Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,477
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 19, 2015 18:15:11 GMT -5
"A Utah woman will be the plaintiff and the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit that has legal experts scratching their heads. Barbara Bagley was driving her family's Range Rover Dec. 27, 2011 on Interstate 80 near Battle Mountain, Nev., when it slid on sagebrush on Interstate 80, and flipped. Her husband, Bradley Vom Baur, was sent flying from the vehicle, suffered major injuries and died nearly two weeks later in a hospital, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Bagley, 48, suffered a concussion, broken ribs, a shattered wrist and two punctured lungs. One of her dogs, a Shetland sheepdog named Dooley, ran from the scene and wandered the desert for 53 days before being found. Now, a Utah court has ruled Bagley, the representative of her late husband's estate, may sue Bagley the driver in the fatal accident for wrongful death. In her suit, Bagley accuses herself of being negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout and to keep her vehicle under proper control. She seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages that include medical and funeral expenses; loss of past and future financial support; the physical pain her husband suffered before he died from his injuries; and the loss of his love and companionship". Rest of article at link below. Suit yourself: Utah court lets woman sue herself over fatal wreck
|
|
mollyanna58
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 13:20:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,667
|
Post by mollyanna58 on Feb 19, 2015 18:21:46 GMT -5
So she's trying to profit from accidentally killing her husband?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 5:32:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 18:32:12 GMT -5
Sounds like an end run-around to get more from the insurance company.
Not fraud, necessarily... but... definitely a way around a payoff cap her auto insurance may have had.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 19, 2015 18:37:02 GMT -5
Sounds like an end run-around to get more from the insurance company. Not fraud, necessarily... but... definitely a way around a payoff cap her auto insurance may have had. Bagley the driver is represented by her insurance company ... (from the link in the OP) I think that clearly indicates that the insurance company is really who is being sued.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 19, 2015 18:53:47 GMT -5
Interesting- but it makes sense. If had been a neighbor that got killed she would have been sued so why not the estate of her husband.
A payout cap has nothing to do with it- as if that happened she really would be collecting money from herself. More likely the insurance company- as they always do- decided not to pay anything to the estate because of the marriage so she had to find a lawyer. Hope she wins- she paid premiums to be covered for her negligence- who cares that she ends up the beneficiary unless it was intentional.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 20, 2015 13:34:23 GMT -5
This sounds crazy. Also there is a chance it was on purpose. If you read more details
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 20, 2015 15:09:23 GMT -5
I'm absolutely stunned that anyone would approve of someone profiting from their own negligence.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 20, 2015 17:30:31 GMT -5
I'm absolutely stunned that anyone would approve of someone profiting from their own negligence. Is anyone?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 21, 2015 12:50:50 GMT -5
I'm absolutely stunned that anyone would approve of someone profiting from their own negligence. Is anyone?
Yes, from your post #4. Your dislike of insurance companies reaches statement like the below which, as I stated, absolutely stun me.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,405
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 21, 2015 12:57:07 GMT -5
I've known people who have sued their insurance company to get their coverage that was previously denied. I can see how this works in theory. This is hardball to have "her" insurance cover his death.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 21, 2015 14:44:49 GMT -5
Yes, from your post #4. Your dislike of insurance companies reaches statement like the below which, as I stated, absolutely stun me.
So are you saying the estate should get nothing because of the marriage?
There is a huge difference between 'profiting from' and being compensated for what is covered under a policy and due.
How about this one- you and your spouse have a crash, both covered under the same auto insurance policy and run up 75K in hospital bills. They decide to pay for the driver's bills but not the passenger's because you are married- that sound fair?
True- I am making an assumption- that the reason she is suing is because the insurance company decided not to pay what it is liable for- if she is suing for more than that I will change my mind, but until them I am going to assume the insurance company is just acting like the dirty rats they are and forced her to sue.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 22, 2015 9:54:11 GMT -5
She is not covered under the policy, that is the whole point. If she was, she would be directly suing the insurance company instead of suing herself. I don't see how marriage has any bearing.
How about this one- you and your spouse have a crash, both covered under the same auto insurance policy and run up 75K in hospital bills. They decide to pay for the driver's bills but not the passenger's because you are married- that sound fair?
That would not be fair or legal, so they would sue the insurance company
A better example would be , you and your spouse have a crash and run up 75k in bills, but you have liability only coverage so you sue yourself. Should the insurance company have to pay?
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 22, 2015 11:25:55 GMT -5
Yes, from your post #4. Your dislike of insurance companies reaches statement like the below which, as I stated, absolutely stun me.
So are you saying the estate should get nothing because of the marriage?
There is a huge difference between 'profiting from' and being compensated for what is covered under a policy and due.
How about this one- you and your spouse have a crash, both covered under the same auto insurance policy and run up 75K in hospital bills. They decide to pay for the driver's bills but not the passenger's because you are married- that sound fair?
True- I am making an assumption- that the reason she is suing is because the insurance company decided not to pay what it is liable for- if she is suing for more than that I will change my mind, but until them I am going to assume the insurance company is just acting like the dirty rats they are and forced her to sue.
I will be the first to admit I'm not a legal expert, but if she is the beneficiary of an estate (and in the case of a marriage I would presume she would be) then yes, I would believe she should not profit either directly, or indirectly, from her own negligence. This seems too much like a case of , I dunno - double jeopardy or something (and yes - I know that is not the correct phrase). As far as insurance company being "dirty rats" I guess if you apply that term to someone who refuses to reward someone for their negligence then you and I will (as always on this topic) have to disagree because once again you continue to opine on something of which you apparently have limited knowledge. There is case law limiting insurance company exposure in the case of negligence on the part of the insured, as there should be. www.whiteandwilliams.com/resources-alerts-Gross-Negligence-Defeats-a-Limitation-of-Liability-Clause-but-Not-a-Waiver-of-Subrogation-Clause.html(I could cite others but you'd need a subscription to read). Finally, I have to wonder why no one has asked how the husband was ejected from the car. That indicates negligence on his part as well as that could only happen if he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. WFT is wrong with people actually taking responsibility for their actions?!? Geeze, it's more and more like it's ALWAYS someone elses' fault and someone has has to pay. She's ADMITTED to being negligent and wants someone else to pay. Do you REALLY think that is what insurance is for?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 22, 2015 11:38:03 GMT -5
If I were on the jury:
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 22, 2015 17:38:07 GMT -5
So are you saying the estate should get nothing because of the marriage?
There is a huge difference between 'profiting from' and being compensated for what is covered under a policy and due.
How about this one- you and your spouse have a crash, both covered under the same auto insurance policy and run up 75K in hospital bills. They decide to pay for the driver's bills but not the passenger's because you are married- that sound fair?
True- I am making an assumption- that the reason she is suing is because the insurance company decided not to pay what it is liable for- if she is suing for more than that I will change my mind, but until them I am going to assume the insurance company is just acting like the dirty rats they are and forced her to sue.
I will be the first to admit I'm not a legal expert, but if she is the beneficiary of an estate (and in the case of a marriage I would presume she would be) then yes, I would believe she should not profit either directly, or indirectly, from her own negligence. This seems too much like a case of , I dunno - double jeopardy or something (and yes - I know that is not the correct phrase). Finally, I have to wonder why no one has asked how the husband was ejected from the car. That indicates negligence on his part as well as that could only happen if he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. WFT is wrong with people actually taking responsibility for their actions?!? Geeze, it's more and more like it's ALWAYS someone elses' fault and someone has has to pay. She's ADMITTED to being negligent and wants someone else to pay. Do you REALLY think that is what insurance is for? Uh- yes that is what insurance is for. It covers you against damages caused by your negligence- hence the term liability insurance.
And how is she profiting by recovering burial expenses, medical, etc.? Who should pay that? If it was a neighbor riding in the car they could sue her and recover all day- so what you seem to be saying is that the insurance company should be absolved of paying anything at all because of their relationship- am I right?
Your car insurance is supposed to cover your liability in an accident- and that includes damages sustained by passengers. Think about it- you are driving along and loose control, your child is ejected and spends a week in the hospital- how would you like that letter from your insurer saying- sorry- your kid, your problem we aren't paying. Bet you would be calling a lawyer- or would you just say d'oh and let it go? Same situation.
It is nothing out of the ordinary to sue an insurance company to force them to pay what they owe. Forget where the money is going and look at it as it is. A) Negligent driver covered by insurance B) Dead passenger suing the driver for damages
There may be laws or regulations in Utah that cover situation with family members- or not- apparently the court felt there was not and allowed the suit to proceed. Going to have to dig into this a little I am interested in the details now.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 22, 2015 17:54:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 5:32:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2015 17:59:37 GMT -5
I've known people who have sued their insurance company to get their coverage that was previously denied. I can see how this works in theory. This is hardball to have "her" insurance cover his death. I'm with Thyme here. I've also known people who have had to do this. In my friend's case, she was hit by an uninsured motorist so only that low portion of her coverage kicked in. It didn't begin to cover her loss of wages, etc.
I'm not sure if my friend was both plaintiff and defendant (30-something years ago), but she had to have someone sue her insurance company on her behalf, which she couldn't do per her policy.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 22, 2015 18:15:48 GMT -5
Wow- the opinion is kind of chewy- all about the language.
So- good job by the lawyer that came up with this, but it is asking too much- it is veering into the realm of what can be construed as 'profiting off negligence'. So in plain language I think she should be barred from suing as an heir, but I think the lawsuit by the estate should proceed.
I would have no problem in the case of children suing as heirs.
So I was at least 51% right
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 22, 2015 18:20:48 GMT -5
She seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages that include medical and funeral expenses (okay); loss of past and future financial support (maybe); the physical pain her husband suffered before he died from his injuries (caused by her negligence, no way); and the loss of his love and companionship (forget it).
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 22, 2015 20:03:22 GMT -5
She seeks an unspecified amount of money for damages that include medical and funeral expenses ( okay); loss of past and future financial support (maybe); the physical pain her husband suffered before he died from his injuries (caused by her negligence, no way); and the loss of his love and companionship (forget it). Sort of- but it doesn't split that way- liability covers medical, funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering for the person who died.
Also there is a specified amount she seeks- the policy limit. Anything over that she is literally seeking damages from herself.
It appears the Utah minimum liability coverage is 25K per person- so unless she has purchased a product with higher limits that's all there is. And considering the way insurance companies operate is would not surprise me at all she would have to sue to get that in a case like this.
2/3 of 25K is better than zero I am sure that is what the insurance company was offering.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,470
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 22, 2015 20:16:22 GMT -5
... Also there is a specified amount she seeks- ...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 22, 2015 20:38:19 GMT -5
If she sues for more than the policy and wins, she loses as the lawyer takes a third- she should settle with herself if that happens
But really- the policy max is what they are after- and the lawyers- as they should- are going to pursue any and all avenues to make that happen. I really bet this is over 25 or 50K at most. Only wealthy people are going to carry high liability limits as they have the most to protect- joe schmo is going to carry the minimum and if they get hit with a large judgment they will BK out of it.
Of course if this is a wealthy lady with a million dollar policy she would have the resources to bring an appeal and win.........I could see that as well- either way the estate should be paid IMO and that's all- not the action as an heir.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Feb 23, 2015 10:33:52 GMT -5
I really bet this is over 25 or 50K at most. Only wealthy people are going to carry high liability limits as they have the most to protect- joe schmo is going to carry the minimum Isn't the standard 100 / 300? I don't know anyone carrying the limits you're stating Just sayin~
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 23, 2015 13:27:07 GMT -5
Have no idea- I am going by the state min. requirements which most people purchase. It is 25/50 here, same in Utah. I don't know what other people carry because I have never had a conversation where it came up- maybe you hang around insurance people Seems a lot of people don't even carry the minimum around here- every time we have a company vehicle wreck it is at best a tossup whether they have insurance. I guess you can carry whatever you want- I don't carry 100/300- then again I don't drive like an asshole, text and drive, etc. I'll take my chances- besides you hit someone just right 100/300 isn't going to save you.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 23, 2015 15:34:17 GMT -5
This is how you can kill your spouse, get away with it, and profit to boot. Like a Lifetime movie
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Feb 23, 2015 16:15:50 GMT -5
I really bet this is over 25 or 50K at most. Only wealthy people are going to carry high liability limits as they have the most to protect- joe schmo is going to carry the minimum Isn't the standard 100 / 300? I don't know anyone carrying the limits you're stating Just sayin~ State minimum liability limits are quite low. Bodily injury limits of 25000 per person 50,000 per occurrence with 20.000 of property damage is the minimum allowed in a number of states, including Wyoming, in this part of the US. I believe at least 2 states have requirements (minimum) of 10/20/10 and there were two more with minimum limits of 15/30/10. All of these being states in the western 1/2 of the country. It is also a struggle for many to carry even these limits. In Wyoming one in four cars you meet on the highway are uninsured. (ironically before it was the law that one had to be insured one in five cars were uninsured here. )
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 23, 2015 16:28:09 GMT -5
On the surface it kinda feels wrong, but if another driver was at fault she'd be suing the driver for the same thing because that's what insurance covers.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 23, 2015 21:51:47 GMT -5
This is how you can kill your spouse, get away with it, and profit to boot. Like a Lifetime movie A lot of movies- but it is usually life insurance. Pays better and there are so many ways to do it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 23, 2015 22:01:00 GMT -5
Without risking your own life!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 24, 2015 11:40:18 GMT -5
He wasn't wearing a seat belt? Thats odd to begin with. Very easy to have an "accident" and walk away. If you aim for a bridge and make sure you hit the passenger side, what's the chances you're going to be hurt and the passenger dead? Pretty good one. Even if you're hurt, it's a little bit compared to dead. You knew it was coming. Blame the roads or you lost control. I'm not buying her story. Bet the insurance company isn't either.
|
|