It is very popular here to use the term "go away money." My understanding of its application is when an insurance company/defendant is in the right, they do not owe anything to the plaintiff, yet they pay him anyway to avoid litigation and defense costs. Is that correct?
Well, here is a case where a bicyclist recently rode through a set of cones and into a construction ditch in a designated bike lane. He became paraplegic. Now, I feel certain you all see him as 100% at fault, yet the three defendants paid him at total of $20 million dollars. So I ask, do insurance companies pay $20M in "go away money?"
Why didn't they just tell him to "go away" instead of paying him that kind of money to "go away?" I mean, you all see him 100% at fault, right?