8-1 verdict. I wonder who the dissenting vote was. I would have guessed Ginsberg, but she wrote the winning opinion. I’ll guess Sotomayor. Anyway, a win for ressonableness and a limit to venue shopping.
You are correct, it was Sotomayor. She had dissented based off of Part III of the three part ruling based on her disagreement with precident set in a prior case to which she dissented called Daimler AG v. Bauman.
Gee – plaintiff’s lawyers cannot “shop the forum” to find the most liberal, anti-business and/or anti-insurance jurisdictions? How will they survive this leveling of the playing field? But fear not, plaintiff attorneys are sharp minded gyts – they’ll find some way around this obstacle. Of course, the other side of this argument is that wrongdoers should not be afforded greater protections in one jurisdiction than received in another. Uniformity of the law especially in the area of insurance policy language, coverage, etc. is vital to carriers and the general public. Someone must always benefit, and someone must always get hurt.
Your Personal Auto Policy covers you in all 50 states, Canada, and some even also cover you up to 50 miles into Mexico. If you’re with Farmers, based in California, will you now not be covered if you suffer a loss out of California?! This is absolutely wrong and ridiculous. Insanity rules the day. If a company is liable, they should have to pay, regardless of where they are domiciled, and regardless of where the loss occurs. That is just plain common sense, something missing in 8 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.
The ruling doesn’t say that the liable party escapes liability. It is merely saying that the suit must be brought in a court that has jurisdiction.
In your personal auto policy example, if you live in NY and have an accident in NJ with someone who lives in PA can you sue the person in HI because the weather is nicer?
8-1 verdict. I wonder who the dissenting vote was. I would have guessed Ginsberg, but she wrote the winning opinion. I’ll guess Sotomayor. Anyway, a win for ressonableness and a limit to venue shopping.
You are correct, it was Sotomayor. She had dissented based off of Part III of the three part ruling based on her disagreement with precident set in a prior case to which she dissented called Daimler AG v. Bauman.
Gee – plaintiff’s lawyers cannot “shop the forum” to find the most liberal, anti-business and/or anti-insurance jurisdictions? How will they survive this leveling of the playing field? But fear not, plaintiff attorneys are sharp minded gyts – they’ll find some way around this obstacle. Of course, the other side of this argument is that wrongdoers should not be afforded greater protections in one jurisdiction than received in another. Uniformity of the law especially in the area of insurance policy language, coverage, etc. is vital to carriers and the general public. Someone must always benefit, and someone must always get hurt.
Sorry for the type – it should be “guys”.
Awe man, I thought it was some new anti-attorney slur that I wasn’t hip to yet.
Your Personal Auto Policy covers you in all 50 states, Canada, and some even also cover you up to 50 miles into Mexico. If you’re with Farmers, based in California, will you now not be covered if you suffer a loss out of California?! This is absolutely wrong and ridiculous. Insanity rules the day. If a company is liable, they should have to pay, regardless of where they are domiciled, and regardless of where the loss occurs. That is just plain common sense, something missing in 8 of 9 Supreme Court Justices.
The ruling doesn’t say that the liable party escapes liability. It is merely saying that the suit must be brought in a court that has jurisdiction.
In your personal auto policy example, if you live in NY and have an accident in NJ with someone who lives in PA can you sue the person in HI because the weather is nicer?
What? Did you….I just can’t….really?
((checking website URL)) yup, this is an insurance-based website. SMH