- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/9/22 at 2:22 am to Geekboy
Oh no the scammers got scammed? See how insurance really works is I pay you $200/month for 5 years on a car and when I lose it I get a 1/5th of the value and the insurance drops me. Totally not a scam
Posted on 6/9/22 at 2:25 am to Geekboy
quote:
The insurance company appealed to the courts on several grounds, claiming that the process denied it the ability to have its day in court. The company's appeal was denied on all points. For anyone who's ever emerged from arbitration feeling that the process leaves something to be desired, this time it's an insurance company who feels that way.
It gets better
They choose arbitration to try and frick the customers and now they mad? Oh
Posted on 6/9/22 at 2:27 am to McCorkleJonesGOAT
quote:
They choose arbitration to try and frick the customers and now they mad?
Not what happened.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 2:38 am to JudgeHolden
quote:
Arbitration. That's how
quote:
They choose arbitration to try and frick the customers and now they mad?
Not what happened.
Which is it?
Ask anyone on here how they feel about State Farm.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 2:38 am to Geekboy
You can’t really criticize her because she hired some great lawyers and got what she wanted out of it. I’m more impressed than anything.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 4:44 am to McCorkleJonesGOAT
quote:
Which is it?
Plaintiff submitted a claim to GEICO, which rejected it and declined to defend the lover.
Under a MO procedure that LA does not have, Plaintiff and her lover chose arbitration, with an agreement that plaintiff would only seek collection from the insurance policy proceeds. GEICO was not involved in the arbitration because it had declined to defend the lover.
When GEICO was given notice that plaintiff was going to court to confirm the arbitration award, it intervened in the court proceeding, but the MO procedure did not let it then do anything to litigate the merits of the claim. GEICO had fricked up by not defending the claim and providing a defense for lover in the arbitration. Too late now.
But GEICO has one shot to get out of it. The KC article mentioned this:
"In a related federal court case, GEICO is contesting the idea that the claim is covered under its insurance policy. The outcome of that case would determine whether the company has to actually pay the settlement."
So it ain't over yet.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 5:02 am to Geekboy
Sound like a sleezy lawyer is paying off a sleezy judge.
Posted on 6/9/22 at 9:02 am to McCorkleJonesGOAT
My reading, and I could be wrong, is that GEICO declined coverage.
The plaintiff then settled with the tortfeasor under a right of limited recovery (basically limiting to insurance).
The plaintiff then invoked a Missouri statute that forces the matter to arbitration.
I am happy to be corrected on this one. But I do not think this resulted from an arbitration clause in the GEICO policy.
The plaintiff then settled with the tortfeasor under a right of limited recovery (basically limiting to insurance).
The plaintiff then invoked a Missouri statute that forces the matter to arbitration.
I am happy to be corrected on this one. But I do not think this resulted from an arbitration clause in the GEICO policy.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News