OK. Time to give this "reimbursement from insurance company" .....

[bjf1984]

crap a big old enema.

I get frustrated sometimes (as I am sure some other folks do)....but then I have to realize that a lot of folks just don't know this stuff. Someone on the board who - let's just say - in his professional life operates a hardware store, just may not realize what a load of crap these assholes have been shoveling....and may have no reason to understand just what a load of crap it is.

So, let's make this clear. The whole "reimbursement" crap was a load of nonsense from the get go.

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

Maybe a "for instance" would help to make it clear:

Let's say you're an MD, with Liability Insurance coverage. Now, if we are to believe the crap that has been shoveled by our good friends on the PSU BOT, you would have to believe that this is the way things work. Let's suppose:

- You perform a medical procedure on your Uncle Ed. After the procedure, Uncle Ed says you did something wrong, and caused him some damage.
- You give Uncle Ed $1,000,000 for his trouble.
- Then you contact the Insurance Company and tell them to reimburse you the $1,000,000
- Of course, the insurance Company cuts you the check for $1,000,000....and then you and Uncle Ed divvy up the $1,000,000 of quick profit you just made.

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.....NOT AT ALL.

If you have ANY hope or expectation of having the Insurance Company pay for damages, the Insurer has to be brought in up front. THEY will evaluate the situation - taking it to court if necessary - to determine just what if any damage Uncle Ed received, who was liable, and make an agreement as to the level of compensation. They have that right...and they sure as heck are going to exercise that right before they cut checks for millions of dollars.

THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.

PSU knowingly bypassed that whole process......because the last thing they wanted was the Insurer coming in and investigating just what PSU's liability was....or, God forbid, taking any of the "victim" cases to trial..
They used the same cock-and-bullshit story to try to rationalize their overt protection of the 2nd Mile.

IT WAS NEVER ANYTHING BUT PURE BULLSHIT.

Even a half-assed lawyer graduating from one of the worst law schools in the world (like AK2, from the University of Southwest East Ohio, and Dicky Dandrea, from Dickinson College)...even a low-life, last-in-their-class dunce like that, knows better.


Now, some jackwagon like CDW or AK2 will pipe in with some "habeas corpus ipso facto yada yada BS" to try and convince people differently.....BUT IT JUST AIN'T SO.



This post was edited on 3/10 11:10 PM by bjf1984

 

[njlion73]

Your explanation of how claims handling works is correct, however it is my understanding the insurers denied coverage. They did not reserve their rights to deny coverage later they went ahead and denied coverage. If that is the case the insured has the right to protect their interest by settling claims and then suing the insurer for coverage and reimbursement of claims paid.

I am not in any way supporting the BOT or the settlements, just commenting on the issue of reimbursement.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

You are both correct ...

It is my belief that PSU initially approached their General Liability carrier to respond to those current and future liability claims brought by the victims. The GL carrier (I believe it was PMA Insurance) took a quick look and said "sorry, these types of allegations are not covered by our policy".

The fools that were known as the PSU BOT and their legal representatives then started the settlement discussions with the victims and began writing checks to anyone who said they knew/spoke to/listened to/saw Jerry Sanduskey at any time in the past 50 years. "Okay, here's $2 million for your troubles".

(Note: I am not downplaying the harm that came to some of the true victims - I am merely focusing on whether or not PSU was responsible for their anguish).

"Let's write the checks and put this behind us ... we can fight with the insurance company later" - that was the mindset.

There may or may not be more litigation between PSU and their insurance company. It depends whether or not the BOT wants to expose all their prior sins for the sake of recovering settlement money from the carrier. My guess is they (BOT) won't go that far.

 

[91Joe95]

When Freeh came out, the insurers immediately said it was garbage.

The bot still settled knowing full well they weren't getting reimbursed.

 

[CDW3333]

Penn State recently defeated summary judgment on its

claim agaainst PMA for violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Since this is Penn State's weakest claim, it's not doing too badly.

http://www.law360.com/articles/613418/penn-state-s-bad-faith-claim-survives-in-sandusky-row

 

[bjf1984]

LOL....right on cue

 

[WeR0206]

It seems to me that regarding the litigation with the insurance companies and also with V6, since PSU hasn't officially refuted the findings of the freeh report they have put themselves in a catch 22. In order for them to win both cases PSU needs to say the freeh report findings aren't a fact and the findings are wrong. However PSU has already paid out millions of dollars based on the ASSUMPTION that the freeh report was correct.....oh what a tangled web they weave....