Remember the Pittsburgh Zoo example of retarded parenting?

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that I had a big go round with BCBS over a broken leg I got on a dirt bike. I buy medical insurance to help defray the costs of illnesses and injuries so that's a pretty poor argument.

If I were to have done the same dumb thing I did that broke my leg and then sued the Forest Service for he cost of my injuries I would be in this woman's shoes.

Of course that didn't stop BCBS from trying to sue the FS to recover their costs. I refused to cooperate and threatened to sue BCBS if they did not fulfill their contractural obligations so yes I can safely say I most certainly DID take the high road.

In fact, I'm headed for the Chasing the Dragon hillclimb in a few weeks. If I do something dumb and bust my ass, I expect BCBS to fulfill their contractural obligation (there is no motorsports exclusion in the policy) and again would not sue the promoter or the FS.

nocones wrote: In response to Bob's first post posted while I typed Hitemp guys response. Bob's post prior to this was posted while I typed this one.. So Bob are you calling me a dumbass and saying I have no idea how insurance works? I just want to be clear on your positions. I'm trying to have a reasonable and respectful discussion about something. I thought GRM was a place where even on the internet that was still possible however It becoming obvious that is no longer the environment here. I realize the tone that can be read into my 100% guarantee statement is probably more agressive than I intended. I was going to edit it but thought I would own it and let it ride. Please explain what you mean by your response to flood zone Homes and accidents while being reckless? If you buy a home in a floodplain I don't want to assume anything out of your thorough response.

You buy a home in a flood plain, you're a dumbass. "You" being used in the grand scheme, not individual. Same with accidents while driving recklessly. Here, you have an accident while driving reckless, you are found at fault. YOU pay (as you should) for other's damage.

I'm not sure what there is to question, it's pretty straightforward to me. You do something stupid, you pay for it.

nocones wrote: Not really because your carrying insurance because you do not want to bear full responsibility for the results of your actions. You don't want to be on the hook for 250k if your house is a total loss due to your stupidity so you pay someone $400 a year to take that loss/responsibility for you.

Wait, whut now? I pay for insurance because it makes economic sense, not because I am a Bob Costas. Insurance companies are in business to provide that coverage. They take my money for it!

It would seem a decent example of this is full coverage on paid off cars. How many people take out full coverage vs. Not? Full coverage generally only covers your mistakes (and theft).

I have 6 cars and I am going to buy a 7th in the near future. I have full coverage on all of them. I haven't had a car loan in 4 years. Comprehensive coverage is cheap and is a small percentage of the overall cost of car insurance. The expensive part is Liability which protects other people when I am a dumbass and hurt them somehow.

And Homeowner's insurance is so ridiculously cheap for the protection it provides that only an idiot would go without it.

I'm not saying you cause an accident I'm saying you are involved in an accident while you are being irresponsible and it is determined to be someone else's fault.

Clearly I have a slightly different feel about what insurance is than others. To me is is a product you purchase to take financial responsibility away from you because you are unable to shoulder the burden youself.

I did not really anticipate the viewpoint that purchasing insurance was showing personal responsibility. I don't really have a response if thats how you view it it dies make peoples objections make more sense to me.

How would people feel if they wadded up their DD at a HDPE and their full coverage insurance specified no racing coverage? Would they try to make a claim? I would not because I don't feel my insurance is being purchased to cover off highway use of my vehicle. That's why I won't take it to a track day. I'm not sure how I feel bout autox however. I know I would not try to make a warrantee claim for autox damage but not sure what I would do in an accident.

Removed post cause this thread is just retarded.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

you gotta do what you gotta do.

its a real dog eat boy world out there.

AngryCorvair wrote:

PITTSBURGH — Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seek EVERYONE FROM PITTSBURGH to be spayed / neutered before they do more damage to our future by making more squealer fans who say yins.

well, that's how it would be in my perfect world.

FTFY

In reply to patgizz:

I like the way you think.

patgizz wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote:

PITTSBURGH — Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seek EVERYONE FROM PITTSBURGH EXCEPT CRYBABY CROSBY to be spayed / neutered before they do more damage to our future by making more penguins fans who say yins.

well, that's how it would be in my perfect world.

FTFY

refixed. i want crosby to have babies, so she can explain to them how they got swept by the Bruins in the 2013 playoffs! Ahhh, suck it Crosby!

There is a difference between collecting insurance coverage you paid for and seeking damages from someone. I pay for quite a bit of coverage in case my stupidity, bad luck, someone else's lack of coverage cause an expense I cannot cover. If she had "drop a kid in a pit of wild dogs" coverage then by all means her company should be paying out.

I was in a serious accident that I caused and put in a claim to my company. Since it was my fault the state also billed my insurance company for the sign I took down, as they should. I did not go on to try and get money from the state even though my injuries ware caused by their big rock that should have been made of foam since it was right next to a highway.

As tragic as this is, and I would never want or wish for someone to be in that situation, when are we (as a nation and culturally) going to start holding people accountable for their own personal responsibility.

Why is everything always somebody elses fault?

I suppose I should sue Honda for making their car prone to snap oversteer when I slid in to a jersy barrier, since my lack of skill and poor judgement to be dicking around on (empty) public roads clearly isn't my fault.

And things like this have a way of snowballing.

So say the zoo pays to put up another fence, that costs money, that will take away from other exibits that might need rennovation and/or improvements. The zoo likely carries insurance as well, so it's safe to assume this event will cause them to be required to carry more insurance (because lawyers) and makes tickets to the zoo cost more and/or less money going in to maintaining/rennovating/etc the zoo grounds. Since tickets cost more, less people go to the zoo. etc. etc.

Another example, something I am dealing with right now so it's fresh on my mind. It's this exact mindset of it being someone else's fault that has caused things like General Aviation to cost ridiculous amounts of money, as well as stagnating any kind of real advancements in technology, to do nothing more than line the pockets of insurance agencies and lawyers.

In reply to AngryCorvair:

Crosby is not from Pittsburgh. He's from Canadia.

I am from Pittsburgh. If you think the way people speak in Pittsburgh bothers you..... I live here. I hear it every day. It pisses me off.

Other than the language, Pittsburgh is a pretty nice town (with a pretty decent Zoo {not joking}).

Rob R.

Seems to me that the issue here is whether or not the Zoo is negligent for providing an attraction that a visitor could potentially enter in ANY way at all, despite the height of the fall or the warning signs or the stupidity of the visitor. (You cannot throw a child into the shark tank without employee access for example, but it wouldn't take much to fall into the Croc pool.)

I guess her argument is that every potentially dangerous enclosure should be 100% inaccessible to the public, no matter what. Fair enough, but this is the old argument about how much is too much? Do we wall want to be encased in plastic bubbles for our own safety? Not me, I am smart enough to keep my kids where they are safe. My daughter survived 14 years of seeing the African Dogs at the very same exhibit, and my Son has survived once as well. So have hundreds of thousands of other kids that I have seen there, proving to me that it's not the enclosure, but the visitor that is at issue.

I would say that this is enough of a gray area that taking it to court isn't totally unreasonable. That's kind of what bringing things like this before a judge are for: an impartial arbitrator to decide for you when things aren't totally clear cut and obvious. If it's totally her fault, the judge will say so. If the zoo holds responsibility for being negligent in how safe they make their enclosures, the judge will say so.

Arguing about it here on the internet isn't going to change any of this. Learn from someone else's mistake. Handle your own E36 M3. And let the subject go so that we can keep humorous GIFs and pictures of ladies with nice jugs higher on the board.

If it gets to court the people are going to get some money, because that's just what juries do. Even if the woman is found to be 50% responsible.

impaled himself while playing hide-and-seek with friends in the pre-dawn hours of Saturday morning.

The world's not safe. There are only a few ways to deal with that
a) don't act stupid
b)

BTW, I suspect that the teen would fail a breathalyzer test....

In reply to Datsun1500:

What if that kid instead had gotten impaled by a tree branch? Now we need to protect the general public from trees. Where does it end?

In reply to Datsun1500:

They don't have curfews in Texas? And I was born in '86.....they didn't start giving out participation trophies here until sometime in the last decade

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: It ended in about 1982 when we started giving every team a trophy for participation instead of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place.

I think that's when it started. It hasn't ended yet.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: What if that kid instead had gotten impaled by a tree branch? Now we need to protect the general public from trees. Where does it end?

There's been more than one instance of various towns and cities being told by their insurance compaies to remove trees to remove the chance of a lawsuit from a falling limb or some kid falling out of one.

Way back these many years ago, we lived in a house with a pool in the back yard behind a 6 foot brick privacy fence and two steel gates. We came home one day to find some neighborhood kids in the pool, they said their mom said it would be OK for them to swim there unsupervised. My dad freaked out, the next day he called his pet attorney who told him that fence or no fence, gates or no gates he owned what is known as an attractive nuisance. And that meant that any half ass attorney could take him to court and win if someone got hurt.