Post Left Wing looniness here
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
‘The View': Joy Behar Says Gun Laws Will Definitely Change ‘Once Black People Get Guns in This Country’
As if black people don't have guns. What this tells you is one of several things:
1) She's either a bald-faced liar
2) She's completely delusional
Black people don't have guns? And she is on a high-profile show.
AGAIN: this is the corruption that stole the election. This type of lying drumbeat is the problem.
As if black people don't have guns. What this tells you is one of several things:
1) She's either a bald-faced liar
2) She's completely delusional
Black people don't have guns? And she is on a high-profile show.
AGAIN: this is the corruption that stole the election. This type of lying drumbeat is the problem.
Interesting, and she lives in Mexico.
"Join us Friday, June 10 at the Austin Central Library (Special Event Centre, 710 W. Cesar Chavez St) for a panel discussion among women who have found themselves ejected from or alienated by the left."
There's still time for the left to get it canceled. Does the Austin Public Library realize what it's hosting?
"Join us Friday, June 10 at the Austin Central Library (Special Event Centre, 710 W. Cesar Chavez St) for a panel discussion among women who have found themselves ejected from or alienated by the left."
There's still time for the left to get it canceled. Does the Austin Public Library realize what it's hosting?
I believe Chicago and Philadelphia SHOW beyond a reasonable doubt that black people already HAVE guns...unfortunately, many of them are possessed illegally...
Liberals are completely delusional. They have a worldview that is devoid of true reality. Of course there are problems but this kind of talk from her is the classic white liberal coming to the rescue of the poor black man who can't defend himself against the evil white supremacists. That is the world she lives in. There is no other possibility. And as Liberals due, she speaks shrilly and arrogantly.
Facing Addiction
1,000+ Posts
Not sure exactly where to put this, so I'm just going to leave it right here....
Geico must pay $5.2 million to woman who got HPV from sex in man's insured car, court rules (msn.com)
Geico must pay $5.2 million to woman who got HPV from sex in man's insured car, court rules (msn.com)
Sounds crazy, but their argument that he wasn't "using" the vehicle is ********. Furthermore, they took the matter to arbitration knowing that when you do so, you generally have to live with the outcome. The ability to vacate such an award is extremely limited (intentionally). It's not like appealing a civil judgment, and most of the time, the process favors business interests, but occasionally it doesn't, and when it doesn't, tough ****, though I would have preferred that it happened to Allstate or Farmers.
Sorry, but I am 100% on GEICO's side here. Auto insurance companies do not cover sexual activity happening inside one of their vehicles, and they do not and should not have to cover the stupidity and sluttiness of a passenger who happens to also be in the vehicle.
Did they make a strategic legal mistake by going to arbitration? I can see that.
A vehicle parked in the driveway, whether at home or a business, that is used for sex should NEVER be deemed use for the purposes of a claim against an automobile policy.
By the theory advanced in THIS case, if someone parks their car in my garage and carelessly tosses a cigarette out of their window while entering into the garage and somehow ignites something in my garage, causing me to lose multiple vehicles of my own, MY carrier should be able to go after them because the loss was caused by their actions in their vehicle, even though they are not reasonably related to the USE of the vehicle.
There are three issues to look at. First, you have the underlying liability. If a dude knowingly exposes a woman to a STD without informing her, I don't see a problem with holding him civilly liable for it. I'm surprised you all are ok with a guy doing this.
Second, whether or not GEICO is on the hook depends on the terms of the policy. If you don't want the policy to cover this sort of thing, don't sell one that's so broad. It didn't require a collision or even to be driven - just "normal use." Well, that could mean a lot - perhaps even a place to screw around. People have been fooling around in cars as long as they've existed. Again, that's on GEICO.
Third, GEICO didn't have to let it go this far or this far out of hand. The reason why it did is that when she sued, not only did they not offer money, they refused to even defend. They completely hung their insured out to dry, and he got hammered. They didn't have to do that. I've had cases in which coverage was questionable, and the carrier often defended their insured while reserving the right to litigate the coverage issue. This helps keep the insured's *** from being totally kicked in case they ultimately lose on the coverage dispute. If there is even the most remote chance of coverage, a responsible insurer does this. They were incredibly careless to their insured not to do this.
So GEICO was reckless with its insured's interests and lost. **** 'em.
Suing him would be one thing. GEICO should NEVER have been in the picture.
How you think anyone in this thread is saying it was cool for the guy to spread HPV escapes reason.
Then they should write their policies differently. If you write a broad policy, you shouldn't be surprised when it's interpreted as such. And when you not only refuse to be indemnify but also refuse to defend, you shouldn't be shocked if things go badly.
Then what's the problem? I'm for holding him liable and for holding the insurer to the contract they wrote. Do you have a problem with that half?
A big part of the problem is that the original award came through ARBITRATION. The traditional rules that apply in Court tend not to be applicable in that setting, and once the award has been rendered, it is damned near impossible to overturn. This produces absurd results much like in this case...
Understand that the auto insurer doesn't get sued until the insured has a judgment against him and they refuse to honor it. The original judgment is against the insured. The reason the auto insurer was later sued is that they wrote a liability policy (which the insured paid for) that covered the wrongdoing and refused to indemnify and defend him.
Maybe. Depends on the policy.
Not unless a liability insurance policy covered them. Extremely unlikely.
I'm no fan of arbitration, but insurers usually like it and have to accept the good with the bad. Also, nobody forced them to do anything. They took a huge and very stupid gamble and lost.
;every auto policy in the country is going to be amended to deny coverage for transmitting sexual diseases while the car aint moving. Maybe they can add an endorsement allowing some cash to be paid so their diseased drivers can afford a hotel room? Just thinking here. I did insurance defense work for 30 years and I have seen worse than this.
@Garmel , do you see the road head loophole he's leaving for you?
Honestly, I don't blame them for challenging coverage. There's certainly room to make the argument, but there's definitely plenty of room to argue the other way. Refusing to defend altogether in such a situation is indefensible. The claims handler who made that call should be ****-canned.
Tagging someone when you are really referring to yourself...priceless.
Hey, I'm no prude and do have a raunchy side, but he's the Larry Flynt of Hornfans. I'm not even close.
Uh, no...you're close.
But, I'm the ******* of horn fans, so what do I know? Uh oh, wait, I called myself a name. I should be banned. Please report me.
Last edited:
GEICO was dumb not to defend. No doubt. They didn't ask for arbitration, they asked for a declaratory judgement, which the courts, it appears, failed to rule on.
However, fu*k the lawyers and the legal system, which is totally broken. This b s is why auto premiums are skyrocketing. Next, auto policies will have to pay for lung cancer because people routinely smoke in autos. If two strangers have sex in your front yard in the middle of the night and one of them gets an STD, your homeowner's policy may have to pay because you, the negligent bastard, didn't post a "no sex allowed" sign on the attractive nuisance known as soft, manicured grass.
The good news is that anyone that drives a 2014 Hyundai probably doesn't have $5.2million in limits. They probably have $40,000. The arbitrator might as well have awarded $20billion in genital wart damages, because the plaintiff is not going to collect. However, the plaintiff's lawyer and his golfing buddy, the arbitrator, can still laugh about it over their bottle of wine at the club.
But you're downplaying their screw-up. When their insured needed them, they hung him out to dry in violation of their contract and the law. That is why they're writing the $5M check - not the legal system. They didn't ask for anything when it mattered, and it wasn't because they didn't have notice of it. They did and just shrugged it off. It wasn't a minor error. It was atrociously foolish and irresponsible. The people who were responsible for the claim should get fired and never work in insurance again.
Had they done what even you acknowledge was the appropriate thing, they could have alleged all the common law defenses available to them. They could have avoided arbitration or at least had a hand in picking the arbitrator. And if things had gone badly anyway, they could have litigated the coverage issue without prejudicing their insured. Even after their lengthy list of gross malfeasances, they could have accepted the policy limit offer of $1M. That hurts but a lot less than $5.2M. So yes, it's a harsh outcome for them, but it took a Macy's Thanksgiving Day-size parade of huge ****-ups to get to that outcome.
Lol. I hate being on the opposite side of you. You make so much sense on so many things. If you ran for office, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote for you. But you're off the rails here.
I agree that auto insurance shouldn't cover this. It's not what it's intended for. It's intended for liability associated with car accidents (with vehicles, property, pedestrians, etc.). However, they left that open in the policy that they wrote and were paid to honor. That is on them, and you shouldn't blame the legal system for not bailing them out of their own policy and their parade of ****-ups after the fact. When you're willing to let lawyers off the hook for blowing SoLs (which is clear malpractice but far less egregious than this), then we'll talk about rescuing insurers who handled a claim like they were all high on meth for several months.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
