The throw away lady

[maryjk]

Please calm down. I apologize if I mistakenly thought that most people understood Worker’s Compensation. It really is a valid point to raise as to whether someone needs (or even can) sue for a job-related tort. As wikipedia notes:

“In the United States, most employees who are injured on the job have an absolute right to medical care for any injury, and in many cases, monetary payments to compensate for resulting temporary or permanent disabilities.Most employers are required to subscribe to insurance for workers’ compensation, and an employer who does not may have financial penalties imposed”

Oh, I understand Worker’s Comp.

What you might not understand is that no insurance company wants to make a payout. And if they, through this cop, could get the money from the homeowner, they will.

You might want to look at your own car insurance policy. Chances are, you have a clause in it that says you will agree to sue the owner of the other car, if you are in an accident. Guess what happens if the owner of the other car is your best friend? Your insurance company won’t care. It won’t care if it puts your best friend on the street.

That’s how insurance companies actually work. Rather than how Wikipedia says it should work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh, I understand Worker’s Comp.

What you might not understand is that no insurance company wants to make a payout. And if they, through this cop, could get the money from the homeowner, they will.

You might want to look at your own car insurance policy. Chances are, you have a clause in it that says you will agree to sue the owner of the other car, if you are in an accident. Guess what happens if the owner of the other car is your best friend? Your insurance company won’t care. It won’t care if it puts your best friend on the street.

That’s how insurance companies actually work. Rather than how Wikipedia says it should work.

Likely the workers’ compensation carrier was trying to fish for a homeowner’s policy that would pay at least something; nuisance value maybe. I take it the lady in question did not have a homeowner’s policy. If she did, and if she reported the summons she received, the insurer would have defended it.

If she didn’t have insurance, then she should have at least showed up in court. Most judges would look at the situation and give her time to find a lawyer. Around here, at least, legal aid would have probably defended her. Doesn’t sound like it would have taken much defending. She might have even been successful defending herself.

But assuming everything one has to assume in order to credit the story, it’s a pretty clear miscarriage.

 

[Kay_Cee]

But you are assuming that he knew she would be out on the street.

Since, according to the story, she never showed up at any hearing or trail, how would he know that?

Did he bother to find out what the repercussions would be?

 

[maryjk]

Did he bother to find out what the repercussions would be?

Meaning what?

When he went to the doctor? When he applied for Worker’s Comp? When he couldn’t make his mortgage/rent?

There just isn’t enough information to find out what happened.

I certainly don’t want to condemn the police officer based on a third hand story.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Meaning what?

When he went to the doctor? When he applied for Worker’s Comp? When he couldn’t make his mortgage/rent?

There just isn’t enough information to find out what happened.

I certainly don’t want to condemn the police officer based on a third hand story.

I already said I don’t know if the story is true or not. However . . .

Are you telling me it’s OK for someone to come onto your land (for whatever reason), purposely destroy some of your property, and then, if he injures himself destroying it, sue you for damages?

I don’t care what the insurance company says. It’s unethical. It’s immoral. One should never agree to pursue such litigation. Such a person should have the decency to take responsibility for his own actions instead of blaming the victim.

 

[maryjk]

I already said I don’t know if the story is true or not. However . . .

Are you telling me it’s OK for someone to come onto your land (for whatever reason), purposely destroy some of your property, and then, if he injures himself destroying it, sue you for damages?

You still aren’t getting it. HE didn’t sue for damages. His insurance company did. As far as we know, since we don’t know the whole story.

He, in the course of his job, injured himself. It would be the same if you called an ambulance, the EMT slipped on your floor and broke a leg. His insurance company would sue your home owner’s insurance for payment. That is how it works.

I don’t care what the insurance company says. It’s unethical. It’s immoral. One should never agree to pursue such litigation. Such a person should have the decency to take responsibility for his own actions instead of blaming the victim.

So, he should have moved his family into their car? Remember, he couldn’t work for 9 months. He needed medical care, possibly surgery. He would have owed for all of that. And his medical insurance wouldn’t have paid for any of it.

 

[Kay_Cee]

You still aren’t getting it. HE didn’t sue for damages. His insurance company did. As far as we know, since we don’t know the whole story.

I agree we probably don’t know the whole story, but I don’t see how an insurance company can sue in your name without your permission.

He, in the course of his job, injured himself. It would be the same if you called an ambulance, the EMT slipped on your floor and broke a leg. His insurance company would sue your home owner’s insurance for payment. That is how it works.

If I left my floor slippery enough for someone to slip on it, that would be my responsibility.

So, he should have moved his family into their car? Remember, he couldn’t work for 9 months. He needed medical care, possibly surgery. He would have owed for all of that. And his medical insurance wouldn’t have paid for any of it.

First of all, how do you know his medical insurance would not have paid for any of his medical treatment? (Mine would have under these circumstances.)

If kicking in a door normally resulted in a broken foot, police stations would ban their officers from doing it. Obviously, he kicked in the door wrong. *He is the one who messed up. *But instead of taking responsibility for his own action, he cooperated with an insurance company to sue an innocent person.

As for the possibility that he may have had a family, please explain how an unethical action suddenly becomes okay if performing the unethical action means others may suffer. If I mess up at work and my employer want to fire the responsible person, is it okay for me to blame an innocent person so I won’t lose my job, and therefore my family won’t suffer?

 

[maryjk]

He is the one who messed up.

Did he? Are you sure? Or is that your assumption based on this one sided story.

Or did he have orders to kick in the door? We don’t know. Because we haven’t heard his side.

Would his insurance have paid? You claim yes, I say no. I know that my medical insurance billed me when they found out that I hurt myself on my car. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NOT pay.

Getting medical care and being paid for his lost time, isn’t unethical. Sometimes bad things happen even when you do the right thing.

Yes, it is bad that the woman didn’t have any friends or family. It is sad that her only child was in and out of prison. But that doesn’t mean that she was relieved of having to carry homeowner’s insurance.

And that is really the point. The woman didn’t have homeowner’s. If she had, she wouldn’t of had these problems.