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

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".

So sort of like a legal, socially accepted form of blackmailing?

how did you guys miss this one??????? I CRIED SO MANY TEARS READING THIS. SOMEONE HELP THESE PEOPLE!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/your-money/work-life-balance-poses-challenges-regardless-of-wealth.html?WT.mc_id=2015-OCTOBER-FB-MC9-AUD_DEV-1001-1031&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK

THANK YOU for the disclaimer...................

(A pause here: Parents with inflexible jobs or who are paid by the hour with no sick time would surely relish the challenge of choosing among high-quality day care, a nanny or one parent working from home to meet child care needs. They have it tougher than people I’m writing about here.)

He should have added to the disclaimer that of course those people are drab and boring and what could we possibly learn from their struggles and the strategies they've adopted to work through them.

omg! I must make a decision instead having it all simultaneously! O, my poor head!

this is a really good tip for anyone really:

"Now, he said, they make more money working as brokers focused just on properties above $5 million and they also have more control over their schedules."

ok, now that I went back and read the full article (I had to stop after a person quoted talked about "crushing it at work"), I can't believe how boring and lacking in any real content that was. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised by that, but there weren't even examples of the so-called "maniacal efficiency," or any, like, strategies for balancing work and life. Make time to play with your kids, have a routine, ok, thanks corporate overlords, thank god we have these founts of wisdom as models for the plebes. It's basically just cheerleading about how rich people are even better at having families than everyone else.

kind of a poky little kitchen they've got, raise your standards millionaires

Her husband, she said, “has a breakfast meeting, I have a call with Europe, my daughter wants to play baby mermaids, my son is starving, our dogs are barking, I need to get out the door for a work meeting and there’s a dinner at night.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/17/wealth-therapy-tackles-woes-of-the-rich-its-really-isolating-to-have-lots-of-money

Hmmn I wonder if there is an easy way of solving this have an insane amount of money... Probably not.

not going to click on that obvious bait for hate-clicks, already spent too much of my life doing that.

http://observer.com/2015/10/a-boutique-drop-in-meditation-studio-is-coming-to-new-york/

bizarro, lodro rinsler is mentioned in the buddhism thread as a hacky author of buddh-esque pop philosophy.

connections everywhere. namaste

also wondering how long i could sneak by w "chief spiritual officer" on my work email sig

"chief spiritual officer"

xp!

Who wants to give me seed money for a chain of boutique bathrooms? With adjustable mood lighting, touchscreen TVs, wi-fi, curated playlists for your listening pleasure, hand-woven bathroom tissue of the softest, most absorbent cotton, artisanal soaps at the gold-plated sinks and attendants to hand you fluffy hand towels. Options available in both #1 and #2, ranging from $25 for a quick pee to $150 for the deluxe BM.

BM deluxe - the nickname that never caught on :(

Also, all of your waste products will be recycled for compost, so you know you really have a zero footprint.