Posted On: July 31, 2006, 8:03 am CDT

Posted By: Chris

No, Hal, the moron who lit the menu has no coverage. Or, maybe, the coverage was subject to an exclusion; like maybe intentional acts, since it sounds like he was intending to be "cute" by trying to ignite the rum as it was being poured. Either way, no pockets, deep or otherwise.

From a strategy standpoint, do you sue someone with no insurance and risk a default judgment on liability, so that the jury HAS to assess SOME liability against that party; or, worse, make the uninsured person subject to the jurisdiction of the court and he testifies honestly to his stupidity? Or, do you not sue the uninsured party and hope that no one can find him to get his deposition, and that the jury won't assess liability against the "empty chair"?

For all of the high-minded talk of the plaintiff bar about "protecting" the injured, the reality is that it's really about the money in cases like this.