quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I know nothing about the type of insurance Tim might have and what the provisions of coverage are.

I do know that when Paul Newman in "The Verdict" called the defendant's insurers and their attorneys "the princes of darkness", the title, in my experience, rang only too true.

Gilbert's law: Insurance companies are not in the business of paying just claims, they are in the business of making money.

That said, to get to an insurance company's pocket which (not incidentally) took an alleged tortfeasor's money with the promise to defend against unjust claims and to pay just ones, the claimant, in most every jurisdiction I know, must file suit against the policy holder (here, Tim) and not directly against the insurer... with the caveat that an insurer who knows it is going to lose might want to cut its legal costs and therefore pay upon notice that a suit will be forthcoming if demands aren't met.

So, even if Tim requests that the insurer pay for the claim, the insurer has the right, under the policy, to refuse payment in most instances of questionable liability, that is, until a court orders them to pay up.

So, as I read the above posts, it seems that Tim is asking that his insurer pay up, but the insurer is refusing.... which may be perfectly reasonable if the policy doesn't cover the loss, or it may be that the insurer is practicing the dark arts of the night (a practice all too usual)... i.e., we ain't paying because the guy can't afford the effort from Zimbabwe and if we stall long enough, the injured party will lose interest, lose money, etc. and we save it (whether we owe it or not).

So, unless Stu sues Tim, the only vehicle both Stu or Tim may have to get the insurer to pay a just claim is litigation against Tim... and we'd really have to review the policy (or policies if there are multiple prospective defendants) to determine if such a suit is worthwhile or justified. Anything else is speculation (informed speculation, but speculation, non the less)... and my speculation is that it is a waste of money and I certainly wouldn't have sent some serious money to Zimbabwe well before the prints were even offered if I'd know where it was going.

All that said, I had finished putting my Baldy print on the wall in my conference room not 40 seconds before I opened this thread and read for the first time about the monies raised perhaps going to fund litigation. I'd opened AR to thank everyone involved for their hard work, selflessness and to express my satisfaction with the print.... heck, "satisfaction" isn't enough... my "joy" with the print... It's that good!

And, now this crap.

Would I have donated the $750 if I knew it was going to litigation. No.

Is some lawyer taking advantage of Stu... maybe.

Can Tim make his insurance company pay a claim, just or otherwise unless he's served with papers? Probably not. But, heck, there is a much better way to finance a suit, if justified, than taking money from folks who believe it is for a different purpose.

Should Stu have told us about the funds going to sue Tim. If that's a fact... Hell, yes! I'm not poor, but at Christmas, $750 is real money.

So, I got a great print, but I feel a bit sad. The joy of opening the shipment and putting the print on the wall was certainly tarnished. I hope, in time, I'll be able to look at the lion and not think about my unknowingly financing someone's lawsuit, and perhaps a foolish lawsuit, at that.

I agree with what Ernest has said. However, I want to add a little.

Most of my clients are insurance companies. I work with companies in 39 states and several other countries. Can they be difficult? Yes, absolutely. I just finished getting my girlfriend's disability claim paid after 1 1/2 years. Some of it was not the carriers fault. Some was but none was her fault.

On the other hand, when my brother in law was killed in a car wreck, the carrier offered policy limits in about a week. They bent over backwards to do the right thing.

Why do carriers act this way at times? Every single day, there are people, often organized rings, trying to scam money out of them. Think insurance is expensive now? It would go up exponentially if they weren't hard on claims. In addition, you haven't lived until you have lived through the department of insurance going through every thing you have done in the last 3 years and question damn near everything that you did or didn't do since the last exam.

We don't know the terms of the policy. The terms mean everything. What is covered? What is excluded? The carrier isn't going to pay claims for which they provided no cover, pure and simple, no matter how dire the situation.

No strings were put on the money given. Perhaps that was a mistake on our part. Perhaps we share some of the blame for not having the foresight to see the possibility of this happening.

I have contributed a lot of money, perhaps more than I should have given that this isn't my best year ever due to some , guess what, extraordinary legal expenses for a frivolous lawsuit. Would I have put the effort in to raise the money and contribute what I have contributed had I known that the money was going to be used this way? Hell, NO!

Perhaps what bothers me the most is that Stu is paying some fees on a personal injury case. I am sorry but that almost never happens here. They are virtually always on a contingency basis. Why is he spending the money?

I wish him the best of luck. My contributions and efforts on his behalf are OVER.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Perhaps what bothers me the most is that Stu is paying some fees on a personal injury case. I am sorry but that almost never happens here. They are virtually always on a contingency basis. Why is he spending the money?

What does this mean Larry?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Perhaps what bothers me the most is that Stu is paying some fees on a personal injury case. I am sorry but that almost never happens here. They are virtually always on a contingency basis. Why is he spending the money?

What does this mean Larry?

Matt:

Plaintiffs lawyers in this country virtually always take personal injury cases on a contingency basis. This means that they do not get paid until there is a judgment that is collected. They usually get a percentage of the judgment . This is in lieu of fee for service based upon an hourly rate like most lawyers charge.

It seems some on this thread are pissed at trax again. Not me, I have him on my ignore list. Makes life much more pleasant. I suggest you do the same. Life is just too short to deal with trolls.

AMEN TO THAT, BROTHER!. he and shootaway are there forever. this whole thread breaks my heart. i have no idea of the legalities, but i know a lot of people contributed to help a man and his family and at least some of the funds have gone in lawyers pockets... really sad.

Dear ladies and gents,

For the past several days I've been reflecting about this entire incident and how such a beautiful benefit such as this has turned awry.

Yes, I'm just a simple man... I am in no-wise in the league of many of you here and have achieved the financial, social, business status of 100% of you folks.

When asked of Andrew to partake and run this BENEFIT for Stu...My only aspiration was to help a fellowman down and need of help.

Neither Andrew nor I made any stipulations as to how the monies raised were to be used.

We all knew Stu had med bills and living expenses to deal with, never did I think a portion of the proceeds no matter how large or small would he use to sue Tim Herald.

Our intent was never to fund an endeavor of said such kind.

For me I did this to help Sty Taylor and his family...I do NOT stand in Stu's shoes...I am NOT of his household.

This BENEFIT was put on for Stu to use as he deemed fit/necessary for the betterment of his life and the lives of his wife and children.

As many have on record condemned the actions of Stu...I for one cannot...for there were NO stipulations and the monies raised to be used as "Stu" deemed fit and necessary.

I have NOT walked in Stu's shoes...so therefore, I leave "grace" for understanding to which I have no understanding by experience.

I am proud of our efforts...many of you are not as you see what Stu is doing with a portion of the proceeds...I understand your position and rightfully so...because this was NOT our main intent.

However, I reserve judgment...unlike many who have posted otherwise.

I have given to Stu...and however Stu sees fit/necessary to use these funds is his freedom...win or lose...it is his decision and I cannot squabble or gripe...I gave from my heart to him and him alone.

If/when called upon to offer my services I will be certain that there are stipulations of the most strictest order...in order that we may all know how monies are to be used/determined...I see NO problem in this and encourage this...or I will NOT participate.

However, to CONDEMN Stu in how this benefit was run and how it was presumably by all of us,... me included...to outright CONDEMN Stu Taylor...I go on record as I cannot.

Take it for what it is...not looking for anyone here to agree with me but just state on record my position as the one who ran this benefit.

And furthermore...people who never participated in this event coming in and adding their 2 cents is about as "saddest" thing I've ever seen/heard in my entire life...In regards to this BENEFIT never giving a dime on record and then talking out of turn...in my opinion you shouldn't even be posting on this thread...it shows much of your character but hey it's a public forum and I rant not but call it as I see it.

For those of you that have PM'd me and emailed me for or against what has happened from this benefit...I state here publcly for the record my intents, purposes, and feelings abut the outcome.

I can still hold my head up high and be proud of what we ALL have done for Stu...yet, I understand why some may feel otherwise and that's your prerogative...but it is what it is and I can live with my heart-felt compassion and contributions in this event.

Thank you.

Roland

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

Matt:

Plaintiffs lawyers in this country virtually always take personal injury cases on a contingency basis. This means that they do not get paid until there is a judgment that is collected. They usually get a percentage of the judgment . This is in lieu of fee for service based upon an hourly rate like most lawyers charge.

OK - so like 'no win, no pay'.. I thought that was what you meant. thanks...

What we really need in the US is the English system of loser pays. That would really cut down on all the crap lawsuits. It will never happen since the plaintiffs' bar is too strong politically but it would clear out the docket backlog for damn sure.

You're a good man Roland.

quote:

Originally posted by Late-Bloomer:

If/when called upon to offer my services I will be certain that there are stipulations of the most strictest order...
in order that we may all know how monies are to be used/determined...I see NO problem in this and encourage this...or I will NOT participate.

AR member and attorney MJines, has already stated that such a stipulation is an asinine suggestion.
Since MJines says it would not work when financially assisting Stu Taylor, why then would it work when helping another PH?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
...What an asinine comment. No stipulation or limit would restrict in reality what Stu chose to spend the funds on.

No restriction is possible?....seems you have real trouble thinking outside the square.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What we really need in the US is the English system of loser pays. That would really cut down on all the crap lawsuits. It will never happen since the plaintiffs' bar is too strong politically but it would clear out the docket backlog for damn sure.

It would also put justice out of reach for many of the poor, and even those of modest, and even middle-class incomes. I much prefer our system, despite its many flaws.

Stu's damages in this case could easily be measured in millions, not tens of thousands, of dollars.

Insurance, not charity, may provide that, or may not, depending on the outcome in this case. In my humble opinion, it should. That's its purpose.

But making the choice of whether to sue is solely up to Stu, and as I have said, I will not second-guess or condemn his decision.

BULLSHIT! if the poor or middle income had a good chance of recovery, a lawyer would be all over the case. that is the same excuse lawyers have made for dozens of years. the rich get "justice" the poor get screwed. so it is better if you pay up front?? what a joke. that would really exclude those of lesser means.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
BULLSHIT! if the poor or middle income had a good chance of recovery, a lawyer would be all over the case. that is the same excuse lawyers have made for dozens of years. the rich get "justice" the poor get screwed.

So, you must believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent, right?

and what exactly does a criminal case have to do with a civil case???

I have tried to stay out of this. I did not contribute to this fundraising effort, instead I had a friend give Stu the cash I gave.

I think the comment about contingent fee is a bit off. Contingent fee is how you go about a personal injury suit if you either don't have the financial wherewithal to pay the attorney or you feel the risk is such that if the attorney in question will not work as hard as you think he will with a direct profit motive involved. Its my experience (I am not a lawyer but have several, including all my siblings and in-laws) that personal injury or tort attorneys WANT to be paid as contingent fee. We recently had an attorney make himself a multimillionaire and a political powerhouse by being involved in a single contingent fee suit. I had an uncle who stood to make millions off his firm being involved in the Exxon Valdez suit (except he died before the thing was really settled- I don't think it is even yet...)

One thing I recall being told is that a contingent fee attorney may take the case as contingent fee, but will still require a substantial amount of cash from you for research and expert witnesses. Is it possible that this is what Stu put the money up for? I dunno, and really don't care... Sometimes the plaintiff gets a puny amount of money once the "expenses" are deducted.

One thing I do agree with is that the pay if you lose system. I would like to see plaintiff's bar attorneys having to pay whatever difference between what the plaintiff and the defense bill is when they lose. As it is, there are a lot of crappy class action contingent fee suits out there just hoping for a big pay out in the US. Not so much so in most other countries...

Again, there are lots of good attorneys out there, but greed has gotten a lot of them pretty far afield. Also, the fact that the average attorney makes less than a UAW auto line worker should say something.

Again, a bit of drift, but then this whole thread is full of drift.

Roland,

For yourself, Larry, Jeff, Andrew, Conservation Force, Saeed, Mark Sullivan, as well as the guys who donated firearms and other hunts, and all the other guys who put this relief effort together for Stu, you have no reason to hang your heads. Be proud in the fact that you acted honorably and with goodness of heart. That use of the funds was ultimately directed to something other than intended is no reflection on you guys at all.

Although there were no strings attached that I know of, I think there should be some guidelines in the future to prevent a repeat of this mess. Using the charity extended Stu for living and medical expenses to fund a lawsuit against Tim, runs 100% counter to my intentions as I donated to the man in an effort to help Tim help Stu as much as anything since I don't know Stu at all but felt a connection to both guys as members of the same hunting fraternity.

I can't help but share the Judge's feeling when looking at that print now of at least slightly being taken advantage of but we'll live and learn going forward. For some reason, I can't get the image of those multiple brand spanking new, $130,000+ Toyota and Mercedes SUVs going down the road around the Makuti area of Zimbabwe ... with "UNICEF" prominently displayed on both sides and the rear of the vehicle.

That said, I want to reiterate that for the guys driving this relief effort, I can't see how anyone would have anticipated this turn of events. You guys need to feel good about this effort. You made positive contributions in this endeavor. I applaud you for that and you have my respect.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Stu's damages in this case could easily be measured in millions, not tens of thousands, of dollars.

Insurance, not charity, may provide that, or may not, depending on the outcome in this case. In my humble opinion, it should. That's its purpose.

Very well said.

I truly don't see how so many here fail to see these simple facts.

I hate frivolous lawsuits more than most people, but I don't see Stu's suit as frivolous.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Late-Bloomer:

If/when called upon to offer my services I will be certain that there are stipulations of the most strictest order...
in order that we may all know how monies are to be used/determined...I see NO problem in this and encourage this...or I will NOT participate.

AR member and attorney MJines, has already stated that such a stipulation is an asinine suggestion.
Since MJines says it would not work when financially assisting Stu Taylor, why then would it work when helping another PH?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
...What an asinine comment. No stipulation or limit would restrict in reality what Stu chose to spend the funds on.

No restriction is possible?....seems you have real trouble thinking outside the square.

Trax from day one...I noticed you here on this forum as a real you know what...yet I have never come out and say something to put you down and I still stand by that...I have more class than that whether you think it or not.

Seriously I really do not care about your comments and opinions cause you always have something to say that is totally irrelevant and totally childish.

But one thing I will say tonight..."You're about as GREAT they come!"...I wish you a better life...one where you can feel reality!
I won't ever put you on ignore...and your welcome to say whatever you'd like. But, I still love you bro'...and hope one day you can figure out life...I really mean that genuinely!"

Adios amigo...try thinking when you talk...try having an inkling what it's like to love life and be excited about life...and giving/doing more for others than yourself...esteeming others greater than yourself!

Many years ago I had so much hatred in my heart...I was the asshole of assholes...and then one day...the good LORD came into my heart when I cried out to Him and told Him I hate my life and hated everyone in the world and if He was real to come into my life and NOT change my heart but give me a new one...Well my dear brother He did just that 30 years ago...and since then I made alot of mistakes still...but not because of ill-feeling..but oftentimes wearing my heart on my sleeve and having to be take advantage of..I grew up on the streets...I ain't no lawyer, I ain't no dr., I ain't no high fluttin whatever...I just have peace in my heart and have a heart of love and compassion!

You come here on this forum with much attitude...I recognize it...I used to be a man full of hopeless anxiety...that's why I never try to lash out...I was there...I know what it's like to be handed some rough cards in life...But you gotta play the hand you're dealt with brother!!! It's just what you gotta do...It's LIFE dude!!!

I', cheering for you...I'm cheering for that other guy too, but I forget his name this second...the guy from Montreal...Oh yeah "shootaway"...I'm here on this forum just for you two...to see you well one day...in PEACE, in JOY, and IN HAPPINESS that no man can take away!!!

Take care...go ahead if you need to and flame away...Been there done that in my life...it's like tid-li-winks bro'...time to grow up and just dig down deep and love yourself!...If no one does I promise I love you cause I been there and no the rope a dope...Devil kicked my butt for years...but now it's been 30 years of PURE PEACE!!!

This counseling session is free...please feel free to PM me anytime...I got time for you brother...your eternal soul has much worth to your CREATOR even tho it may have NO value to you!!!

If He can give me a NEW HEART and can give one to anyone who asks it of Him as long as they truly mean it from their heart!!!

Keep your head up Trax...this is not to bring you down...But to lift you up...as you're not jerking me or anyone else here...only yourself!

Start loving yourself and see your need like everyone else...God is real dude and He came just for you and me!!!

Bless you and do what you need to do...I still love you with all my heart!!!

You can't fix you only He can fix us!!!

I am not in the least sense RELIGIOUS...but I love God because I have an intimate relationship with Him...I was destined for hell and was damn proud of it...today...I am as SOFT and GENTLE as they come...and by His mercy and Grace I live my life everyday...and I still make a multitude of mistakes...but He is there and never gives up on me and leads me on!!!

Your brother,
Roland

Thanks Todd...I feel as you have said...and still ready to march forward!

This ain't going to get me down...but I will ony be a part of fundraising efforts that are well-stipulated not mainly for my sake alone...but to the extent of our donors especially...for everyone has different intentions in their gifting...mine is mine and theirs...theirs!

Happy New Year bro'

Thanks Todd.

Roland well said. I have stated my position earlier. I don't condemn Stu. I don't condone his actions with donated funds. I have moved on.

Your words Trax are poignant.

I have no regrets. Just disappointment and disbelief. I was working with Steve Ahrenberg on another initiative that would provided substantial benefit. No mas.

Jeff

It is legally frivolous. Not that Stu has not been subject to a nasty accident but that it has happened in a unfriendly legal jurisdiction.


It is very difficult to get standing, to get the choice of a right venue (not going to get a plaintiff friendly East Texas jury) and subject a whole lot of complicated legal process - Alien Tort Statue.

If he was injured in the US - a whole different ball game.

But a Zim citizen professionally hunting in Moz injured by actions of a US citizen is not the easiest tort action.

This is not the typical domestic slip and fall. There is a reason why Tijuana or Cancun is not full of billboards by tort lawyers saying lets go sue for actions of drunk american tourists.

Also damages measured in millions of dollars sounds nice to a plaintiffs ears but it is subject to

(1) Present Value of future earnings - no free lance PH has a PV of earnings in millions of dollars. Its daily rate X number of days hunted X tips (annual or % of annual income) X years till retirement. All present valued back and guess what - living in africa what is the correct discount rate?

(2) Assumes Tim has insurance coverage and net wealth for millions of dollars.

If this case or similar cases are cut and dry - a contingent fee attorney would be all over it. There is a reason one is not. That tells me a lot - a professional legal process risk taker is not betting on a positive expected outcome. Sure if someone is paying $300-$500 an hr - you will find a lawyer to represent one on a frivolous legal issue.


Given that Stu has turned down some very good medical care offers to pursue this litigation he has made a choice. I think it is a terrible choice but we are all grown men.

The lesson for me from this whole event is choose your outfitter very carefully. Make sure you are dealing with parties that are professional and well funded.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
Stu's damages in this case could easily be measured in millions, not tens of thousands, of dollars.

Insurance, not charity, may provide that, or may not, depending on the outcome in this case. In my humble opinion, it should. That's its purpose.

Very well said.

I truly don't see how so many here fail to see these simple facts.

I hate frivolous lawsuits more than most people, but I don't see Stu's suit as frivolous.

Jeff my dear brother...you know from Day #1 you and I were on the same page!!!

An incredible turn of events has just happenen that I soon will be at liberty to divulge here publicly...I am in DIRECT talks with Stu...it is NOT anything like it seems...two-sides to every story!

We heard Tim side...Now I am in the process of revealing Stu's side very shortly!!!

Be NOT dismayed all donors...I had a feeling there was more to the story...soon I will share Stu's version of what and what has NOT taken place!

I am NOT for Stu and I am NOT for Tim...I'm not one who chooses sides based on feeling...I stand for JUSTICE right or wrong...PURE JUSTICE!!!

What is JUSTICE to me???....doing what is RIGHT no matter the consequence!!!

For now I can tell you STRAIGHT-UP...not one penney of this fund is being used by Stu Taylor to engage in a court-action lawsuit AGAINST Tim Herald...I have gotten this from Stu Taylor himself!!!

He is so appreciative of our donors...He has MUCH to say and reveal...I have taken the stance to make certain...Stu Taylor is heard...word for word here on AR Forum!!!

PERIOD!!!

Give me a couple days...as I will help Stu put together a statement that will vindicate him of all accusations put forth by the all-knowing-ers...that is my mission!!!

Stay tuned...details are coming

Sincerely yours,
Roland J. La Pierre

Sorry to say this but this is beginning to have the feel of a pilot for a reality TV show.

Regardless of who says what at this point the veracity will be questionable.

The one thing I have control over is what I will ever be willing to do in the future as far as lending someone a hand and I will certainly do my due diligence before that ever happens again.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Sorry to say this but this is beginning to have the feel of a pilot for a reality TV show.

Regardless of who says what at this point the veracity will be questionable.

The one thing I have control over is what I will ever be willing to do in the future as far as lending someone a hand and I will certainly do my due diligence before that ever happens again.

+1

Yeah EXACTLY...some guys too much waha

Easy to spot...dime a dozen...no need to search all one needs to do is simple and look beneath!

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:


Regardless of who says what at this point the veracity will be questionable.

Don't be sorry ...that's a COP-OUT dude and ya know it

In so much you needed to say it says enough for even a simple one like me! Cool!!!

Speaks much!!!
And I'm NOT surprised at all by your statement!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Sorry to say this but this is beginning to have the feel of a pilot for a reality TV show.

Regardless of who says what at this point the veracity will be questionable.

The one thing I have control over is what I will ever be willing to do in the future as far as lending someone a hand and I will certainly do my due diligence before that ever happens again.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:


Perhaps what bothers me the most is that Stu is paying some fees on a personal injury case. I am sorry but that almost never happens here. They are virtually always on a contingency basis. Why is he spending the money?

I wish him the best of luck. My contributions and efforts on his behalf are OVER.

Larry I will soon disclose otherwise...be not dismayed!

As previously stated, Stu may have to sue Tim to claim any insurance.

If you work for someone, and they may be your best friend, you might find that if injured at work, you have to sue your employer to claim on their insurance.

Same wih home insurance in some countries/jurisdictions.

I hope this all works out ok.

Best wishes,

Chris

quote:

Originally posted by Late-Bloomer:
Jeff my dear brother...you know from Day #1 you and I were on the same page!!!

An incredible turn of events has just happenen that I soon will be at liberty to divulge here publicly...I am in DIRECT talks with Stu...it is NOT anything like it seems...two-sides to every story!

We heard Tim side...Now I am in the process of revealing Stu's side very shortly!!!

Be NOT dismayed all donors...I had a feeling there was more to the story...soon I will share Stu's version of what and what has NOT taken place!

I am NOT for Stu and I am NOT for Tim...I'm not one who chooses sides based on feeling...I stand for JUSTICE right or wrong...PURE JUSTICE!!!

What is JUSTICE to me???....doing what is RIGHT no matter the consequence!!!

For now I can tell you STRAIGHT-UP...not one penney of this fund is being used by Stu Taylor to engage in a court-action lawsuit AGAINST Tim Herald...I have gotten this from Stu Taylor himself!!!

He is so appreciative of our donors...He has MUCH to say and reveal...I have taken the stance to make certain...Stu Taylor is heard...word for word here on AR Forum!!!

PERIOD!!!

Give me a couple days...as I will help Stu put together a statement that will vindicate him of all accusations put forth by the all-knowing-ers...that is my mission!!!

Stay tuned...details are coming

Sincerely yours,
Roland J. La Pierre

Roland, thanks so much for making sure that Stu's side is heard. My concern is that so much emotional energy has been invested here, that when Stu's side is heard instead of apologies, all we will hear is that the man who was shot in the back while protecting his client is not to be trusted.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockdoc:
As previously stated, Stu may have to sue Tim to claim any insurance.

If you work for someone, and they may be your best friend, you might find that if injured at work, you have to sue your employer to claim on their insurance.

Same wih home insurance in some countries/jurisdictions.

I hope this all works out ok.

Best wishes,

Chris

Stranger things have happened.

I once had a client who fell asleep on the way back from a fishing trip with his wife of only two weeks. Tragically, she was killed in the ensuing wreck. The girl's parents loved the guy, but they now had two grandchildren to raise. The husband was driving the wife's car so her insurance was primary since the husband was a permissive driver. My client begged the insurance company to pay, but they refused until the grandparents sued him... which they didn't want to do, but there was a million dollars on the table for their grand children. BTW, and somewhat bizarrely, the husband (since the accident wasn't intentional and the wife died intestate), was a prospective beneficiary of the wrongful death action (along with the two children), but waived any claim so the children could get 100% of the policy.

And, no, a lawyer didn't get a contingent fee for bringing the lawsuit. I don't think the entire attorneys' fees were $10,000.00 which included setting up a trust for the children and negotiating a very, very good structured settlement for the kids... none of which I got, btw. I made only a fraction of the total in advising the husband on any potential criminal charge of vehicular homicide or whatever... which never came to fruition. Good people in a tragic situation, for sure.

Maybe the Stu v. Tim situation is something like this? All good people in a tragic situation.

Regardless, if our donations are going to litigation, even "friendly" litigation, I sure wish I knew beforehand.

And if Stu recovers a substantial amount, would it be reasonable for him to send what we raised over to Ant's fund? I'd surely like to look at my lion print and remember that!

Just sayin'!

I have 2 clients in a similar situation right now. One is suing the other in an attempt to get the defendant's insurance company to pay. Both side know what is going on. It is not a surprise.

This is a surprise to Tim.

I posed the following question to one of my attorneys. He is a senior partner at a MAJOR law firm. He represents many Fortune 500 companies.

QUESTION

Good day sir. I have a question for you.

If person X severely injured person Y, and person X’s insurance company refuses to pay, does person Y have a cause of action against X’s insurance company?

ANSWER

Larry: if the insurance company denies coverage the insured can assign his cause of action for wrongful denial of coverage to the injured party. The injured party should not have a direct claim against the insurance company for denial of coverage. Why do you ask? Bill

You know what bothers me, besides the fact that the story changes more frequently than the plot in As the World Turns, the lack of direct feedback or input from the beneficiary and his employer. Clearly they are able to communicate with folks when they choose to, evidence that apparently Stu is communicating with Roland now. Certainly they are aware that this controversy exists and that folks were raising money for them. Why the silence? For the time being put me down as a skeptic when I hear that, in the face of seeing a financial benefit going away, the beneficiary says, wait, there is more to the story . . .

I agree Mike.

Being a skeptic and not voicing an opinion until all the facts are out is prudent. Few choose to do so. Like I said earlier, it will not surprise me that those who have taken a position already will continue to defend their position and tell us not to trust a man who was shot in the back protecting his client, because he now may be trying to protect his family.
I hope somehow both Stu and Tim can have a great new year.

This is truly a sad situation. Life will never be the same for Stu Taylor or his family, Tim Herald, or anyone else who was involved. I really respect Tim and all the AR members who have tried to make things better. I pray that things work out for the best for everyone.

My question now is how to avoid something like this in the future? I can see a client getting hurt just as easily as a PH. Does someone offer hunting insurance that would cover the hunter, the PH, and any staff in the event of an accident? I am interested in insurance that would be valid worldwide. I am aware that some countries require hunters to have liability insurance. Maybe some organization such as the NRA, SCI, or DSC could offer it to members. I have not been on near the number of hunts that a lot of AR members have made, but I have been to Africa twice, Australia twice, and Argentina once. It seems that thousands of hunts are made with no issues for everyone where there is a problem, so the cost would not have to be too great.

Being in the position of never condemning either party, I am simply moving on. Stu now wants to come forward at this late date and make a statement or explanation that is fine. I likely won't read it and I definitely won't be swayed by it.

Done and dusted.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Being in the position of never condemning either party, I am simply moving on. Stu now wants to come forward at this late date and make a statement or explanation that is fine. I likely won't read it and I definitely won't be swayed by it.

Done and dusted.

Jeff

+1

There is however one serious issue I have with Stu's actions.

What happen if this new information on litigation happened on April 24 instead of December 24.

All off us who contributed to a tax exempt organization and claimed a deduction would have to re-open our tax returns.

Also the tax except organization who also raises for multiple other hunting/conservation issues would have its charitable activity greatly hampered. There is a reason they stepped back from this fund raising.

Not a wise move on Stu's part to impose this on people who did not injure him but many not knowing him at all came to his assistance.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
BULLSHIT! if the poor or middle income had a good chance of recovery, a lawyer would be all over the case. that is the same excuse lawyers have made for dozens of years. the rich get "justice" the poor get screwed. so it is better if you pay up front?? what a joke. that would really exclude those of lesser means.

Unfortunately, one of the things that would occur under such circumstances would be that those most able to afford it (ie: the rich) wouldn't need to win a case at all, only cause delays to the point where the other guy ran out of cash to support pending litigation. Unnecessary delays in civil matters are a widely used tactic as things stand now since defendants in criminal cases have a right to a speedy trial and the rest of us have to take a back seat when it comes to available resources (courtrooms, judges, support personnel).