Geico Facing $5.2 Million Payout in Lost Arbitration

#52
#52
Sea Ray said:
I would argue this injury did not occur due to any of those 3 things
Click to expand...

And I am sure attorneys did and lost. The contract is construed against the drafter when there is ambiguity. Geico and every other insurance company will simply tighten up the language.
 
#55
#55
RavinDave said:
Even if it wasn’t consensual. How is that the car’s fault?
Click to expand...

In fairness, if you rear end someone 'cause you weren't paying attention, that's not the car's fault either but in this case the car wasn't in operation and had nothing to do with the "crime". This would have happened no matter where they had sex

This chick needs to pick her partners a little better
 
#56
#56
Sea Ray said:
In fairness, if you rear end someone 'cause you weren't paying attention, that's not the car's fault either but in this case the car wasn't in operation and had nothing to do with the "crime". This would have happened no matter where they had sex

This chick needs to pick her partners a little better
Click to expand...

Blaming the woman?

The car was being used therefore there is coverage.
 
#59
#59
BigOrangeMojo said:
The Texas Trial Lawyers Association would seem like an unbiased source....
Click to expand...

That case has been well documented. People just read headlines and never dug into the actual facts. McDonalds knew the styrofoam cups would fail under minimal pressure at a temp just shy of boiling. People had been burned. McDonalds sent out an interoffice memo saying that it was cheaper to deal with the paying the injuries than replacing cold coffee. They got what they deserved. This is why you cannot rely on the free market to solve all problems.
 
#60
#60
ClearwaterVol said:
That case has been well documented. People just read headlines and never dug into the actual facts. McDonalds knew the styrofoam cups would fail under minimal pressure at a temp just shy of boiling. People had been burned. McDonalds sent out an interoffice memo saying that it was cheaper to deal with the paying the injuries than replacing cold coffee. They got what they deserved. This is why you cannot rely on the free market to solve all problems.
Click to expand...
It was cheaper while they were making money. News gets around they are burning people and they arent going to make money and they will change.

The free market is a slow process that plays out over time, so you rarely get the feel good moment of big change, but you look back and you see consistent change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#61
#61
ClearwaterVol said:
This is why you cannot rely on the free market to solve all problems.
Click to expand...
It is summer. That means mowing my yard. It is impossible for me to be sympathetic to legally enforced correction where the free market failed to solve the problem while i am struggling with this POS every week. The people who injured themselves, the attorneys who represented, the judges and juries which heard the cases and the engineers who redesigned the old to give us this bass turd can all EAD. Thank you.
10174158.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill and Carl Pickens
#62
#62
BigOrangeMojo said:
The Texas Trial Lawyers Association would seem like an unbiased source....
Click to expand...
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[13]McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[13][23]
 
#63
#63
ClearwaterVol said:
That case has been well documented. People just read headlines and never dug into the actual facts. McDonalds knew the styrofoam cups would fail under minimal pressure at a temp just shy of boiling. People had been burned. McDonalds sent out an interoffice memo saying that it was cheaper to deal with the paying the injuries than replacing cold coffee. They got what they deserved. This is why you cannot rely on the free market to solve all problems.
Click to expand...
Yep….
McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about.
 
#64
#64
ClearwaterVol said:
Blaming the woman?

The car was being used therefore there is coverage.
Click to expand...

So if they had sex in her car they could charge her insurance? If it happened at home, charge it to the homeowners insurance? If he stabbed her that could be charged to Geico too? This is madness
 
#65
#65
Carl Pickens said:
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[13]McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[13][23]
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it was the wrong ruling just saying the source was a completely slanted article. It would be like having Rachel Maddow defending the Biden Presidency and passing off her cherry picked and carefully worded info as the end all truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#66
#66
Sea Ray said:
So if they had sex in her car they could charge her insurance? If it happened at home, charge it to the homeowners insurance? If he stabbed her that could be charged to Geico too? This is madness
Click to expand...

She sued him. He implicated his insurance for payment.

Were they using his car? GEICO took the approach of screw off we're not participating and they got clipped.
 
#67
#67
LouderVol said:
It was cheaper while they were making money. News gets around they are burning people and they arent going to make money and they will change.

The free market is a slow process that plays out over time, so you rarely get the feel good moment of big change, but you look back and you see consistent change.
Click to expand...

Two things - This practice caused hundreds of injuries prior to this case. The judgment was based upon the profits McDonalds made on a single day's coffee sales.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top