She was the driver in a one vehicle wreck which killed her husband. Now she, as Estate Rep, is suing herself, as driver, to recover damages that she herself caused. And so far, Utah courts are allowing it.
It’s the Escherian staircase of lawsuits. I think my head is going to explode.
Why? Honestly, what does she expect to get out of it that she couldn’t, you know, just pay herself?
I am confused.
It appears she is essentially suing her insurance company for a payout, from what I can discern from that article.
I’m betting it’s to get money from her car insurance policy. They’ll probably defend & pay out in a lawsuit but not just hand out $ because of the accident/death itself.
ETA: Ninja’d by a slow phone keyboard.
Let’s hope she never drives on U.S. Route 19 Truck.
Won’t they only pay up to the limits of the policy? And wouldn’t they probably have paid out the maximum anyhow, given that a death resulted?
Thank you both for the explanation!
Hey, not only are corporations people too, but so are decedents’ estates. She and her late husband’s estate are distinct legal entities, even if she’s the executor and sole beneficiary.
From the link:
I can understand that, on behalf of her husband’s estate, she can sue for medical and funeral expenses, and for his pain and suffering before he died.
But I’m surprised that the estate can sue for her loss of his companionship and financial support. I’d think that if a third party had caused the accident, she would have had to sue for these things in her own personal capacity, rather than her husband’s estate being able to sue on her behalf as beneficiary of the estate.
But the law of trusts and estates varies from state to state, and my knowledge of such law has been gathering rust for ~35 years, so my intuition could easily be wrong.
It’s been done - even more egregiously - in the past: Inmate sues himself for $5 million
However that suit was dismissed as frivolous.
Yeah, I think it’s an insurance thing. She gets a judgment against herself, then runs crying to her insurance company over the judgment that was issued against her and asks for reimbursement.
What if she get’s carried away with this, and is familiar with the poetry of John Donne: “But I do nothing upon myself, and yet am mine own executioner.” Luckily, as a Utahan, staging your own firing squad is difficult.
Seems reasonable. She had insurance that would pay out in case she negligently killed someone with her car. She did so. Her insurance refused to pay because she would be one of the beneficiaries of the payout. She says doesn’t matter. Insurance company says it does, points to relevant law. Relevant law is unclear: it says you can recover when the death “is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another”. Is “another” referring to someone other than the insured, or someone other than the victim? Court ruled that it means someone other than the victim, which I think is a reasonable interpretation.
I think the suit is fine, but why was she appointed as the estate representative, and why are the two actions (both her as a beneficiary, and her as an estate representative) rolled into one suit?
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/02/utah-court-says-woman-can-sue-herself.html
Is she going to vigorously defend herself from the lawsuit?
What if she wins? (proves herself non-negligent?)
Insurance companies normally have a clause in the contract that allows them to defend the lawsuit, so you may have a situation where the insurance company is defending the lawsuit in her name, while she is prosecuting the lawsuit in the name of the estate.
And in the name of herself as a beneficiary. She actually is acting in three capacities during this suit.
If you have a company with insurance covering against sexual harassment lawsuits, could you sexually harass yourself and then sue the company for it?
I think the insurance company should appoint her a lawyer who advises her to plead the fifth, and if she doesn’t take the attorney’s advice, the insurance company should be able to rescind coverage.
I didn’t realize this was that rare.
One of my professors (who was a detective) has a wife die in an auto accident and was asked by his insurance company if he was going to sue. I think technically he would have been suing his wife or his daughter (both who I believe were living with him). He was pretty shocked by the request and told them no.
While the case with my professor isn’t the exact same thing - in effect it is - as I believe he was paying for all the insurance (or him and his wife jointly). This was 20 years ago.
The question I’d have - is is this explained at all to a jury (assuming it ever got there)?
Normally - at least in some states - a jury isn’t told that the defendant has insurance. A cas is put on that has the defendant sitting at the trial table and when the Jury is in the room - the subject of insurance doesn’t come up.
This is done due to insurance companies not wanting juries to just see big pockets of insurance company money and giving more money than would be otherwise to a plaintiff.
“Pay yourself a dollar. We’re done here. STFUAGH”
But this represents a HUGE conflict of interest. She is basically throwing the case against herself as driver to win the case in her favor as estate rep. Makes no logical sense, even if both are separate legal entities. It looks like the court would have to appoint an independent estate rep at the very least.
As the defense stated in the article:
