and not necessarily just for the one ski area being sued.
Who else benefits from a case like this? It's just a burden on the ski area to have to defend themselves. The plaintiff likely won't see any money. The consumers ultimately have to pay more as insurance costs go higher and higher. Who else other than the lawyers are making out??
Good point. I think if it was the insurance company, they'd be named as the plaintiff. In this case, it seems it's actually the skier going after the ski area.
Who else benefits from a case like this? It's just a burden on the ski area to have to defend themselves. The plaintiff likely won't see any money. The consumers ultimately have to pay more as insurance costs go higher and higher. Who else other than the lawyers are making out??
OK, quick- If he wins, the plaintiff will benefit (as well as his insurance company that's been covering his medicals thus far). His lawyer would get some slice of that; it's usually regulated by law. (The guy, like everyone, doesn't work for free.) If he loses neither gets nada, and Sundown (and its insurance co) wins.
Stay tuned....
OK... I wasn't sure..
I do remember a friend who got into a car accident.. A wheel fell of another car and smashed her roof - she almost ended up a paraplegic but is OK now..
the guy who was in the passenger seat was her best friend.. He was hurt - and his insurance company sued her... it was f'd up...
OK, quick- If he wins, the plaintiff will benefit (as well as his insurance company that's been covering his medicals thus far). His lawyer would get some slice of that; it's usually regulated by law. (The guy, like everyone, doesn't work for free.) If he loses neither gets nada, and Sundown (and its insurance co) wins.
Stay tuned....
That's where we disagree; no matter what the outcome Sundown (and its insurance co) lose. They may not lose as much, but they still lose.
i think it is really just a cost of doing business ( i'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits mind you). i've dealt with Legal teams a lot, they "budget" for litigation. if we identify a risk they often weigh the cost of mitigation vs. litigation when making the decision on what to do.
I understand that. IMHO just because it's the cost of doing business doesn't make it right.
That's where we disagree; no matter what the outcome Sundown (and its insurance co) lose. They may not lose as much, but they still lose.
can't remember where i heard/read this but recall a similar discussion and the proposed solution (practiced in europe??) was that when a plaintiff loses a civil case he is responsible for the court costs (state's and defendant's) so it is no longer "free" to sue.
That's why you have and pay for insurance Brian. So the carrier pays the costs of defense and indemnification for any judgment that might be rendered against the insured.
Again, you guys have your heads in the sand if you think there will be any real decrease in insurance premiums if such cases were limited through some type of tort reform. Tort reform will only end up benefiting the insurance companies and, in turn, other big business. It will definitely hurt the individual and limit his ability to obtain legal redress.
Economists disagree:Again, you guys have your heads in the sand if you think there will be any real decrease in insurance premiums if such cases were limited through some type of tort reform. Tort reform will only end up benefiting the insurance companies and, in turn, other big business. It will definitely hurt the individual and limit his ability to obtain legal redress.
Keep telling yourself that.
Ah, redistribution of wealth through law suits! Hooray!I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.
I know it to be true. If you get hurt, you will be limited to 250k in pain and suffering. Otherwise, you will only be able to recover for lost earnings....So, basically, tort reform only protects the rich. Since Joe Schmo, who earns minimum wage, will only be entitled to recoup that minimum wage. But, "the man" that makes big bucks in salary, is protected because he'll be able to get his lost earnings. So, yes, I will most definitely keep telling myself this.