When the law leads to injustice, yes, absolutely. If you mechanically enforce the law with no eye for justice and empathy, you are not a cop I want to work with, a prosecutor I want to deal with, or a judge I want to be in front of.Originally Posted by joshs
Barracks Lawyer here.
What's stopping the county from "suing" to satisfy the law, then settle with the family out of court for $1 ?
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I don't disagree, but I have a very difficult time seeing this as injustice. This happens in almost every case were a person is injured by a tortfeasor and the injured party collects separately from the insurer and the tortfeasor. This case is just making headlines because the county self-insured. Why is it justice for a person to double-collect for the same damages? The tort system exists to make injured plaintiffs "whole," not to have them receive more than the amount of their injury. Insurance premiums are all based on an ex ante calculation of subrogation being available in a certain number of cases. We could have a system without subrogation, but it would require substantially higher insurance premiums.
Last edited by joshs; 02-24-2016 at 12:22 PM.
The county isn't required to sue by law (although their duty of loyalty as holder of the public's money could be seen as a requirement to recover). Subrogation cases often have really ugly facts, so if they didn't recover every time there are bad facts, they wouldn't be able to self-insure.
The county did not collect against the deputy's TCDRS account, life insurance or the $250k state payment. There's probably more to this story than the family is letting on. If the county agreed to defer collection if and until the family settled the lawsuit, then the family should pay up. If that's the case and I'm not saying that it is, the next time some guy who makes peanuts (and has peanuts for survivor benefits) dies in the line of duty, his family may take the financial hit up front.
Last edited by pablo; 02-24-2016 at 01:24 PM.
Generally speaking you are not permitted to recover twice from the same accident.
Take the example of someone getting injured at work in a car accident.
They file a worker's comp claim with the employer and a personal injury suit against the person who hit them.
Comp pays a certain amount of money and depending on the policy, may have a right to recover that from the PI claim as a lien.
When the PI claim settles, either the money is paid as a lien or the Comp carrier has the right to go after the funds it has paid under the theory that the injured party is not entitled to be paid twice for the same injury.
The jury in the PI case may not be told about the Comp payments because they are generally not informed of other insurance coverage when making the decision on liability or damages because courts do not want juries to say "He's insured, so forget making a decision about liability - just make the insurance company pay!" or "He's uninsured and if he pays he will be ruined!" so they are presented with the full amount of bills and damages and make the award based on that alone.
That means (rough example) if the person suing can claim $100,000 in medical injuries & lost wages, as well as unspecified damages, was paid $30,000 by Comp for his injuries and $40,000 for lost income...and gets a jury verdict of $300,000 then comp has the right to collect its $70,000 from anything collected in the court case.
You aught to see what social security liens are like if you think that is bad.
This is a case in which people are getting to see how the sausage is actually made. It isn't pretty.
So, what is being suggested here is that the family should have known that they would have to share or pay back some of the award after settlement? Is that correct?
If so, the question becomes, was the family aware of this, or did they sign something without it being made clear to them?
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
The decedent likely signed contracts that contained subrogation and indemnity clauses. So, he should have known about them when entering into the contracts. It is the decedent's damages that the family recovered that the county would be able to go after. E.g., medical expenses, lost wages, but not the family's damages (loss of consortium). Even if the county weren't recovering under the contract, they could potentially recover on an unjust enrichment claim. Since unjust enrichment is a legal doctrine, everyone is charged with knowledge of it, and I can't imagine the family's lawyer didn't advise them of this possibility.
Just to avoid any confusion for those outside Texas, "Judge" Herbert is primarily the county executive / Administrator. The county is run by a board of commissioners known as a Commissioners Court and the county executive who leads the board is known as the "County Judge".
In some counties, the county judge actually exercises judicial functions as a probate and/or county court judge. In other counties they do not.
Subrogation is in every insurance policy. You don't notice it because you likely never see it happen unless it is in extraordinary cases.
Neighbor's house burns down and your siding melts. Your insurance pays for the damage then makes a claim against the other guy's insurance which is paid.
The home owner's policy of the house which burned down then makes a claim against the proceeds of the product liability lawsuit the home owner brought with the claim against the defective toaster for the damages they paid to the guy who's house burned down...
And so it goes.
You, with the melted siding, do not notice it because it just happens. All you know is you got a check and your rates did not go up.
Reply With Quote