Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 109
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    The term "the insurance company represents the driver" is a misnomer.
    The insurance company does represent the driver, within the confines of the agreement the insurance has with the insured. In short, if the insured wants the benefits of the representation, he or she will have to go along with what the policy says are the limits of the insurance company's obligations.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    The insurance company looks out for themselves first, then the driver. Example: If the insured felt and knew he was at fault, morally and ethically knew he owed the injured party, but the insurance company felt they could beat the case and pay nothing, whose wishes would be granted?
    The insurance company would then tell the insured he/she is free to pay the injured person out of his/her pocket, but the insurance company will not pay for it since the policy only obligates the insurance company to pay if the insured was negligent. If the insurance company believes it can prove the insured was not negligent then it has no obligation to pay. Nothing stops the insured from paying anyway if he feels bad and morally obligated to pay, he will just have to do it with his own money, not the insurance company's cash. And that's where the rubber meets the road. If the insured truly feels bad enough to pay even though he may not be negligent he'll pay up with his own assets, to the extent he is able to do so. If he only feels obligated to pay if it's the insurance company that will pay it for him then he must not feel all that bad about it. After all, it's pretty easy to say the injured person should be paid when you aren't using your own money to pay it.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    So, in a standard lawyer/client relationship, the client's wishes are paramount. Not so when an insurance company so called "represents" the insured.
    The lawyer provided by the insurance company does represent the defendant like any other lawyer would. But he/she also must tell the client that some decisions the client wants to make will either violate his obligations under the insurance contract or otherwise result in a circumstance where the insurance won't be obligated to pay for the damages. So the client is free to make the decisions he wants to make, but may have to pay himself to do it. The insurance company's obligations are well defined in the contract and the insurance company rarely will pay anything outside what the contract obligates it to pay.

    Of course, a decision by the insurance company not to pay if the insured makes a certain choice no doubt will affect what the insured ultimately decides to do. That's no different than many other situations in life where you need to take into account the reactions of others when deciding what to do,

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    The insurance company does represent the driver, within the confines of the agreement the insurance has with the insured. In short, if the insured wants the benefits of the representation, he or she will have to go along with what the policy says are the limits of the insurance company's obligations.

    The insurance company would then tell the insured he/she is free to pay the injured person out of his/her pocket, but the insurance company will not pay for it since the policy only obligates the insurance company to pay if the insured was negligent. If the insurance company believes it can prove the insured was not negligent then it has no obligation to pay. Nothing stops the insured from paying anyway if he feels bad and morally obligated to pay, he will just have to do it with his own money, not the insurance company's cash. And that's where the rubber meets the road. If the insured truly feels bad enough to pay even though he may not be negligent he'll pay up with his own assets, to the extent he is able to do so. If he only feels obligated to pay if it's the insurance company that will pay it for him then he must not feel all that bad about it. After all, it's pretty easy to say the injured person should be paid when you aren't using your own money to pay it.

    The lawyer provided by the insurance company does represent the defendant like any other lawyer would. But he/she also must tell the client that some decisions the client wants to make will either violate his obligations under the insurance contract or otherwise result in a circumstance where the insurance won't be obligated to pay for the damages. So the client is free to make the decisions he wants to make, but may have to pay himself to do it. The insurance company's obligations are well defined in the contract and the insurance company rarely will pay anything outside what the contract obligates it to pay.

    Of course, a decision by the insurance company not to pay if the insured makes a certain choice no doubt will affect what the insured ultimately decides to do. That's no different than many other situations in life where you need to take into account the reactions of others when deciding what to do,
    What you wrote can be summed up very easily. The insured will do exactly, and testify exactly like the insurance company wants them to testify. If a few lies, exaggerations, withholding and stretching of the truth is dictated by the insurance company lawyer, that insure person better do exactly what the corrupt insurance lawyer tells him to do! Or he will be threatened that he will pay the judgement out of pocket.

    Can you imagine what would happen if a guilt-wrought defendant admitted he screwed up on the stand when his insurance lawyer told him to say otherwise? What do you think would happen TM?

    I wouldn't be surprised that the defendant in my case was threatened to lie, withhold and exaggerate under oath...or he would pay the judgement out of pocket. Otherwise, why would he run up to me after the trial to apologize?

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    What you wrote can be summed up very easily.
    That's not an accurate summary of what I said.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    The insured will do exactly, and testify exactly like the insurance company wants them to testify. If a few lies, exaggerations, withholding and stretching of the truth is dictated by the insurance company lawyer, that insure person better do exactly what the corrupt insurance lawyer tells him to do! Or he will be threatened that he will pay the judgement out of pocket.
    Most lawyers will not counsel their clients to lie on the stand. Doing that, if it gets revealed, is a fast ticket to suspension or disbarment. Rather, the if the defendant's testimony won't be favorable his lawyer simply won't put him on the stand in the first place or if he does, he'll ask the defendant only limited questions for which the answers won't hurt the defense.

    The insurance company does not dictate to the lawyer how the defense is done. The insurance company does, however, rely on the lawyer's assessment of the case and if the lawyer thinks that the plaintiff can't prove negligence then the insurance company obviously isn't going to pay just because the insured feels bad and wants to pay.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Can you imagine what would happen if a guilt-wrought defendant admitted he screwed up on the stand when his insurance lawyer told him to say otherwise? What do you think would happen TM?
    If the defendant admits negligence then he likely loses the case and the insurance company ends up paying the plaintiff.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised that the defendant in my case was threatened to lie, withhold and exaggerate under oath...or he would pay the judgement out of pocket.
    I don't think that's likely. The insurance company doesn't have an out to paying the judgment because the insured failed to lie in his testimony and, as I said, making that kind of threat to a client to get him to lie on the stand is a fast ticket to suspension or disbarment. Not a lot of lawyers are willing to risk that to get an edge in one particular trial.

    Remember, the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. The plaintiff has to prove his case. All the defendant has to do is present a case to rebut what the plaintiff presents. So the defendant doesn't have to get up on the stand to testify at all for his case if his testimony won't be helpful. So there is no obligation on the part of the defendant to admit negligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove negligence.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Otherwise, why would he run up to me after the trial to apologize?
    Because in many states he would have been told not to apologize to you before the trial and after the trial it doesn't matter. A few states have rules that allow for an apology before trial that is not admissible at trial as way to help resolve cases where an apology to the plaintiff might help foster settlement of the case. But not all states have such a rule.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    That's not an accurate summary of what I said.

    Most lawyers will not counsel their clients to lie on the stand. Doing that, if it gets revealed, is a fast ticket to suspension or disbarment. Rather, the if the defendant's testimony won't be favorable his lawyer simply won't put him on the stand in the first place or if he does, he'll ask the defendant only limited questions for which the answers won't hurt the defense.

    The insurance company does not dictate to the lawyer how the defense is done. The insurance company does, however, rely on the lawyer's assessment of the case and if the lawyer thinks that the plaintiff can't prove negligence then the insurance company obviously isn't going to pay just because the insured feels bad and wants to pay.


    If the defendant admits negligence then he likely loses the case and the insurance company ends up paying the plaintiff.

    I don't think that's likely. The insurance company doesn't have an out to paying the judgment because the insured failed to lie in his testimony and, as I said, making that kind of threat to a client to get him to lie on the stand is a fast ticket to suspension or disbarment. Not a lot of lawyers are willing to risk that to get an edge in one particular trial.

    Remember, the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. The plaintiff has to prove his case. All the defendant has to do is present a case to rebut what the plaintiff presents. So the defendant doesn't have to get up on the stand to testify at all for his case if his testimony won't be helpful. So there is no obligation on the part of the defendant to admit negligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove negligence.


    Because in many states he would have been told not to apologize to you before the trial and after the trial it doesn't matter. A few states have rules that allow for an apology before trial that is not admissible at trial as way to help resolve cases where an apology to the plaintiff might help foster settlement of the case. But not all states have such a rule.
    I can only imagine that you know as much about court cases as I do, yet you insist on explaining what happens there so much differently than me. You have your own special way of legitimizing it all. It's kind of like listening to Johnny Cochran go on about how innocent his client was.

    Let me ask you a question. I understand how you think I did not see what I saw in that courtroom. Partially because I only witnessed this courtroom twisting of facts two times, that I am just a blue collar contractor and I am not a prestigious lawyer. I am also not trained in the twisting of facts, implications and perceptions. IOW, you claim I did not see what I saw even though I knew all the facts of the case better than either of the lawyers.

    So, I ask you this: My hand surgeon was Dr. Nathan Ross. Google him. His credentials as a hand surgeon are likely higher than any hand surgeon in California. His credentials are higher than yours and likely anyone in your firm. He has been an expert witness in hundreds of personal injury cases...far more than you have ever sat through. He even taught the defendant's expert witness, who is a hand surgeon in affluent Newport Beach, early on is his career. This man is no schmuck and has risen to the top of his class and knows the court system very well. How can a man of this stature, success and experience look me in the eye and say that our court system is basically unjust and F'd up? Does he too not understand what takes place in front of him in a courtroom because he does not happen to be a lawyer? Would you be able to explain to him that his extensive experience with our justice system is wrong?

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    IOW, you claim I did not see what I saw even though I knew all the facts of the case better than either of the lawyers.
    I claim no such thing. All I know about the cases you've been involved with is what you have chosen to share. You'll know the details of what occurred in your cases better than I. Based on things you've said here I think that your interpretation of at least some of what you saw isn't correct. For example, you've mentioned some things that lawyers have done in the cases that you were involved with and expressed your view that those things were unethical, underhanded, etc., when in my view they were nothing of the kind. Your interpretation of what you saw comes in part from a lack of knowledge of how litigation works and of course the bias you have in your own case. I get that and understand where your views come from. But don't expect me to adopt the same interpretation you do when I have a very different set of experiences in litigation.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    How can a man of this stature, success and experience look me in the eye and say that our court system is basically unjust and F'd up? Does he too not understand what takes place in front of him in a courtroom because he does not happen to be a lawyer? Would you be able to explain to him that his extensive experience with our justice system is wrong?
    He is a qualified expert in medicine. He is not a qualified expert in litigation. His knowledge of litigation is largely based on his experience testifying as a witness. He'll therefore have knowledge about testifying as an expert witness and knowledge about the battle of experts in the courtroom. But he likely has little knowledge and experience with all the rest that goes into litigating a case. That's not his area of expertise. He doesn't spend his time litigating cases.

    There could be all kinds of reasons why he thinks that our system is screwed up. Without knowing exactly what he thinks is screwed up I cannot say if he's right or if he's gotten the wrong impression of it. Some experts take exception to the battle of the experts system that is used in civil trials because they take pride in their expert opinion and dislike that the other side puts up an opposing expert who attempts to pick apart their opinion and offers a differing conclusion. So for those sorts of experts at least that part of the system they view as screwed up. That may be what his problem with the system is, but I really have no idea since I've not talked to him about it.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I claim no such thing. All I know about the cases you've been involved with is what you have chosen to share. You'll know the details of what occurred in your cases better than I. Based on things you've said here I think that your interpretation of at least some of what you saw isn't correct. For example, you've mentioned some things that lawyers have done in the cases that you were involved with and expressed your view that those things were unethical, underhanded, etc., when in my view they were nothing of the kind. Your interpretation of what you saw comes in part from a lack of knowledge of how litigation works and of course the bias you have in your own case. I get that and understand where your views come from. But don't expect me to adopt the same interpretation you do when I have a very different set of experiences in litigation.

    He is a qualified expert in medicine. He is not a qualified expert in litigation. His knowledge of litigation is largely based on his experience testifying as a witness. He'll therefore have knowledge about testifying as an expert witness and knowledge about the battle of experts in the courtroom. But he likely has little knowledge and experience with all the rest that goes into litigating a case. That's not his area of expertise. He doesn't spend his time litigating cases.

    There could be all kinds of reasons why he thinks that our system is screwed up. Without knowing exactly what he thinks is screwed up I cannot say if he's right or if he's gotten the wrong impression of it. Some experts take exception to the battle of the experts system that is used in civil trials because they take pride in their expert opinion and dislike that the other side puts up an opposing expert who attempts to pick apart their opinion and offers a differing conclusion. So for those sorts of experts at least that part of the system they view as screwed up. That may be what his problem with the system is, but I really have no idea since I've not talked to him about it.
    Though your explanations and opinions do not get much traction with me, I do enjoy and appreciate your attempts to explain my mine and my surgeon's views. But I do find it a bit lofty to think that an accomplished surgeon who has much more experience in personal injury trials than you does not understand what he sees happen right in front of him.

    I will end with one thought: Just because a person can win a debate, a trial or explain somethings away, does not make that person right. To me it says more about the loser than the subject matter. Just as the OJ trial said more about the jury than it did about the lawyers or evidence.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Harold99 -

    Are you REALLY this hard-headed?

    I'm worried that the answer is "yes".

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Zigner
    View Post
    Harold99 -

    Are you REALLY this hard-headed?

    I'm worried that the answer is "yes".
    Narrator: The answer was "yes"

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting free9man
    View Post
    Narrator: The answer was "yes"
    Agreed, the answer is yes! But I don't call it being "hardheaded."

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    178

    Default Re: What Are My Chances of Winning a Lawsuit in This Case

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Agreed, the answer is yes! But I don't call it being "hardheaded."
    So, you're saying that you're hardheaded, but that you don't call it that. Fine, you are some unnamed word or phrase that is the precise equivalent of "hardheaded".

    I'll use "intentionally obtuse and inflexible".

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Appeals: What Are the Chances of Winning an Appeal
    By AYN in forum Civil Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 09:45 PM
  2. Denial & Appeals: What Are the Chances of Winning a UI Appeal to an ALJ
    By baseball in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 08:09 PM
  3. Minor in Possession: What Are My Chances of Either Winning the Case or Getting a Lesser Punishment
    By kubrickfan79 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-16-2012, 07:16 AM
  4. What Are My Ex's Chances of Winning Her Appeal
    By FatherWhoWon in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 02:41 PM
  5. Denial & Appeals: Chances of Winning a Appeal
    By kentheman in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-12-2010, 12:59 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources