Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

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?

Some kind of impleader?

  1. Victim sues BSA (or the Trust). If BSA sued, BSA brings names Trust/Trustee as real party in interest (since BSA's bankruptcy settles all claims against it and transfers to Trust) and steps aside.
  2. Trustee then impleads/third party complaints the insurance company and demands insurance company indemnify?
Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@CynicalScouter Thanks from me and frankly, surely everyone, for tracking on the status of National's bankruptcy pleadings, and the procedural steps, past and pending, in the Bankruptcy case. And your

Okay. Enough. If you aren't talking about court proceedings then drop it.  It would be a shame to lock this thread now.

A few random observations from watching this bankruptcy unfold over the past several months: The focus has clearly been on protecting the national organization first and then the local councils.

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

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. 

But if there is no way to recover from the insurance company's under this plan since there some thoughts that one can no longer sue than what would be defending.  In other words I believe they will defend/defend and eventually pay because they are still liable and they know they are.

I think my question was what might be called rhetorical?  Maybe that's the wrong word.

Edited by johnsch322
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Some kind of impleader?

  1. Victim sues BSA (or the Trust). If BSA sued, BSA brings names Trust/Trustee as real party in interest (since BSA's bankruptcy settles all claims against it and transfers to Trust) and steps aside.
  2. Trustee then impleads/third party complaints the insurance company and demands insurance company indemnify?

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! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

eventually pay because they are still liable and they know they are.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I'm sorry Muttsy I didn't know it was you I sold that car to.  But you really liked it when you bought it.

I forgive you Johnsch322. Now that you are forgiven, what is your address? And what was that thing that smelled so bad you left in the trunk. 
 

Happy 4th everyone. It feels good to get silly, if only for a day. 
 

Sincerely,

 

The Mutts

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just found out I live in a SOL state which basically means I went through all this for nothing.  Why is it to my advantage to vote for the plan?  Seems like everyone wins but me... BSA, Insurance Companies, Attorneys, Local Councils and Chartered Organizations will all be ok while I still get to go through therapy.  Nothing seems to change with this nightmare, I finally thought that something good could come out of it....guess not.  For me this was not worth it.

Edited by Bronco1821
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

I just found out I live in a SOL state which basically means I went through all this for nothing.  Why is it to my advantage to vote for the plan?  Seems like everyone wins but me... BSA, Insurance Companies, Attorneys, Local Councils and Chartered Organizations will all be ok while I still get to go through therapy.  Nothing seems to change with this nightmare, I finally thought that something good could come out of it....guess not.

I feel for your pain. Going through the process of recalling bad times is difficult.  Has your state legislature had any discussions on changing the law?

If enough people make a case to the gov't, maybe laws can be changed. 

Edited by 1980Scouter
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bronco1821 said:

I just found out I live in a SOL state which basically means I went through all this for nothing.  Why is it to my advantage to vote for the plan?  Seems like everyone wins but me... BSA, Insurance Companies, Attorneys, Local Councils and Chartered Organizations will all be ok while I still get to go through therapy.  Nothing seems to change with this nightmare, I finally thought that something good could come out of it....guess not.  For me this was not worth it.

What state were you in when you were abused.  Were you abused in any other states? Perhaps out of state travel to a camp or HA facility. The SOL issue is NOT cut and dried. You need qualified counsel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I thought if you were past the SOL, via the plan, you could still get something vs nothing. No?

You are correct. At minimum you could get $3500 if you don’t want to pursue further. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bronco1821 said:

I just found out I live in a SOL state which basically means I went through all this for nothing.

Not necessarily.

Under the RSA document released by BSA, even those in SoL states are going to get SOMETHING. They put states into categories ranging from Open (=100% of claim value) to Gray 1, Gray 2, and Gray 3 (depending on how strict that state's SoL is and how insurmountable it is) and Closed (for the states that in the opinion of the TCC and Coalition lawyers it is effectively impossible to get out from under the lack of a SoL window).

Open    1.0
Gray 1    .50-.70
Gray 2    .30-.45
Gray 3    .10-.25
Closed    .01-.10

So even in a "Gray 3" state like Mississippi in which trying to get out of the SoL on the basis of fraudulent concealment is almost impossible, you are still looking at anywhere from 10%-25% of your claim value or, for a $1 million claim, $100,000-$250,000.

This is why as others have said you need to get legal counsel.

The ORIGINAL plan was to simply say there were open states/closed states and closed states = 1%. But this system at least allows for SOME kind of payment for those even in truly, utterly closed states.

                                                         

 

State

 

Tier

 

Alabama

 

Closed

 

Kansas

 

Closed

 

Oklahoma

 

Closed

 

Puerto Rico

 

Closed

 

South Dakota

 

Closed

 

Utah

 

Closed

 

Wyoming

 

Closed

 

ZZ / Federal

 

Closed

 

Connecticut

 

Gray 1

 

DC

 

Gray 1

 

Delaware

 

Gray 1

 

Georgia

 

Gray 1

 

Illinois

 

Gray 1

 

Massachusetts

 

Gray 1

 

New Mexico

 

Gray 1

 

Oregon

 

Gray 1

 

Pennsylvania

 

Gray 1

 

Washington

 

Gray 1

 

Iowa

 

Gray 2

 

Minnesota

 

Gray 2

 

New

 

Hampshire

 

Gray 2

 

North Dakota

 

Gray 2

 

Ohio

 

Gray 2

 

South Carolina

 

Gray 2

 

Tennessee

 

Gray 2

 

West Virginia

 

Gray 2

 

Alaska

 

Gray 3

 

Florida

 

Gray 3

 

Idaho

 

Gray 3

 

Indiana

 

Gray 3

 

Kentucky

 

Gray 3

 

Maryland

 

Gray 3

 

Michigan

 

Gray 3

 

Mississippi

 

Gray 3

 

Missouri

 

Gray 3

 

Nebraska

 

Gray 3

 

Nevada

 

Gray 3

 

Rhode Island

 

Gray 3

 

Texas

 

Gray 3

 

Virgin Islands

 

Gray 3

 

Virginia

 

Gray 3

 

Wisconsin

 

Gray 3

 

Arizona

 

Open

 

Arkansas

 

Open

 

California

 

Open

 

Colorado

 

Open

 

Guam

 

Open

 

Hawaii

 

Open

 

Louisiana

 

Open

 

Maine

 

Open

 

Montana

 

Open

 

New Jersey

 

Open

 

New York

 

Open

 

North Carolina

 

Open

 

Vermont

 

Open

 

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Were you abused in any other states? Perhaps out of state travel to a camp or HA facility.

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?

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So even in a "Gray 3" state like Mississippi in which trying to get out of the SoL on the basis of fraudulent concealment is almost impossible,

Is your conclusion of “almost impossible” based on case law and/or statute? 

 

Edited by ThenNow
Oops
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Self-interested curious 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? …

@ThenNow, it gets worse. There must be cases where the infarctions occurred in one state while the troop hailed from a different state. Councils now span state lines as the result of multiple mergers of recent decades. So an LC headquartered in one state may “inherit” cases in another state. I’m certain that will result in incongruous paperwork. It’s all the better that the trustee attend to assigning point values.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, qwazse said:

There must be cases where the infarctions occurred in one state while the troop hailed from a different state.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Is your conclusion of “almost impossible” based on case law and/or statute? 

It's based on a) the comments made by the TCC during its Zoom town hall describing the tiers and b) this assessment by the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding Mississippi that found

Quote

The court has declined to apply the discovery statute to cases of delayed realization of the connection between the abuse and the victim's psychological injury; however, the issue has not been presented in the context of extensive memory repression. The standards for proving fraudulent concealment of a claim are so high as to be impracticable.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...