Jump to content



Photo

Doctor Pays Settlement With 600,000 Quarters

illinois surgeon car accident insurance benefits court-order federal reserve bank

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#16 Tews

Tews

    Professional Lurker

  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 03
  • Location: Somewhere on a beach

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:13

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

 

They have machines to do that ...




#17 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:15

 

He said he just didn’t think it was fair to have to return the cash when the only life lost was that of his son.

 

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. 


They have machines to do that ...

 

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. 



#18 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,697 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:15

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.

#19 COKid

COKid

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,707 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 10
  • Location: Loveland, CO

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:17

It all spends the same. Not a big deal.



#20 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 60,886 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:25

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



#21 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:26

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’s estate most of that money.

 

 

They didn't get any of the money from the insurance he had on his family. the was a separate much larger sum. But for some weird arbitrary reason due to some formula he was given the maority of the money from the pool. 



#22 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,308 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:45

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...

#23 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:48

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. 



#24 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,308 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:50

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.

#25 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 20,291 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 02 August 2013 - 17:57

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. 



#26 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,254 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:25

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.



#27 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,308 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:27

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.

#28 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,254 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:30

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.



#29 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,308 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:34

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?

#30 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,254 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 02 August 2013 - 18:38

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.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!