How did you find out policy limits were $1mm for liability? That would be unusual, but Missouri may be radically different than Texas. Again, I doubt a homosexual hooker (speculation on my part) in Missouri with a 2014 Hyundai had $1mm. The insurance carrier did not lose the arbitration, the insured did. What happened with the declaratory judgment? Is the insurance Carrier’s liability increased beyond policy limits via arbitration? Without the totally idiotic arbiter decision in this case, common sense has gone out of the window. In part, that is the carrier’s fault, but the award is ludicrous.
It was mentioned in the court opinion. It would be unusual, but it's not out of the question. I had a $1M/$1M policy through USAA when I lived in Texas. People will carry a big policy for all sorts of reasons that don't necessarily have to do with the fanciness of the car. My car was fancy. I mainly just wanted a big UM/UIM policy and couldn't get that without a big liability policy. Maybe he has rich parents who assume if he screws up, they could be on the hook for something. Hard to say. And the plaintiff is a chick, so I presume he doesn't hide the hose in the shed. But who the hell knows these days? Yes, but by the insurer's own choice. They decided to effectively leave him as a pro-se litigant, and that's very risky. It's not quite like telling a guy to perform surgery on himself, but you get the point. Good chance things are going to go badly for him. Furthermore, GEICO lost control of the defense and therefore took a big risk for themselves if they lose the coverage dispute. I would assume that it's still pending. The case at hand was their attempt to intervene and vacate the arbitration award. In other words, they had an "oh ****" moment and tried to jump in and get another bite at the apple. It failed, and it should have failed. But I could be wrong in the end. I don't know what the Missouri Supreme Court is like. They might step in and change the laws for them. The Texas Supreme Court definitely would (like they did for Bob Perry when for a brief moment they made an arbitration agreement easy to get out of). Nathan Hecht would call up a GEICO officer and say, "do you want to write them a big check and satisfy one judgment or do you want to write me and my friends a few checks for far less though still plenty and have the laws changed so this doesn't happen again next time one of your adjusters does something stupid?" They might also win on the dec action. Their position isn't patently frivolous. They have an argument, and if I represented them, I'd surely make it. However, it's not an easy case for them. They're trying to narrow language that's inherently broad, and it's going to take a pretty sympathetic court willing to ignore that fact to win. You just don't refuse to defend when you need a sympathetic court to win. You refuse to defend when the insured's position is something more like, "I gave her the disease and was banging her in bed, but I was thinking about my car during the sex." No. They obviously couldn't do anything like that. However, I would suspect that Missouri has something comparable to the Stowers Doctrine (which GEICO likely violated), and the insured almost surely has extracontractual claims (that will be assigned to the plaintiff) if necessary. If you think the award was excessive, I wouldn't argue that point. I wouldn't have given her that much (or frankly anywhere near that much). However, everybody accepts risk when they take a case to trial or arbitration, especially when they needlessly send their insured to trial or arbitration without a defense. Hell, an arbitrator once gave my client $50K for a massive third degree burn (and clear liability) that took over a year to treat and left the entire back side of his body a massive burn scar. A jury would have given me far more. Did I get to vacate the award because I thought it was "too small?" No. That's how arbitration is supposed to work. You take the good with the bad. He could have zeroed me out, and we would have had to live with it. (The arbitration agreement was signed before the injury and before I was retained. I never would have advised him to agree to it had I been on the case.)
Because when you're picking out bananas and big long cucumbers, what you really want to see is some messed up guy dressed up like a chick lying on his back with his legs open. And how dare anyone say these drag shows are sexual and inappropriate for children.
Agree. I understand a bunch of stupid-*** chicks standing around chuckling and snickering while their children are being exposed to be something that's terrible for them. I don't expect any better from them. Where the hell are the dads of those children? I'm an easygoing husband who generally lets my wife do her thing, but if my wife took my son or daughter to something like this (which would never happen because I wouldn't marry or make babies with a woman who was that stupid), I wouldn't get physical with her, but I would go ape ****. There would be a price to pay. There would be a massive reckoning.
I would much prefer Desantis and other GOP focus on what is allowed on TV, youtube, etc. these days as entertainment. It has a much, much broader impact and it wouldn't put the GOP in the position of going after parents. I'm not one for disallowing most of what is on cable/TV, but I would like the rating system to be MUCH more robust and draw the lines a lot harder. And then I would like to see them force cable and internet provides to have an "easy button" for parents to restrict what is viewable by their children. I want a simple method to persistently "black out" a channel if it shows content I don't want my kids to see.
Call something "family friendly", have a drag queen show, then say, "See, drag queens are family friendly because we said so!"
Gov. Greg Abbott Orders Probe Into Allegation Teacher Took Child To Drag Queen Show Attended By Sex Offender | ZeroHedge
It only takes one or two rotten apples to thoroughly screw up a business organization. Lib organizations who look to hire lib college graduates steeped in wokeology are discovering this the hard way. And I for one am glad to see it.
I am shocked. Rolling Stone gave a trash review on a movie it did not watch. Turns out they were sent the movie to watch. The movie maker could track who watched and who didn't. This interwebz thing is tricky. Rolling Stone Busted for Trashing a Conservative Movie Its Reviewer Didn't Watch
Short version: all the new trendy non-binary looney tune folks are mentally ill. In contrast, traditional gays and lesbians fairly consistent in terms of mental health.
It's because liberals can never be happy. If a college kid today says s/he is straight, that person gets hounded by liberals for being closed minded. If a college kid says "I'm bisexual," even that's too restrictive since gender is now fluid! No wonder they have mental health issues. They want to say "I'm straight" but not get yelled at for it.
Maybe the next piece of legislation can be less protection for 27 US Representatives... These 27 Democrats voted against protections for Supreme Court justices
2 of them were from Texas. I hope the GOP will use this in election. Maybe the DNC thinks the Demx in their districts don't care
Even better: 22 of the 27 voted for MORE protections for themselves just last year 22 Dems who voted against expanded SCOTUS protections approved extra security for themselves after Jan. 6
BS executive order. Link. So if a doctor tells a gender confused kid that he is what his sex says he is, he'll lose federal funding, but if he loads him up with hormones and surgeries and screws him up for life, it's all good.
The left does not care about the later...they ONLY care about feelings NOW. Results be damned. And they will lie and deflect in their best Orwellian manner to convince you how right they are...
Colonies are offensive now. George Washington University Announces It Will Retire ‘Colonials’ Moniker - Sports Illustrated
Part of the problem is that liberals who have a problem with it are pretty quiet about it, and it's no wonder. The few who are critical (Bari Weiss, Abigail Shrier, etc.) have gotten treated like crap for it and eventually purged from the liberal ranks. They're going to have to be humbled at the ballot box for some of this to change. The loss of the Hispanic vote might start to wake them up, but that'll take awhile. They should see the writing on the wall with what's happening in the Rio Grande Valley and in parts of Florida, but those weren't Democratic states anyway, so they don't see that as cause for alarm. What would cause the **** to hit the fan is if they start losing ground in states that had been at least comfortably blue. If they see a big Hispanic exodus in Colorado or New Mexico and lose those states (or see some Hispanic areas of California go red), I think you'd see more liberals speak out.
What's with the recent political fetishizing of drag queens? These stories kinda surprise me. Link 1 and Link 2. The Democrats have been relatively pro-gay basically my entire adult life, but they generally discouraged flying the freak flag. The tendency was always to embrace elements of the gay community that appeared "normal" and respectable. They stayed away from the dudes walking in parades in assless chaps with whips and chains and would never have gotten anywhere near a drag queen, because they knew how screwed up that looked to families (and frankly anyone who wasn't a total friggin' crackpot). You certainly wouldn't have seen a prominent statewide officer from a swing state or a member of the House Democratic leadership embracing drag culture and saying anything associated with it is "what America is all about." It must be the echo chamber of Twitter telling them that this is politically acceptable.
