|
I'm curious. If Mr. Campbell had an agreement with State Farm to pay up to $50k to settle insurance claims, how can they possibly be liable for more than that, other than through breach of contract, which appears to be the case. $145 million for breach of contract is ludicrous.
It seems to me that State Farm thought they had a reasonable shot at showing that Mr. Campbell was not liable, probably since his car had apparently not been involved in any other way than by giving Mr. Ospital no option than to swerve off the road. I'm guessing they intended to use the same idea as has worked in other cases -- if you substitute a tree, or some piece of road debris, or a deer, for Mr. Campbell's car, you can prove that Mr. Ospital was clearly in the wrong for driving in excess of roadway conditions. I know for a fact this works in court.
I agree that if State Farm opted to have their day in court, instead of agreeing to the the alleged $50k initial settlement offer (which,
considering the source, I am a little leary to accept as fact), then they should be responsible for the excess. It was a different world in '81, true, but I really doubt anyone would accept a $25k settlement for lifetime disability, let alone $25k for death. I think there is more to this story than is written in the Times.
Even $2.6 million compensatory damages is ludicrous.
All that can be said about preserving a huge award is that many more marginal people will be denied affordable insurance. Woo-hoo! Another bonus. Every time some idiotic, excessive award comes down, my uninsured coverage goes up, because of the effect of pricing people out of having insurance.
We all lost through the stupid decision of the Utah court system, though the Supreme Court mitigated that to some small extent.
|