ThenNow

I don’t think you’re in a club by yourself. I believe it is/was a widely held impression. That’s what I thought the day I read the BSA press release. That’s how it reads. Others can confirm. I’ve kinda given up reading this stuff cover to cover as soon as it lands. I come here for the Cliff Notes and rancid trunk jokes.

This is me, except no purely open or closed state, per the chart dealio. Gray 3 is Tier One abuse and Gray 1 and 2 lower tiers. This is all academic, however, because I will win my fraudulent concealment case and be sprinkled with open state fairy dust and receive the Never Surrender merit badge. And yes, I will design it myself and will not get BSA approval.

To me, the big question is what happens if it tanks? I’m not doing a better than/less than calculation at this point. I’m doing risk and pain tolerance assessment, which leads me to conclude it’s best to go on to Phase...what phase are we on, again? Let’s call it the CO & Insurance Mud Wrestling Phase, shall we? I don’t expect more to come other than grief and delay if this circles the proverbial.

Ah. I was in a remote area and the video kept dumping on me, so I missed that. Haven’t been able to go back and listen just yet. Thanks. That’s what I figured. “Objective” turns out to be a tad a subjective and anecdotal, but that’s dandy enough.

What objective factors went into creating the Gray area? Cleverly named, btw. Someone is going to have to be prepared to present a compelling case for these significant distinctions. And, the Trustee has the ability to force insurers to pay on awards according to these SoL bucking percentages by what mechanism and precedent? I’m still unclear. (My insurance exec wife is dubious.)

I wasn’t referring to the attorneys or costs to resolve or allocation of funds. I’m talking about victim claimants staring down another daunting process of extruding the details of our abuse, again, and dancing through the maze and jumping through the flaming hoops.

What an ungodly mess this is...

Ok. State specific. I’m just reacting to this quote and will need to click to the link later or tomorrow. (I appreciate that you already posted it once.) The first part of that paragraph is about delayed discovery of psychological injury, the other, fraudulent concealment. I’m not seeing the jump to the FC statement, but I will check it out in context.

There is at least one I know of for p-positive.

Self-interested curiosity here. If you were abused in Gray 1- Gray 3, how does the Trustee determine into which shade of Gray bucket thou shalt be dropped? What is the abuse Tier in the G1 is different that in G2 is different than that in G3? Is your conclusion of “almost impossible” based on case law and/or statute?

I was just speaking to why they may not be celebrating the Plan. The 3-Ds can also be Delay, Delay & Delay, PLC.

I want to be there for voir dire and jury selection. They will need to impanel law professors and insurance experts. That’ll be a great trial!

I’d start with, because they didn’t get their crack at whittling down claims and they wanted BSA and the LCs to take up more of the cash slack so they don’t eventually have to, however that comes to pass. Defend, defend, defend.

I sued Aetna and won a class action settlement for wrongful denial of specific claims. What is the cause of action here? What have they wrongfully refused to pay or denied? Where’s the there there? Is this subsequent to insurers saying, “Go suck eggs! I ain’t paying that!” once the Trustee makes value calculations and subsequent payment demands?

I bought a new BMW. Salesman talked real good. Transmission fell out 15 years later. (Actually, 10, but I had to stick with the schtick.)

Just trying to understand this part, while I’m waiting to understand the whole legal logistics of who’s on first and who’s on second. So, some handpicked claims will be released from the injunction to enter state court and pursue jury awards. If that ultimately provides the fulcrum leveraging recover for all other claimants, that’s fantastic. How do the test cases get selected? It would seem that any “test plaintiff” take home award should be capped to the $2.7 limit of a tier one claim. Anything above that should go to the Trust. No? Otherwise, the leverage plaintiffs could get awards of 3-5+

I don’t get it either. If the BSA and LCs are released, who’s the defendant? If the insurance company, they can’t be sued for non-payment of a non-liquidated claim against an insured that can’t be sued because they’re “immune” from a suit based on the underlying cause of action, which is now a non-cause of action, literally. Wouldn’t it be necessary for these test/leverage cases to occur before the channeling injunction gets set in concrete? I’m lost...

Updated: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Boys-Scout-bankruptcy-plans-angers-some-welcomed-16290807.php And: https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-92297_47203-563119--m_2011_2,00.html

Is there an example of this type of document from any other case? I’m eager to see what might be out there to gauge how exhaustive this thing might be. Thanks.

I want to see “mine,” too.

I’ve been advised that claimants will have the same discovery rights and powers as a plaintiff. Can anyone confirm or deny? Also related to the Trust Claim Submission(s), in what order will claims be assessed or will this be a team of people (committee) charged with wrangling various batches/buckets of claims to move them down the conveyor belt toward the actual Trustee? If by some order, is that first in first reviewed? Still trying to get my head around the sheer logistics and process of this monstrosity. I suppose there is real possibility of a good number of guys taking an Expedited

As MYCVAStory said well, this crew is far more engaged (hyper-engaged?) than the average claimant. I often wonder what those out yonder are thinking and being told. For me, I’m on to the insurance phase. I don’t think this is getting “bigger and better,” certainly not anytime soon, if ever. Will a “burn it down” endgame serve most claimants in state court? No way. Just consider the 58,000 closed or shades of Gray staters. I’m not saying I no longer care about the LC and BSA piece, I have simply resigned myself to “this is what it is.” As I’ve said repeatedly, I know and trust key players on th

Is this available for free viewing?

Yes. Good of you to make that critical distinction. I don’t want to create the wrong impression for anyone. Those cases that have tried to apply a global, “BSA has IVF and failed to disclose and protect all of these plaintiffs,” have not been successful, as far as I know. I’m sure you’re aware of these. Am I correct?

As I’ve said, I disagree. There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other. Yes, I know it is a difficult and exacting proof, but I will make a very serious, studied and tenacious run at it. I don’t intend to fail.