Jump to content

52 posts in this topic

Posted

Dr. Roger Herrin, a retired surgeon from Illinois who lost his son in a car accident, smoldered with rage. An appellate court had ruled that his family had over-collected insurance benefits. He was left with no choice but to pay back $500,000 to other passengers who survived the accident.

So the doctor exacted his revenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What an ar*ehole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

probably couldn't find the quantity of pennies he needed so went with quarters...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What an ar*ehole.

 

Why? For protesting that the survivors ended up getting re-awarded cash even though he's the one who's son died?

 

He doesn't need the money sure, but it's the principal of the thing.  He's the one that's lost the most here, and now he's lost even more... All because some jerk killed his son in a careless accident.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

/applaud

 

Courts are so ridiculous, poor guy lost his son :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He lost his son.  He followed legal protocol, it was awarded to him.  Now they want to say "no, we want some of that back."  I'd probably be irritated too.  But I'd probably simply stew instead of doing something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why? For protesting that the survivors ended up getting re-awarded cash even though he's the one who's son died?
 
He doesn't need the money sure, but it's the principal of the thing.  He's the one that's lost the most here, and now he's lost even more... All because some jerk killed his son in a careless accident.


Because it's a mean, nasty and petty thing to do.  He got more than enough money out of his son's death (why did he get any?) and the court found that the other passengers were entitled to compensation too - fairly and squarely. 

 

If I believed in karma I'd say that he got what he deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Should have totally used pennies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incidentally I think this is illegal and he could be fined for this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incidentally I think this is illegal and he could be fined for this as well.

 

 

Not at all. It's legal currency and he had the option to use whatever form of currency he wanted.  Your knowledge of US law leaves a lot to be desired. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because it's a mean, nasty and petty thing to do.  He got more than enough money out of his son's death (why did he get any?) and the court found that the other passengers were entitled to compensation too - fairly and squarely. 

 

If I believed in karma I'd say that he got what he deserved.

 

the passengers were compensated ... with not being killed

10 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Incidentally I think this is illegal and he could be fined for this as well.


Why? Legal tender. And the lawyers didnt have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not at all. It's legal currency and he had the option to use whatever form of currency he wanted.  Your knowledge of US law leaves a lot to be desired. 

 

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before when someone else did this that you're not allowed to do this. there was a sensible reason, except for it just being retarded as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because it's a mean, nasty and petty thing to do.  He got more than enough money out of his son's death (why did he get any?) and the court found that the other passengers were entitled to compensation too - fairly and squarely.


He had life insurance on his family and why he was payed for his sons death. The life insurance is where most of the money came from. Not sure I agree most of the other 800k should of gone to him. The others should of at least gotten enough to cover the medical bills and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

apparently at the very least, he has to be present while the count every little coin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

apparently at the very least, he has to be present while the count every little coin. 

 

They have machines to do that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

He said he just didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And how does the money give him his son back ? meanwhile the people that was injured actually NEED the money for rehab and lifelong lowered quality of life and potentially not being able to work due to injuries.


Why should the others get money from the insurance he had on his family? His son was the only one under that policy and he payed for the policy.

The under insured motorist money is a different story.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It all spends the same. Not a big deal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I say, pay all of the money in quarters. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why should the others get money from the insurance he had on his family? His son was the only one under that policy and he payed for the policy.

The under insured motorist money is a different story.

 

 

 

There was also a pool of $800,000 in aggregated under-insured-motorist coverage from the crash vehicle for claims by all the passengers, but a trial court came up with a formula that gave the son

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because it's a mean, nasty and petty thing to do.  He got more than enough money out of his son's death (why did he get any?) and the court found that the other passengers were entitled to compensation too - fairly and squarely. 
 
If I believed in karma I'd say that he got what he deserved.

He shouldn't get any money when his own son was killed by someone else's negligence?

And he gave the money back, sure in quarters, to the LAWYERS office. The very same people that will probably just truck it off to the nearest bank, keep a large amount for themselves and then give the other families what's left. He didn't go to the victims and say here's 500k in coins deal with it yourself.

If a courts gave me money 10 years ago and then suddenly just decided that oh you know what, we were wrong we need 500k of that back I'd be ****ed too. What if I had spent that money? Now do I have to declare bankruptcy / take out loans because the courts screwed up a decade ago?
 

They don't have to use machines, they can chose to count every little coin by hand, in shifts, and he has to stay there until they're done.

and no they don't, they're insurance companies, not banks, why would they have coin counters.

...

What do you think the company is going to do? They're going to take it straight to a bank and then deal with it. Guess what the bank has? Oh they have coin counters. They aren't going to sit there and use their workers to count all the coins hand by hand, it would cost them an absolute fortune in labor alone.

And if they don't want to do that, coin counting machines aren't exactly expensive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You shouldn't spend money that's being contested, that would have been your own dumb fault then. he was well aware that the other victims and their families had appealed the rahter idiotic decision to give him a single person witht he least need for the money the majority of the shared pool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You shouldn't spend money that's being contested, that would have been your own dumb fault then. he was well aware that the other victims and their families had appealed the rahter idiotic decision to give him a single person witht he least need for the money the majority of the shared pool.

Did I say he spent it? No. I'm saying what if someone else, in a similar situation, had?

It's not HIS fault that the courts gave him the money, so calling him mean and nasty is rather pathetic (to jakem that is, not you). The courts screwed up.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did I say he spent it? No. I'm saying what if someone else, in a similar situation, had?

It's not HIS fault that the courts gave him the money, so calling him mean and nasty is rather pathetic (to jakem that is, not you). The courts screwed up.

you said, "what if 'I' had spent it". 

 

and as I said, anyone who spend money that's being contested is an idiot. 


What do you think the company is going to do? They're going to take it straight to a bank and then deal with it. Guess what the bank has? Oh they have coin counters. They aren't going to sit there and use their workers to count all the coins hand by hand, it would cost them an absolute fortune in labor alone.

And if they don't want to do that, coin counting machines aren't exactly expensive...

 

yeah, but their companies has a lot of money, he was being an idiot and an a-hole, they could very well count the money manually in shifts while he was to wait just to be a-holes back to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.