even more quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a new rolling new york times thread

Unlike many pop-ups, which can involve taking over an established restaurant for a night or two, the Bride of the Fox will play out like a kind of gastronomic parlor game. Each event will involve a single table, and the meal may be served to as many as 20 people — or as few as two. Prices will fluctuate, depending on the circumstances.

He will choose the diners at random, through requests that come through his website, and he will not reveal the ever-shifting site of the dinner until the customers find out they have been picked. Guests will get the menu upon arrival.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CzOsF8KdL._SL500_SY300_.jpg

And then there is the damage the injury has done to Connell’s social life.

“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” she said.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/8-year-old-boy-on-trial-for-exuberance-6566757.php

Amazing.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Jury-Aunt-who-sued-8-year-old-gets-zero-6568677.php

"The boy, now 12 years old, appeared with his father, Michael Tarala, in the Main Street courtroom. The boy’s mother, Lisa Tarala, died last year."

WTF.

I almost cannot believe this story is real.

The Daily News has branded her "The Auntie Christ" :D :D

(she lost)

Could be an insurance thing.

probably and maybe it got out of control after the family death

If it was an insurance thing wouldn't the insurance company be suing?

What insurance company would be suing? I don't think the woman likely had a policy covering injuries by children.

I guess if this happened in the boy's home maybe it could have been covered by his family's homeowner's policy?

There are definitely auto accident cases where family members sue each other solely for insurance reasons. I'm not well-versed in the fine points, but I think it's along the lines of a driver has liability insurance beyond what he has in injury insurance covering his passengers, so the passengers sue the driver to implicate the liability policy.

That happened to a couple of sisters from my high school - both were in their dad's car, got in a minor accident and dad had one daughter sue the other figuring any rate increase was easily offset by his winnings. Not sure how it turned out but everyone seemed to think he was a horrible sleazeball.

Yeah and it does happen in sleazy ways, but it also happens in situations where someone genuinely needs the excess insurance to cover their medical costs. As a French friend likes to point out, these kinds of lawsuits don't happen when you have socialized medicine.

Yeah homeowner's insurance. Have you ever gotten one of those questionnaires from your insurance company asking you if the injury you saw a doctor for was due to an accident? If you say yes, the insurance company will try to recover the money from the policy that would cover the accident, or just deny the claim and tell you to sue to get coverage under the policy that would cover the accident to pay your medical bills.

Basically if an insurance company can see a way out of paying a claim, it will take that way out because not paying claims is how they make money. Yay capitalism!

http://foxct.com/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-nephew-speaks-out-says-she-was-forced-to-go-to-trial/

I learned a lesson about judging people even when the facts seem clearly against them. Also learned that the media stands to gain by keeping the story really simple. I didn't learn anything new about insurance or capitalism.

still makes no sense why she'd be talking about the anguish of holding appetizers in court

if you've had two surgeries and need a third, couldn't you come up with a more sympathetic description of why

good takeaway there, your ability to be critical of any and all human endeavor is impressive

I once saw a guy in court claim that his injury had affected his slapshot. He had been in a brawl with cops while so drunk and high that he had no memory of it. One of the cops was hurt much worse.

for all we know she listed a number of things in her life that were more difficult. appetizer plate is the obvious quote because it makes her seem like a monster or an idiot and can generate outrage. There are like three quotes from her testimony in the piece, my guess is there was quite a bit more that maybe didn't make her look like a fool.

looking forward to this one becoming the new mcdonalds lawsuit among know-somethingish coworkers

Making sure I understand: her medical insurance refused to cover her surgeries because they claimed that the families' homeowners insurance should cover them. She sued the family/child to force their homeowner insurance to cover the claim. Is this correct?

That is correct.

And the reason to sue the family/child is that the insurance company cannot be named in the suit, correct? Odd that they are not being named now though, right?

And the reason to sue the family/child is that the insurance company cannot be named in the suit, correct? Odd that they are not being named now though, right?

From what I read, there's a state regulation that you can't name the insurance company in the suit; you have to name the insured. I'm not sure whether there's some kind of weird confidentiality thing where you can't even publicly state that you're suing for insurance or what. My best guess is that the thinking behind that is that they don't want to taint a jury, who might be more likely to find in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant is a deep pocketed insurance company than if it's a 12 year old kid still grieving the loss of his mother.

It's not completely clear to me. I didn't think medical insurance could refuse to cover you just because someone else was at fault, but it could be that even with coverage she was left with a lot of excess costs? But then maybe there's some quirk of Connecticut law. I always thought those forms the health insurance company's investigator sends you were to find out if the health insurance company needs to sue someone for reimbursement, not to force you to sue by yourself.

xp but the law is that the homeowners' insurance company can't be named as a defendant, not that you can't say publicly after the trial "this is about insurance."

So, and again best guess, is that the insurance lobby got that law on the books as an asset protection measure.

I mean, if you're a juror on that case, you're not going to find in favor of the plaintiff. But if you know that the situation is just this lady trying to get an insurance company to cover her cripplingly expensive medical bills, you're way more likely to award her damages. In a very calculating way, it makes sense. You want people to decide these cases purely on the legal standard (here, negligence) and not from the heart.

xp I don't know what the law says. I'm just guessing there might be some kind of confidentiality provision somewhere.

And yes medical insurance can absolutely refuse to pay something until they are sure nobody else is responsible. Group medical refuses payment for treatment for work related injuries, car accidents where someone else was at fault, accidents where a homeowner's policy or premises liability insurance might cover it. Yes. Absolutely they do this.

I saw it a lot with comp claims where nobody would pay for medical treatment until the claimant's comp claim was denied through the administrative appeal level. Some poor sucker was being sent to collections by a hospital after the group carrier rejected his medical bills because they wouldn't pay until they were sure it was adjudicated not covered under workers' comp laws.

NB: non-ERISA insurance policies are regulated on a state level, so what is okay in CT may not be okay in NY.

http://www.today.com/parents/worst-aunt-ever-speaks-out-i-was-never-comfortable-suing-t50351

bottom line is that the insurance companies should be vilified but it's much more fun to make fun of a woman for having a plate to carry fancy food on

bingo

To be fair those quotes are pretty funny.

So I wonder if now that the negligence claim has been legally denied if her medical insurance will cover the surgeries.

They should now, yeah. I mean assuming she meets the criteria for coverage under the plan.

bottom line is that the insurance companies should be vilified but it's much more fun to make fun of a woman for having a plate to carry fancy food on

― a literal scarecrow on a quaint porch (forksclovetofu), Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:40 AM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Or really just for using a fancy French word for a plate. For all we know it was just a plastic plate with some grapes and cheddar cheese cubes.

xp I don't know why the insurance company wouldn't cover it. That was just reflexive defense lawyer talk about meeting the criteria for coverage.

it's hardly paranoid to think that her insurance company's / insurance lobby's pr teams are going the extra mile to make sure she's properly shamed so that the next plaintiff who goes this route doesn't think twice

Went to the party
Couldn't eat the d'oeuvres
Insurance companies are a bad trip

Well it is possible that the cost of the surgeries exceed the yearly maximums, but that seems unlikely since this lady lives in Manhattan and likely has pretty decent insurance and this is wrist surgery.

"it's hardly paranoid to think that her insurance company's / insurance lobby's pr teams are going the extra mile to make sure she's properly shamed so that the next plaintiff who goes this route doesn't think twice"

I don't see how any amount of shaming is going to make someone think "well I'll just pay the $127k". That's a lot of money for most people (even people who live in Manhattan walk ups).

Yeah I agree I don't see that motive. It's either homeowners' policy pays or they pay, so there's no benefit to shaming her.

her own insurance WANTS her to sue. that's the point.

I don't see how any amount of shaming is going to make someone think "well I'll just pay the $127k".