Intel Files $50M Suit Against Insurance Company

Status
Not open for further replies.

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
This sounds obsurd. Basically, Intel knew it was doing something shady, and purchased insurance to cover any legal costs it incurred durcing that specific time?

As for the insurance company, covering Intel in the case of legal dispute is like offering life insurance that pays out on suicide, think it through next time.
 

roofus

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2008
1,392
0
19,290
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]This sounds obsurd. Basically, Intel knew it was doing something shady, and purchased insurance to cover any legal costs it incurred durcing that specific time?As for the insurance company, covering Intel in the case of legal dispute is like offering life insurance that pays out on suicide, think it through next time.[/citation]

Insurance for litigation does not imply guilt. It is like insurance for anything else. Its "just in case" something goes wrong or a detail is overlooked. Would you go into business and not cover all your bases? It has nothing to do with intent. If there was any legality issues with their actions, the insurance company certainly would have declined to insure their dealings unless they are shady.
 

average joe

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2009
342
0
18,790
All businesses run liability insurance. It's a necessary evil. The cost of a law suit could easily sink your company. It doesn't matter if your Intel or just a local diner. If someone slips on the sidewalk in front of your front door you could be out of business next month. What makes me mad is, given how much money insurance companies charge, they should be required to pay when you file a claim. It's ridiculous that Intel has to sue their anti lawsuit insurer to get them to pay for a lawsuit. Imagine what us little guys have to deal with. I have never managed to get my insurance to pay for anything. I have only filed two claims in my life.. both were rejected.
 

TyRaX

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2009
4
0
18,510
On the subject of slipping on the sidewalk... A court in Ohio recently ruled that a shoveled sidewalk that ices over is grounds for establishing fault on the part of the homeowner in the event of a fall. However, an unshoveled sidewalk fall is considered to be an act of nature and does not establish fault.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
666
3
19,015
[citation][nom]TyRaX[/nom]On the subject of slipping on the sidewalk... A court in Ohio recently ruled that a shoveled sidewalk that ices over is grounds for establishing fault on the part of the homeowner in the event of a fall. However, an unshoveled sidewalk fall is considered to be an act of nature and does not establish fault.[/citation]

Okay, that has to be the stupidest thing in recent memory. If you shovel your sidewalk and someone falls because it ices over, you are at fault?
I don't think so. It's an 'act of nature' EITHER WAY! Someone needs to SHOOT the lawyers who put that argument forward, and I work for a lawyer, so I know when they are being stupid.
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
1,282
6
19,285
[citation][nom]Christopher1[/nom]Okay, that has to be the stupidest thing in recent memory. If you shovel your sidewalk and someone falls because it ices over, you are at fault?I don't think so. It's an 'act of nature' EITHER WAY! Someone needs to SHOOT the lawyers who put that argument forward, and I work for a lawyer, so I know when they are being stupid.[/citation]
You live in Scotland so maybe this doesn't apply to you but here in the US, you can suit anyone related to your injury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.