Doctor Pays Settlement With 600,000 Quarters

[jakem1]

the passengers were compensated ... with not being killed

 

From the article:

 

 

Michael was killed and the other passengers suffered injuries. One of the kids, the worst of the injured, had to undergo several knee surgeries.

 

The $800,000 was supposed to cover the cost of surgery for the injuries that the other passengers sustained.  It's not meant to be blood money for a guy who already profited from his son's death.  The appeals court simply corrected the mistake that the original court made.

 

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.

 

And presumably that's why the appeals court decided in their favour. 

 

It's unfortunate that this guy's son died but it's not a grief competition and the insurance money is there to ensure that everyone affected by the accident is covered.  He said himself that he didn't need the money whereas the other people who were injured in the accident clearly did.  Rather than be a prick about it he could have kept his disappointment to himself and handed the money over graciously.  He sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant person and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

[Mr. Gibs]

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.

Yeah I want to see them explain to their bosses / shareholders / managers w/e why they wasted a ton of time/money counting coins instead of giving it to a bank.

I don't think the answer "well the guy was a douche so we wanted to stick it to him" would work.

[jakem1]

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

 

Well first of all he did get some of the $800K, just not an unfair share of it.  Secondly, with the possible exception of money to cover funeral costs, why should he get money?  Will it bring his son back?  Will it ease the pain of his loss?  Do we need to profit from every death?  He already got a packet from the life insurance policy he took out on his son (and what sort of psychopath does that?) but he got greedy and wanted everything.

[Mr. Gibs]

Well first of all he did get some of the $800K, just not an unfair share of it.  Secondly, with the possible exception of money to cover funeral costs, why should he get money?  Will it bring his son back?  Will it ease the pain of his loss?  Do we need to profit from every death?  He already got a packet from the life insurance policy he took out on his son (and what sort of psychopath does that?) but he got greedy and wanted everything.

1. So when you lose a family member you shouldn't get any compensation. Right, got it. I mean it won't bring them back right? :rolleyes:

2. What sort of psychopath takes out a life insurance policy on their family member? Are you ****ing high or just being thick? Quite a lot of policies nowadays also have living benefits which the person can take out to cover medical expenses and such. If I take out a life insurance policy on my wife am I a psychopath who wants her to die? My mum and dad both have life insurance policies too, are they psychopaths as well?

3. I highly doubt 10 years ago he was in court alone fighting to get the 800k for himself. At the very least his lawyers were doing it, and that's their job. They're job is to get the highest payout possible (which is why you see damage claims for like $100 million), it's the courts job to make sure everyone gets a fair settlement. The courts didn't do their job.

Tomorrow if someone were to kill your wife / mum / dad w/e, are you just going to sit there and go oh well it's too bad they're dead or are you going to try and get the best possible settlement from the murderer?

[jakem1]

1. So when you lose a family member you shouldn't get any compensation. Right, got it. I mean it won't bring them back right? :rolleyes:

2. What sort of psychopath takes out a life insurance policy on their family member? Are you ****ing high or just being thick?

3. I highly doubt 10 years ago he was in court fighting to get the 800k for himself. At the very least his lawyers were doing it, and that's their job. They're job is to get the highest payout possible (which is why you see damage claims for like $100 million), it's the courts job to make sure everyone gets a fair settlement. The courts didn't do their job.

 

Why would you take out an insurance policy on a child?  You're not dependent on them financially so the only reason is that you hope to profit from their death.  If you can't see that there's something wrong with that then there's not much point carrying on the conversation.

 

I don't know, maybe it's an American thing to want to make money at every opportunity.  If my daughter died I can guarantee you the last thing I would be thinking about would be how to make money from it.

[DocM]

Should have totally used pennies!

(Y) (y)

[Mr. Gibs]

Why would you take out an insurance policy on a child?  You're not dependent on them financially so the only reason is that you hope to profit from their death.  If you can't see that there's something wrong with that then there's not much point carrying on the conversation.

 

I don't know, maybe it's an American thing to want to make money at every opportunity.

I updated my post. Life insurance policies do come with living benefits. It allows YOU to put money aside that your child can then use in the future should he need it.

If I got a life insurance policy for my kid and then when they're 25 they have a medical condition that is too expensive to pay for, they can claim it on their life insurance policy. Or they turn 10 and got something, your medical insurance doesn't cover it 100%, you can now claim the remainder on their life insurance.

There's also another benefit that you didn't realize. As you get older life insurance becomes progressively more expensive and you can get denied from the good plans if you have health issues/dangerous jobs. If you get it for your kids when they're young, it's dirt cheap and the chances of them getting denied are a lot lot less. Then when the kid becomes an adult he can change who gets the benefits (ie to his wife). Now if they get a medical condition later on in life, or gets a dangerous job he's covered (if he didn't have a policy the insurance company can deny you coverage because it's too risky).

Life insurance isn't only for death anymore...

[jakem1]

I updated my post. Life insurance policies do come with living benefits. It allows YOU to put money aside that your child can then use in the future should he need it.

If I got a life insurance policy for my kid and then when they're 25 they have a medical condition that is too expensive to pay for, they can claim it on their life insurance policy.

There's also another benefit that you didn't realize. As you get older life insurance becomes progressively more expensive and you can get denied from the good plans if you have health issues/dangerous jobs. If you get it for your kids when they're young, it's dirt cheap and the chances of them getting denied are a lot lot less. Then when the kid becomes an adult he can change who gets the benefits (ie to his wife). Now if they get a medical condition later on in life, or gets a dangerous job he's covered (if he didn't have a policy the insurance company can deny you coverage because it's too risky).

Life insurance isn't only for death anymore...

 

So life insurance is health insurance?  Only in America :rolleyes:

 

Regardless, and even if any of that applies to this guy's policy, the fact still remains that he's upset because he failed to profit from his son's death.  Furthermore, he tried to deny others with actual costs resulting from the accident the money that they needed despite the fact that he'd already hit the jackpot.  Only a scumbag would behave like that and it doesn't surprise me that he's divorced. 

 

Oh, and if you needed any further proof that the guys a prick:

 

 

The doctor, who lives on a 20-acre estate in Harrisburg, had one of his grounds workers help with the hauling Wednesday. ?He said he?s very sore from lifting the bags,? said the doctor.

[Mr. Gibs]

So life insurance is health insurance?  Only in America :rolleyes:

No. If you have one that has living benefits it allows you to claim stuff on it in addition to your health insurance.

Health insurance in America doesn't always cover 100% of expenses. For minor things like a doctors visit, it's not that big a deal. For things like major surgeries? It can add up.

Basically it works like this (I'm not an insurance agent so I might be slightly wrong):

Let's say you take out a life insurance policy on your wife for $1 million dollars. Now 10 years later she gets really sick and you now have a $200k bill from the hospital that you need to pay.

You can claim that $200k on her life insurance policy. The life insurance would pay, say, 100k, and now your wife's policy is only worth $900k. There's other stuff attached and I'm sure you pay more to get it.

It's also "useful" for terminally ill patients. Say your grandma had brain cancer and you live in a state that doesn't allow euthanasia and she can't afford her medical bills. If she has a life insurance policy you can ask the company to pay out earlier so you can cover her medical expenses. Now your grandma can keep getting treatment to keep her remaining years comfortable.

[x-scratch]

What an ar*ehole.

 

 

how is he an ar*ehole. & because of you my next purchases will be in pennies

[jakem1]

No. If you have one that has living benefits it allows you to claim stuff on it in addition to your health insurance.

Health insurance in America doesn't always cover 100% of expenses. For minor things like a doctors visit, it's not that big a deal. For things like major surgeries? It can add up.

Basically it works like this (I'm not an insurance agent so I might be slightly wrong):

Let's say you take out a life insurance policy on your wife for $1 million dollars. Now 10 years later she gets really sick and you now have a $200k bill from the hospital that you need to pay.

You can claim that $200k on her life insurance policy. The life insurance would pay, say, 100k, and now your wife's policy is only worth $900k. There's other stuff attached and I'm sure you pay more to get it.

It's also "useful" for terminally ill patients. Say your grandma had brain cancer and you live in a state that doesn't allow euthanasia and she can't afford her medical bills. If she has a life insurance policy you can ask the company to pay out earlier so you can cover her medical expenses. Now your grandma can keep getting treatment to keep her remaining years comfortable.

 

Unbelievable.  This could be the topic for a whole new discussion.

[Mr. Gibs]

Unbelievable.  This could be the topic for a whole new discussion.

How is that unbelievable? It's not really that bad a thing.

Let's take your wife as an example again. She's healthy, has a good job and lifes good. Now she's 50 and got diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. She's constantly in the hospital, you've hit the limits on your health insurance and now the bills are rapidly adding up.

So now you have to make a choice:

1. Take your wife home and let her suffer in agony because you can't afford the care anymore.

2. Take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to pay for her care.

If you had a living benefits policy you can now get the insurance company to pay out earlier and use that benefits to keep getting her the care she needs.

Is it a perfect solution? No. As much as it sucks insurance in America pretty much controls our lives. You don't have to get it but if something happens you better hope you have the financial means to cover it, if not well...

Yes it would be nice if things like healthcare weren't outrageously expensive in this country (believe me, I'm all for universal healthcare as opposed to the **** we have now), but people are massively resistant to change (or hate the government and don't want them doing anything). Stupid but thats a different discussion.

---

Brief explanation on how health insurance works in the US:

Deductible (Anywhere from $0-$10000) - This is the amount you have to pay out of pocket before your insurance company will pay a single dollar. The lower your deductible, the higher your premiums.

Co-insurance (100/0, 80/20, 70/30, 50/50 etc) - This is the amount your insurance will pay for after you hit your deductible. So say your co-insurance was 80/20, the insurance company would cover 80% of the cost, you're responsible for 20% of it. Yet again, lower co-insurance means higher premiums.

Out of pocket maximum (anywhere from $500-$10000) - Once you spend a certain amount of money your insurance company will 100% cover all additional expenses. So say you had a out of pocket maximum of $5000 and you went in for heart surgery that cost $100k. You're only responsible for $5k of it.

Co-pay - A pre-negotiated rate you pay that is separate from the above. For example, some insurances have a specialist co-pay of $50. So if you were to visit, say, a cancer specialist who charged $500. You'd only have to pay $50 regardless of your deductible / co-insurance.

[jakem1]

How is that unbelievable? It's not really that bad a thing.

 

I come from a country where, if I get sick, I just walk into a hospital and they'll fix me up no questions asked.  Anything less than that is pretty crap IMO but it seems to me that the situation you describe where you need insurance to plug the gaps in other insurance is the worst kind of situation possible. 

 

It's easy to understand though why the other victims in the accident might want their fare share of the $800,000 if they face the sort of out of pocket expenses that you describe.  Especially the kid who needed multiple knee operations.  As a surgeon and a human being I would have expected this guy to appreciate that before he tried to keep the lion's share of the money for himself.

[Mr. Gibs]

I come from a country where, if I get sick, I just walk into a hospital and they'll fix me up no questions asked.  Anything less than that is pretty crap IMO but it seems to me that the situation you describe where you need insurance to plug the gaps in other insurance is the worst kind of situation possible.

I come from a country like that too (HK). But when you live here it's just the way life is. I mean you don't need living benefits, it's not a requirement and tons of people will have no need for it. But it does have it's uses.

So I'm not saying that you'll need it, just giving an example on why parents take out life insurance policies on their kids. It's not because they want to profit from their death. It's ultimately a backup that the kid can rely on should a situation arise where he/the family needs money.

[Edrick Smith]

/applaud

 

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

You're applauding him for being an asshat when the other families got nothing? 

[HawkMan]

1. So when you lose a family member you shouldn't get any compensation. Right, got it. I mean it won't bring them back right? :rolleyes:

2. What sort of psychopath takes out a life insurance policy on their family member? Are you ****ing high or just being thick? Quite a lot of policies nowadays also have living benefits which the person can take out to cover medical expenses and such. If I take out a life insurance policy on my wife am I a psychopath who wants her to die? My mum and dad both have life insurance policies too, are they psychopaths as well?

3. I highly doubt 10 years ago he was in court alone fighting to get the 800k for himself. At the very least his lawyers were doing it, and that's their job. They're job is to get the highest payout possible (which is why you see damage claims for like $100 million), it's the courts job to make sure everyone gets a fair settlement. The courts didn't do their job.

Tomorrow if someone were to kill your wife / mum / dad w/e, are you just going to sit there and go oh well it's too bad they're dead or are you going to try and get the best possible settlement from the murderer?

 

Why should I get money because my kid dies. it's sad and all, but why should I profit from it. granted over here we don't have this rampant life insurance thing you have over there. I only got a life insurance because my bank said they would REALLY like me to have one when I took the loan to buy a house. so if I get hurt and can't work my house gets paid off, or if I die my beneficiaries won't have to worry about the house or loan I leave behind. 

 

insurance is supposed to cover your medical bills and loss of future income. the kids father suffered no loss of future income from his sons death, and he already had his own life insurance on him, what he should have gotten from the pool is enough to cover a modest burial while the people who needed surgery and possibly disabled for the rest of their life should get the bears share to cover them. 

[HawkMan]

Tomorrow if someone were to kill your wife / mum / dad w/e, are you just going to sit there and go oh well it's too bad they're dead or are you going to try and get the best possible settlement from the murderer?

 

What does murders have to do with car accidents, especially in this case passengers, I believe they where even passengers of the dead guy.

[Hum]

Why would you take out an insurance policy on a child?  You're not dependent on them financially ...

A child can easily cost a parent a lot of money, over their lifetime -- especially if the child needed expensive medical treatment.

 

Many parents have gone bankrupt, taking care of their kids.

 

And if the parents need to pay for a funeral, that can really cost them.

[Mr. Gibs]

What does murders have to do with car accidents, especially in this case passengers, I believe they where even passengers of the dead guy.

Just an example about compensation after a family member is killed.

And no the passengers, including the son, were in the jeep that got hit by a farm vehicle who didn't stop at an intersection.

[HawkMan]

And no the passengers, including the son, were in the jeep that got hit by a farm vehicle who didn't stop at an intersection.

 

uh, yeah.... that's what I said...

[Growled Member]

Another stupid ruling that goes to show how broken our judicial system really is.

[M_Lyons10]

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.

Why did he get ANY??

 

I would have to see the actual breakdown on this one, but the loss of life generally does have a higher payout than injury (The expenses of which were likely already addressed separately)...  In addition, the majority of this money it appears came from his own policy, which he had taken out and which would not have any impact on the amount being paid out by the under-insured motorist's coverage...

So, while I won't comment on the fairness of the disbursement without being able to see the formula or how this was awarded, I also don't think it fair for someone that lost a loved one and received an approved payout for that wrongful death, to have to give some of the money back...  It's just not right.

[SirEvan]

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

You realize that coins from the bank come rolled up and sealed, right?

[HawkMan]

You realize that coins from the bank come rolled up and sealed, right?

 

Yeah, if someone paid me in those, I'd still open them and count them, I don't trust people. 

[Houtei]

Yeah I feel like if you look at how well off the guy was already maybe he didnt need to get the majority share but im sorry he DID deserve an equal share atleast.  I mean some of you are basiclly saying that if you are going to accidentlly run into a car full of people you better kill them cause if they die you shouldnt owe them?  He should pay the injured people more cause they managed to live? They should get all their medical expenses paid and then some.  In this guys case he should get paid because his son died regardless how well off he is or the fact he had life insurance.   I believe they call it mental anguish.  I dont care who you are unless your a psychopath if you lose a Son you are severely damaged mentally alot more so than a injured son. The law doesnt just pay for physical damage.