Issues & Politics
In answer to many requests, we established a separate forum for these topics. Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content.
2967 topics in this forum
-
- 19 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 46 replies
- 5.9k views
-
- 50 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 38 replies
- 6.7k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.2k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 47 replies
- 6.3k views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 13 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.4k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
Is there anyone other than the Trustee that would know how many of these cases meet the criteria to send to trial? -
By MYCVAStory · Posted
No idea but it's the question I'd ask if there's another Town Hall. I hope others will as well. -
Do you have any guesses as to why she hasn't done this? Is there any benefit at all? It doesn't sound like there is, from what you've posted here, so I wonder what the reasoning is. -
By MYCVAStory · Posted
The trust has issued a statement. Why the Trustee hasn't used all this time to determine the next payout percentage is a head-scratcher. Perhaps a "town hall" will be called soon. Statement here: Salesforce -
By MYCVAStory · Posted
I'd like to agree but I think this is just standard briefing. The insurers will assert their rights and say that their policies allowed the investigation of every claim, something the Trust did instead, but doesn't bind an insurer. It would be a VERY bold step for a Judge to tell the insurers to pay up, and if they did it would be appealed in minutes. Again, the Trustee has 250 IRO claims she can send to trial and start to inflict pain on the insurers. Awards beyond the IRO amount then go to the "general fund" to serve all claimants. But, repeated losses (Juries tend to side with Survivors), would give the insurers real reason to cut deals.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)