A patrolman is tragically killed in the line of duty and his estate can sue for $11 million. What am I missing or is this just ultra liberal Vermont acting up again? There must be more to this story.
yes, IJ has a bad habit of reporting so little of a story you have way more questions than answers when you are finished.
I don’t think they should bother with the story until they have enough facts for the story to make sense to the reader.
You get a D- on this one, IJ.
Blame the fact that they repost AP articles. I don’t think they write many of their own articles so much as they poach other people’s work. Not their fault I suppose… no real journalism going on.
Johnson was 39 years old and a 16 year veteran of the police force. He had layed spike strips across the highway and decided to park his patrol car adjacent to them and in the median. As the dumb
a-ss who was trying to outrun the cops approached, he saw the strips and swerved to avoid them striking Johnson who was standing next to his car. Unfortunate as it is, this was preventable. As an experienced officer, Johnson should have known anybody who is dumb enough to engage in a high speed chase with cops is also carless, negligent, and desperate. He should have forseen the possibility the idiot would swerve to avoid the strips, and parked his cruiser out of harms way. He was also well aware of the risks posed by his job and chose to assume those risks.
WC should be the only remedy for the estate. The primary source of recovery should be life insurance. Why should the state pay megabucks for the officer’s own negligence? There’s also the issue of assumption of risk.
What is the end goal — a bureaucratic rule change preventing officers from assuming risks? Whether it’s directing traffic, giving speeding tickets, or serving warrants on violent offenders, there is inherent risk in police work.
And I suppose that the trooper was negligent in getting up and going to work that morning too, had he not, perhaps this criminal would still be on the loose if not for death in the line of duty.
While you may not agree in the matter of the “Estate vs. The State” I hardly think that this officer should be deemed the “bad guy” here….
Understand completely. And of course the officer is not the bad guy. I think the majority of us have the utmost respect for law enforcement. I just think there are some occupations that are inherently dangerous and if you choose that line of work the family should not have the right to become wealthy off a terrible situation like this. Now, if the state were indeed negligent in causing the death, that’s definitely a differnt story.
A very poor story and a very bad attorney if we now have all of the story. It is interesting that they are sueing the company and not the state. Is this bad faith?
The defense on this will be very costly and next year everyone can ask, WHY IS MY INSURANCE PREMIUMS SO HIGH?
Okay, so does the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania provide liability coverage for Vermont state employees, or life insurance for private policyholders? This article has more holes of logic (in my opinion) than a Louisiana screen door!
Johnson, who was standing on a crossover portion of the median, tried to dive out the way.
The driver, Eric Daley, crashed the car and then ran off and was apprehended in Pennsylvania two days later. Daley, 23, of Lebanon, N.H., later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and several drug charges and received a 26- to 33-year sentence.
The issue that the high court ruled on Friday involves a complicated dispute between Johnson’s estate and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania over how much money the estate had a right to seek in damages for the trooper’s death.
The estate, which has received $25,000 from Daley’s liability insurer and $250,000 via the state of Vermont’s underinsured motorist’s policy, claimed it ought to have the right to tap into two “umbrella” liability policies the Pennsylvania insurer had sold to Vermont.
One of the policies has a $10 million pay-out limit and the other, a $1 million limit. Both were designed to cover instances involving bodily injury suffered by a state employee, according to court records.
“The State of Vermont has primary coverage responsibility because Trooper Johnson’s vehicle is a covered auto under the policy,” the estate contended in a court filing.
The estate sued the State of Vermont in Washington Superior Court. The insurer intervened and moved the lawsuit to federal court, where it argued the two policies should not be invoked in Johnson’s case.
I sure hope that they don’t collect a dime & have to repay attorney’s fees to the state. Very sad & unfortunate that a police officer’s life was lost, but the judge should not have allowed this to go forward.
Since workers comp should be the sole remedy for the employee against the state are we be talking about an AD&D type policy? I think this is an AIG company.
Clearly, this is a tragedy, but there is a movement afoot throughout the country to defeat the so-called “Fireman’s Rule” which has existed for a long time which says essentially that a fireman (or any similarly-situated public servant, like a policeman, who is routinely in peril as a part of their occupation) cannot bring a civil action in liability for injuries incurred during action that would be considered a routine part of the job. The plaintiffs’ bar has been successful in diluting or defeating the rule altogether in several jurisdictions, and in this most liberal state, I would expect that they would enjoy some success. Hope that a fireman or policeman is not injured in the line of duty at your house in one of these states because you are more than likely to find yourself in a liability lawsuit.
AL, you hit the key point. This is about Uninsured Motorists coverage, not about WC being the sole remedy. Each state has had various rulings about if this benefit applies to Umbrellas. Vermont now joins Oregon, Ohio and others where this is permited in spite of policy language.
Ah yes, the plaintiff’s bar…has diluted the application of the law in order to, benefit whom? I am amazed at how hard the trial lawyers pursue things like this to satify their own greed. At one time an attorney was a pillar of the community who made a decent living, and occassionally helped to find justice where it could not be found; that was the reason some worked PRO BONO…today, pro bono means, the plaintiff should sit back and let the attorney shake down the system in order to find SOMEONE to pay…”why did you rob the insurance company, sir? Well, dat’s where da money is!”
A patrolman is tragically killed in the line of duty and his estate can sue for $11 million. What am I missing or is this just ultra liberal Vermont acting up again? There must be more to this story.
yes, IJ has a bad habit of reporting so little of a story you have way more questions than answers when you are finished.
I don’t think they should bother with the story until they have enough facts for the story to make sense to the reader.
You get a D- on this one, IJ.
Blame the fact that they repost AP articles. I don’t think they write many of their own articles so much as they poach other people’s work. Not their fault I suppose… no real journalism going on.
Johnson was 39 years old and a 16 year veteran of the police force. He had layed spike strips across the highway and decided to park his patrol car adjacent to them and in the median. As the dumb
a-ss who was trying to outrun the cops approached, he saw the strips and swerved to avoid them striking Johnson who was standing next to his car. Unfortunate as it is, this was preventable. As an experienced officer, Johnson should have known anybody who is dumb enough to engage in a high speed chase with cops is also carless, negligent, and desperate. He should have forseen the possibility the idiot would swerve to avoid the strips, and parked his cruiser out of harms way. He was also well aware of the risks posed by his job and chose to assume those risks.
WC should be the only remedy for the estate. The primary source of recovery should be life insurance. Why should the state pay megabucks for the officer’s own negligence? There’s also the issue of assumption of risk.
And they are going to sue for…..what exactly?
What is the end goal — a bureaucratic rule change preventing officers from assuming risks? Whether it’s directing traffic, giving speeding tickets, or serving warrants on violent offenders, there is inherent risk in police work.
And I suppose that the trooper was negligent in getting up and going to work that morning too, had he not, perhaps this criminal would still be on the loose if not for death in the line of duty.
While you may not agree in the matter of the “Estate vs. The State” I hardly think that this officer should be deemed the “bad guy” here….
Unless the driver engaged in the high speed chase was on state business how is the state responsible?
The driver is the one who should be sued. Oh I forgot, he has nothing so the estate would get nothing.
How a court would allow this litigation to proceed just does not make any “cents” to anyone except the attorney on teh case who gets a nice fee.
Understand completely. And of course the officer is not the bad guy. I think the majority of us have the utmost respect for law enforcement. I just think there are some occupations that are inherently dangerous and if you choose that line of work the family should not have the right to become wealthy off a terrible situation like this. Now, if the state were indeed negligent in causing the death, that’s definitely a differnt story.
Just one person’s opinion.
A very poor story and a very bad attorney if we now have all of the story. It is interesting that they are sueing the company and not the state. Is this bad faith?
The defense on this will be very costly and next year everyone can ask, WHY IS MY INSURANCE PREMIUMS SO HIGH?
Okay, so does the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania provide liability coverage for Vermont state employees, or life insurance for private policyholders? This article has more holes of logic (in my opinion) than a Louisiana screen door!
I did some additional research and this makes more sense now. From an August 22, 2009 article, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090822/NEWS02/908220304/1007/RSS02
Johnson, who was standing on a crossover portion of the median, tried to dive out the way.
The driver, Eric Daley, crashed the car and then ran off and was apprehended in Pennsylvania two days later. Daley, 23, of Lebanon, N.H., later pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and several drug charges and received a 26- to 33-year sentence.
The issue that the high court ruled on Friday involves a complicated dispute between Johnson’s estate and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania over how much money the estate had a right to seek in damages for the trooper’s death.
The estate, which has received $25,000 from Daley’s liability insurer and $250,000 via the state of Vermont’s underinsured motorist’s policy, claimed it ought to have the right to tap into two “umbrella” liability policies the Pennsylvania insurer had sold to Vermont.
One of the policies has a $10 million pay-out limit and the other, a $1 million limit. Both were designed to cover instances involving bodily injury suffered by a state employee, according to court records.
“The State of Vermont has primary coverage responsibility because Trooper Johnson’s vehicle is a covered auto under the policy,” the estate contended in a court filing.
The estate sued the State of Vermont in Washington Superior Court. The insurer intervened and moved the lawsuit to federal court, where it argued the two policies should not be invoked in Johnson’s case.
I sure hope that they don’t collect a dime & have to repay attorney’s fees to the state. Very sad & unfortunate that a police officer’s life was lost, but the judge should not have allowed this to go forward.
Since workers comp should be the sole remedy for the employee against the state are we be talking about an AD&D type policy? I think this is an AIG company.
Clearly, this is a tragedy, but there is a movement afoot throughout the country to defeat the so-called “Fireman’s Rule” which has existed for a long time which says essentially that a fireman (or any similarly-situated public servant, like a policeman, who is routinely in peril as a part of their occupation) cannot bring a civil action in liability for injuries incurred during action that would be considered a routine part of the job. The plaintiffs’ bar has been successful in diluting or defeating the rule altogether in several jurisdictions, and in this most liberal state, I would expect that they would enjoy some success. Hope that a fireman or policeman is not injured in the line of duty at your house in one of these states because you are more than likely to find yourself in a liability lawsuit.
AL, you hit the key point. This is about Uninsured Motorists coverage, not about WC being the sole remedy. Each state has had various rulings about if this benefit applies to Umbrellas. Vermont now joins Oregon, Ohio and others where this is permited in spite of policy language.
Ah yes, the plaintiff’s bar…has diluted the application of the law in order to, benefit whom? I am amazed at how hard the trial lawyers pursue things like this to satify their own greed. At one time an attorney was a pillar of the community who made a decent living, and occassionally helped to find justice where it could not be found; that was the reason some worked PRO BONO…today, pro bono means, the plaintiff should sit back and let the attorney shake down the system in order to find SOMEONE to pay…”why did you rob the insurance company, sir? Well, dat’s where da money is!”