Legal settlements and abuse

[skeptic]

2 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

The thing is, it sounds petty and selfish until it’s your family facing tens maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and other costs, then it’s your family’s survival on the line.  And there is no other way in our society to ameliorate those costs, no one else is coming to your rescue, no one else is going to be in a position to actualy provide that level of help.

I have no issue with legitimate suits, only frivolous or over the top ones that want more than is rational just because someone may feel sorry or it is the insurance company paying, or they see someone as having money.  Suing for more than actual expenses, and somehow feeling you are owed an outlandish amount for "pain and suffering" or similar wording is simply dishonest from my view.  IF the injury was truly due to someone being careless or ignoring common precautions, something might be rational.  But the amounts are what the issue is, especially in cases where it is not clear that it was anything other than an accident.  These types of law suits not only pay jackal lawyers, but they also run up the cost of valid insurance for us all.  

[johnsch322]

13 hours ago, skeptic said:

Suing for more than actual expenses, and somehow feeling you are owed an outlandish amount for "pain and suffering" or similar wording is simply dishonest from my view. 

So now you are calling victims dishonest? You think there should be no dollar amount tied to pain and suffering? Shame on you.

[Eagle94-A1]

18 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

So now you are calling victims dishonest? You think there should be no dollar amount tied to pain and suffering? Shame on you.

As you know, I am for the victims. I know several personally. However, not everyone who was part of the lawsuit was a victim, but rather someone trying to money There are a few documented cases shown in one of the bankruptcy threads where there is a link to some of the questionable filings. Also one of the original lawyers disassociated  himself from the group he help found because of some of the filing practices of the other firms. One person's mother found out he was filing, and sent a letter to the judge saying he was never in Scouting and is only trying to get money!.

Personally, I think all the fraudulent claimants, as well as those lawyers who did not do their due diligence in fling the claim, should be fined to the maximum extent possible, with the fines going towards the victims' trust.

 

[qwazse]

16 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As you know, I am for the victims. I know several personally. However, not everyone who was part of the lawsuit was a victim, but rather someone trying to money There are a few documented cases shown in one of the bankruptcy threads where there is a link to some of the questionable filings. …

We need to get beyond this. The only way we can help victims is to accept that in the pool there will be a few frauds who nobody will screen. It certainly galls survivors as much as it does the majority of us who never drew the attention of predators. This is the cost of actually being helpful. (This, and being more attentive to our youths’ environments.)

Edited August 30, 2023 by qwazse

[johnsch322]

20 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As you know, I am for the victims. I know several personally. However, not everyone who was part of the lawsuit was a victim, but rather someone trying to money

I agree with you....however my response to @skeptic was over his statement of thinking it is dishonest to sue for more than expenses. 

With this line of belief I would be entitled to nothing for being raped. I have had no direct costs that I have had to pay. My insurance has covered my therapy and my meds, but I have had a lifetime of pain and suffering. Does that sound fair? Even today I am going to be doing a new REM therapy to try to alleviate my trigger points and this is 53 years after I was assaulted,

Edited August 30, 2023 by johnsch322

[qwazse]

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

… My insurance has covered my therapy and my meds, but I have had a lifetime of pain and suffering. Does that sound fair? …

How it “sounds” is purely subjective.

I know you want empathy in the form of unanimous agreement that dollars should be paid out above and beyond mitigation costs. It’s not an ironclad argument when cost-prohibitive to youth becomes a program that many find to be a temporary safe haven from psychologically destructive family environments. From their perspective paying a past victim  puts a number of current kids at risk.

And then a whole cycle of counter-arguments ensues. Again by people who think differently.

At the end of the day, your opinion is yours, and as it seems to be in solidarity with many other victims, it deserves to be aired. But after talking with leaders of other international scout associations over the years I feel in less of a position to say what sounds fair than I ever did.

[johnsch322]

24 minutes ago, qwazse said:

How it “sounds” is purely subjective.

So if I am correct then you agree that I should receive zero dollars for my abuse since I did not incur any financial cost.

 

25 minutes ago, qwazse said:

From their perspective paying a past victim  puts a number of current kids at risk.

And exactly how are current kids paying me and how does that put them at risk? 

[Armymutt]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I agree with you....however my response to @skeptic was over his statement of thinking it is dishonest to sue for more than expenses. 

With this line of belief I would be entitled to nothing for being raped. I have had no direct costs that I have had to pay. My insurance has covered my therapy and my meds, but I have had a lifetime of pain and suffering. Does that sound fair? Even today I am going to be doing a new REM therapy to try to alleviate my trigger points and this is 53 years after I was assaulted,

I got nothing beyond expenses after getting hit by a drunk driver.  A piece of my exhaust pipe punched a hole through the top of my foot.  I have arthritis and a permanent limp.  The only money I got in my pocket was to pay for the bike and other equipment.  The bad guy got told not to do anything bad for three years and sent on his way.

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I got nothing beyond expenses after getting hit by a drunk driver.  A piece of my exhaust pipe punched a hole through the top of my foot.  I have arthritis and a permanent limp.  The only money I got in my pocket was to pay for the bike and other equipment.  The bad guy got told not to do anything bad for three years and sent on his way.

I am not sure where this happened, but you should have gotten money for pain and suffering. Where you unaware of this? Did you have a lawyer? Did the drunk driver have insurance coverage? If he had no coverage and you had no uninsured motorist or if your uninsured motorist was only enough to cover the motorcycle that may be why you received nothing else. 

The bulk of the money in the BSA settlement (if the chapter 11 succeeds is from the insurance carriers). BSA National and locals will emerge largely intact and will be sent on their way.

[Armymutt]

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am not sure where this happened, but you should have gotten money for pain and suffering. Where you unaware of this? Did you have a lawyer? Did the drunk driver have insurance coverage? If he had no coverage and you had no uninsured motorist or if your uninsured motorist was only enough to cover the motorcycle that may be why you received nothing else. 

The bulk of the money in the BSA settlement (if the chapter 11 succeeds is from the insurance carriers). BSA National and locals will emerge largely intact and will be sent on their way.

You can't get blood out of a turnip.  You also shouldn't be squeezing the blood out of a program that is for kids.  So no, I don't think that pain and suffering from an organizational level is appropriate.  It should come from the perpetrator.  Unless BSA went through and vetted every single perpetrator and supervised them, then there should be no monetary claim against them.  I didn't get money from KIA, even though they knowing sold a car to a guy with a drunk driving history.  I don't get money from the state even though they knowingly let a guy with a history of drunk driving out into society.  I don't get money from whatever company made the intoxicating beverage, even though they know it is abused.  As was stated above, these payouts affect the cost of Scouting and effectively deny participation to kids who really need it.  Now, how did we get here from a thread about family camping?  Seems like an odd way to twist things towards oneself.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

You also shouldn't be squeezing the blood out of a program that is for kids. 

As I have previously stated the majority of the money in the settlement is from insurance companies. the BSA took out those policies in case of claims against the BSA. 

 

5 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Unless BSA went through and vetted every single perpetrator and supervised them, then there should be no monetary claim against them. 

Here is the crux of the liability. The BSA chose not to go thru a proper vetting process and there was not proper supervision of these employees and or volunteers the courts have decided that BSA has a responsibility to pay for damages.

 

10 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I didn't get money from KIA, even though they knowing sold a car to a guy with a drunk driving history.  I don't get money from the state even though they knowingly let a guy with a history of drunk driving out into society.  I don't get money from whatever company made the intoxicating beverage, even though they know it is abused. 

The driver of the Kia was not an employee of theirs on company business but if he had been you would have received money from them. Was the state supposed to lock the driver away for life? He did do 3 years. Once again if the driver had been an employee of a company who made alcohol and was on company business you would have received a substantial settlement. My two abusers were volunteers who were on BSA business (a campout).

 

16 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Seems like an odd way to twist things towards oneself.

You can thank @skeptic for what he invoked. 

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

And exactly how are current kids paying me and how does that put them at risk? 

By making the program cost prohibitive to many. Most of my Scouts are lucky. medicare/medicaid in my state covers youth registration. 

31 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The bulk of the money in the BSA settlement (if the chapter 11 succeeds is from the insurance carriers). BSA National and locals will emerge largely intact and will be sent on their way.

 Yes, but insurance rates, and legal costs,  are driving up the prices. When oldest joined Cubs 15 years ago, it was $15/year or $27 with Boys' Life. And there was no council fees. Today the youth fee is $80, and council fees vary from $12 to $80 on top of the national fee. And there was no new member fee then, today it is $25. A new Scout in my council is charged $140 with out Scouts' Life. That is almost 10 times the cost.

 

 

[johnsch322]

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

By making the program cost prohibitive to many.

BSA sets their pricing based on expense. The payments to survivors is a one time  payment for the most part (land, paintings, oil rights). It would be disingenuous to blame increases on survivors as you have not mentioned inflation.

 

3 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 Yes, but insurance rates, and legal costs,  are driving up the prices.

Legal costs are the cost of going into bankruptcy. BSA chose that route and underestimated the amount of boys who had been molested (and yes some of these claims are fake). The increase in insurance costs cannot just be attributable to just the survivors. I am sure that the insurance companies have done more actuary studies as to what they will be paying out in the future for CSA cases. 

[Eagle94-A1]

Oh yes inflation is a factor. So is the loss of COs and membership. But let's admit it, the bankruptcy, and the increases in insurance are the biggest factors. And while some of the money is coming from one time payments, some of those payments are coming from loans that need to be paid back.

[johnsch322]

26 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Oh yes inflation is a factor. So is the loss of COs and membership. But let's admit it, the bankruptcy, and the increases in insurance are the biggest factors. And while some of the money is coming from one time payments, some of those payments are coming from loans that need to be paid back.

So with all that has been discussed the statement of survivors wanting to be compensated beyond expenses for pain and suffering does that make us dishonest?