re: Family of LSU student Max Gruver awarded $6.1 million in damages over hazing death.

The whole point of the trial was to get the jury to sort out the percentages of fault. Even though there was only one defendant left, apparently, if the jury would have placed 1) or 20% of the blame on him, then the award against his insurer would have been much higher.

I would assume that the only reason this last defendant didn't settle is because, according to the article, the parents felt that he was one of the ring leaders and deserved to have a significant portion of the blame put on him. The jury disagreed as to that point, but awarded a large verdict anyway.

My question is why did LSU settle? The jury, I think correctly, placed all of the blame on the kids. Even though LSU settled, the jury would not be told anything about that, and they could have placed some blame on the university if they wanted to.

LSU was not on the verdict form. Seems like it should have been.

Looks like Allstate Canada lost summary judgment on its exclusions, so it is likely covering this.

They got a funnel since his wasn't hazing

Thanks may have changed over the years, but after the last big, huge round of hazing deaths, which occurred in the 80s all the insurance companies canceled and refused to cover any of the great organizations anymore. As a result, all the fraternities had to join together and form their own insurance company essentially And put up. I think it was something like $100 millions for the deductible and then Lloyd’s of London would cover something like to 500 million or so over and above that on claims per year.

Assuming that still the case that means that every fraternity that’s a member of the IFC insurance pack, which is basically everybody still left, would pay for this verdict or decision out of the deductible no matter what the club .

quote:

---

defendant didn't settle is because,

---

It’s probably because his parents live in Canada.

insurance on multiple levels from several insureds. they will be paid

quote:

---

I’m gonna sign all my kids up for fraternities and all my old people up for that cable company that got sued

---

Don't forget to visit the water fountain at Camp Lejeune and talcum up your hoo-ha.

quote:

---

How does that work?

The acts took place on another property.

Was Isto living in his parents home and commuting to school?

I’m still confused how the parent’s homeowners policy is involved.

Explain it to me like I’m 5.

---

I've long wondered about that myself. This is not the first time I've heard of homeowner's insurance covering something that completely unrelated to the home or its owner. I guess I've always just assumed that it's B.S., but it's cheaper to pay the claim than defend against it. But WTF does "defending against the claim" even consist of? It's basically a "sir, this is a Wendy's" situation.