Click here for the appellant's reply brief.
Click here for AIG's brief, and the first page is unreadable, sorry, but keep scrolling down for the rest of a very long document.
This blog has followed developments in this convoluted case for more than half a decade. John Foster and his wife Melony Michaels were the victims of a mortgage fraud at 1564 Hillside Avenue North. John Foster's identity and perfect credit was stolen by a crackhead named Jerome KingRussell, as part of a fraud cooked up by Larry Maxwell and others.
Maxwell went to prison over the fraud. The victims sued in civil court and won a judgment of $849,000 but the money has proven hard to collect because the insurance company doesn't want to pay. (Well, I guess that's understandable) The house was demolished a long time ago. Here's a link to a blog article about the lawsuit which has yet more links and traces a lot of the story to date.
Now both sides have filed briefs in Minnesota's State Court of Appeals, made their arguments, and wait. The question is not whether the $849,000 judgment is valid.
The question is whether the plaintiffs can collect from the defendant's insurance company...
The defendant's argument seems to rest upon the idea that since their insured hid the facts from them, (or, at any rate, didn't inform the insurance company in a timely way) then the insurance company doesn't have to pay.
The argument of the plaintiff is, well, that's ridiculous.
The insurance companies for hit-and-run drivers have to pay, right? It's not like hit-and-run drivers call their insurance and say, "I ran somebody over with my minivan and I'm hiding out from the police, hoping they don't figure out it's me from the bloody headlight glass at the scene and any security cameras which might have caught the incident. But you're my insurer, after all, and you'll have to pay if the coppers find me...so I'm notifying you."
("You'll never take me alive, copper" movie tribute link)
But maybe I'm making things too simple. I guess we'll see what the Court of Appeals has to say. I would like to think this case could set a positive precedent but does the law REALLY need to determine whether insurance coverage applies to incidents the insured didn't properly report?
If the court rules against the plaintiff, then what kind of perverse incentives would that provide to both insureds and insurance companies to cover up incidents?
7 comments:
The court didn't follow MN's own act put i place specifically to protect it's residents against this in its MN Unfair Practices Act. It states and makes all insurance companies who get licensed to sell in our states sign a contract that they cannot refuse to pay an injured 3rd party on a covered claim because of something the insured does or doesn't do.
What a scam.... agent tells client, by the way, we have a line buried in there that says if you are not the first to notify us then we don't have to pay..so, let the victim notify us first and we don't have to pay and your rates don't sky rocket or you don't lose your coverage! We both win!
MN gave us this protection but the court didn't know or apply it. Millions are being stolen illegally from us every year.
We all need to be outraged and tell our representatives and courts and shout from rooftops that this will not be tolerated.
They were notified,timely,and it was covered. To evade responsibility just because our attorney contacted them is ridiculous! How would anyone ever get made whole if they have illegal clauses that no one else knows?
The courts need to make the Insurance company pay when they are supposed to pay.
We've been fighting for 7 years for justice and we're being robbed all over again.
Melony
The Insurance company knew of the crime and went to court in 2008 with another one of the parties involved. So for them to say they didn't know is a blatant lie. They knew in 2006. We legally couldn't request payment from them until we won the judgement. We did it the way it was supposed to be done. Why the Judge would let them do this is beyond our comprehension as well.
This blog incorrectly used the term "plaintiff's brief" to describe the brief of John Foster and his wife Melony Michaels. Though they were plaintiffs in the lower court, in this appeal they would be described as "appellants." Something similar happened with the word "defendants" to describe the other brief by AIG, the party arguing it shouldn't be forced to pay this rather large judgment.
That wording has now been corrected in this blog post. JNS blog cares about accuracy and when inaccuracy is brought to my attention, I leap to make correction.
You dropped a g in the headline.
Is it that they won below as plaintiffs, and the insurance company, to buy time, appealed, so the insurance company is appellant; with the plaintiffs below at best respondents and possibly cross-appellants? Not that hairsplitting matters that much. You are clear who got the judgment and who does not like that and wants to stall.
I do not think that's precisely what happened. Yes, they won a judgment for more than 800k but another judgment--or another part of the judgment? It's a mess, and I'm just commenting here somewhat off the top of my head--anyway, a judgment at the district court level says, in summary, they can't collect from the insurance company.
And THAT is being appealed.
To the best of my recollection and understanding. Melony Michaels and her husband John Foster do come here and comment from time to time so perhaps they can comment on that aspect. But to the point, I don't think there's anything inaccurate in the blog article.
Thank you for drawing that typo to my attention. I have gone back and fixed it.
Post a Comment