Castanet

Hassel99 wrote:When an insurance company surrogates (sues the negligent party to recover from a previous claim) they do so in the name of the insured on their policy. It wont say "soandso insurance co on behalf of Mr XYZ"

I read one of these stories once a year where someone states "who i am shocked that person sue their family member" when in fact its just the insurance companies trying to recover from a payout

If true, it's totally stupid. The insurance company should sue in it's own name. ANd 2nd... why pay insurance premiums if they try to get refunded by suing ppl? So you pay them, and they get refunded anyways lolll.

Thanks for posting the pdf file just an opinion.

That could be, I'm no lawyer. Anyway, that's my gumshoe detective work for the night. Gnite c'nutz.

French Castanut wrote:
If true, it's totally stupid. The insurance company should sue in it's own name. ANd 2nd... why pay insurance premiums if they try to get refunded by suing ppl? So you pay them, and they get refunded anyways lolll.

Thanks for posting the pdf file just an opinion.

TRY is the key word here, they need some heavy proof that the party they are suing caused the damage. In most cases subrogation starts out as a demand letter and never goes to court, Its expensive to prove things. In cases where *bleep* just happens. IE Your burn your house down, crash your own car, there is no one to recover from

Reading the statement , It would seem as if the highly trained professionals who work at Wal Mart had lengthy conversations with Mr.Kiss to determine where he would use the item , how it would be used , how long it would be used , and if it was appropriate for his needs.
Scumbag lawyers and scumbag insurance company are just hoping that Mega Company settles out of court to avoid the cost of going to trial. Would be nice if the Judge just laughed them right out of the courtroom.

I am pretty sure that Wal Mart probably has their own lawyers who are fully capable of chewing these lightweights up and spiting them out.

.

Good day folks - others are still reporting the councillor is behind it, but it is his Insurance company leading the charge. Someone at CP jumped the gun and we published their story. It seemed odd that's why we called the councillor this morning. Yes I am the News Director and yes C'Nutz we post news stories every day of the year - news does not take holidays.

Thanks for the info trockcastanet and welcome to the forum board.

French Castanut wrote:Not sure if we should laugh, cry or be upset reading this totally ridiculous story.

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#85149

Next what.. suing Mcdonalds for selling french fry causing death chocking on them because they weren't smashed potatoes and no warning saying it's dangerous to eat hard stuff when your plastic teeth are outside of your mouth?

And finally, why not sue BC Hydro for providing the electricity to your home, which in fact, caused the fire. Becuase no electricity, no heater, no fire eh.

The original link doesn't work anymore.

I think this will be a interesting story. In Canada that little CSA approval sticker... if in the USA he may have claim.

gordon_as wrote:Reading the statement , It would seem as if the highly trained professionals who work at Wal Mart had lengthy conversations with Mr.Kiss to determine where he would use the item , how it would be used , how long it would be used , and if it was appropriate for his needs.
Scumbag lawyers and scumbag insurance company are just hoping that Mega Company settles out of court to avoid the cost of going to trial. Would be nice if the Judge just laughed them right out of the courtroom.

I am pretty sure that Wal Mart probably has their own lawyers who are fully capable of chewing these lightweights up and spiting them out.

highly trained professionals at wallmart? scumbag insurance company? judge laugh them out of courtroom?

now those 3 statements are too funny

Ken7 wrote:I think this will be a interesting story. In Canada that little CSA approval sticker... if in the USA he may have claim.

USA have same approval certifications as we do called ULA and even if something is CSA and it fails and should have been recalled the company that made it is liable

ticat900 wrote:
USA have same approval certifications as we do called ULA and even if something is CSA and it fails and should have been recalled the company that made it is liable

In many cases all those with hands on it will also be named.

I just find this interesting and I'd love to follow this story. I think, there's a lawyer seeing dollar signs..in his wallet not the so called victim. In the US as we hear, you can make claim for spilling coffee on you crotch.

Will have to try and keep up on this..hope media trys to follow it.