I think of shit like this every time I have to attend a local chamber of commerce event and listen to stupid local business owners complain about how onerous regulations are. Biggest whiny assholes anywhere, and they have no clue how rigged the system is in their favor.
Team guillotine needs a workout.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/24/madison-cawthorn-insurrectionist-challenge/
Participants in an insurrection against the U.S. government can be barred from holding office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled Tuesday.
The decision came in the case of Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R), who before losing his House primary this month faced a challenge from North Carolina voters arguing that his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack made him ineligible for future public service. Cawthorn suggested his case was moot given his primary loss, but the court disagreed, given that the election had not yet been certified and because the same issue could come up in another campaign.
I feel like I’m on week ten of Johnny Depp trial videos plastered on the internet. How do these celebrities always get weeks in court and it seems everyone else gets hours, even for more serious criminal trials.
I’m guessing it’s because their lawyers can bill them bigly hours.
We need to file a motion to reverse the prior motion to suppress the motion that opposes the motion of the other lawyer to suppress our motion to oppose their motion. This month’s bill comes to $73,000 please, how would you like to pay?
You forget a zero.
1 Like
1 Like
Reminder: Durham’s “investigation” continues! Garland can shut it down at any moment and is choosing not to.
im intrigued to see who they pin this on, because everyone already knows it was ginni.
Tribe is correct insofar as any of the liberal clerks will comply if they have any interest in possibly being invited into the circles that Tribe runs in. The right wing clerks will absolutely not comply and it will only benefit them.
They’ll find a way to use this to punish one of Sotomayor’s clerks just for daring to be Sotomayor’s clerk. Probably by leaking something they found on the clerks phone, along with pushing made up lies on social media. They already blamed one of her clerks for leaking the draft opinion.
The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed that an insurance company must pay a $5.2 million settlement granted to a Jackson County woman who claimed she unwittingly caught a sexually transmitted disease from her former romantic partner in his car.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel found that the judgment entered against GEICO General Insurance Company through earlier arbitration proceedings was valid. The insurance companies sought to undo the action, claiming errors were made in Jackson County Circuit Court and the settlement agreement was not done in line with Missouri law.
According to court papers, the woman, identified in court records only as M.O., notified GEICO in February 2021 of her intention to seek monetary damages, alleging she contracted HPV, the human papillomavirus, from an insured member in his automobile. She contended the man caused her to be infected with the STD despite being aware of his condition and the risks of unprotected sex.
The insurance company declined the settlement, sending the case to arbitration.
In May 2021, the arbitrator found that the man and woman had sex inside his vehicle that “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the HPV infection. The man was found liable for not disclosing his infection status and the woman was awarded $5.2 million for damages and injuries to be paid by GEICO.
The insurance company filed motions seeking a new hearing of the evidence and for the award to be tossed out, saying the judgment violated the company’s rights to due process and the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. The company appealed after those requests were denied.
The three-judge panel tasked with reviewing the case found that the lower court did not make a mistake by denying the company’s motions, saying GEICO did not have a right to “relitigate those issues” once damages had been determined and a judgment was entered.
Judge Tom Chapman concurred in a separate opinion, though, saying he believes GEICO was offered “no meaningful opportunity to participate” in the lawsuit and existing law “relegat(es) the insurer to the status of a bystander.”
wat
Gonna need one of our resident LOLAWbros to explain this to me.
ETA: does this open the ability to sue the insurance of someone that assaults somebody in their car?
I was under the impression that there wasn’t a test for men that could identify HPV status. Is that not true?
The case was initially decided in arbitration, it’s almost impossible for a court to overturn that. I don’t know whether arbitrators care about regular laws.
1 Like
No. There’s an exclusion on auto liability policies for intentional acts. So if you intentionally hit someone with your car it’s likely not gonna be covered.
What happened here is that Geico denied the claim for:
GEICO informed M.O. via letter that it had “completed [its] coverage investigation” and determined “there was no coverage” because the “damages claimed did not arise out of the normal use of the vehicle.” GEICO “disclaim[ed] any and all liability or obligation to [M.O.] and to others under” Insured’s automobile policy and advised that it would “take no further action with respect to any claim . . . and hereby withdraws from the matter entirely.”
What looks like happened is that after the claim was denied the man and woman agreed to arbitrate and the arbitrator decided for the woman for $5.2M. The woman petitioned to the court to enforce the damages (asking the court to approve the arbitrator’s decision). Geico then tries to step in and argue it should get the chance to defend/litigate the arbitrator’s decision. The court says no, you missed you chance. This appeal confirmed the trial court.
Geico separately filed what’s called a declaratory judgement in federal court - essentially asking the court to confirm that their initial denial was proper. I can’t tell based on the article whether the federal court has decided whether there actually is coverage for the $5.2M award or not.
1 Like