• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Go ahead, sue yourself...

Share this page

Seems a little over-wrought to me. She isn't suing herself; rather it is the estate that is suing her. She just happens to also be the representative of the estate. And of course the whole point is for her to get more money out of her insurance company, through the estate.
 
Good grief, that is a mind bender! I, myself and me! I'm surprised that the court didn't call for an outside representative, independent attorney, for one side or the other. Sounds like the Utah courts created a monster their going to find hard to live with in the future. If a precedence is set in this case, the road to self inflicted law suits has been laid. Just what we need, more confusion in the court system. Sit back, relax and enjoy the show. :popcorn: PJ
 
Start with the proposition that the insurer had contractual liability that it tried to avoid. Why let them avoid their obligation. Dividing one entity into different ones based on the capacity in which they are acting is not that unusual. If Utah allowed direct action against liability insurers (who, after all, is the real party in interest on the defense side here), this would not seem odd at all. What should seem odd is that liability insurers have persuaded (bribed) legislatures in many states to prohibit their joinder in underlying liability lawsuits.
Bob
 
It sounds like the whole thing is the result of an insurance company trying to avoid their responsibility.
 
Yeah, it really is just an insurance scheme... but really.
 
She should seek the death penalty for the person that killed her husband.
 
Back
Top