In one of the most bizarre cases in a long time, an insurance company is forcing a woman into being both plaintiff and defendant.
In one of the most bizarre cases in a long time, an insurance company is forcing a woman into being both plaintiff and defendant.
In November 2011, Barbara Bagley was driving with her husband when she lost control of the vehicle. Her husband died from his injuries in the crash when the car rolled over.
Bagley is the executor of her late husband’s estate (plaintiff) and the person responsible for his death (defendant).
Proving she has one very savvy lawyer, she was forced to bring a wrongful death suit against the driver for negligence causing her husband’s death on behalf of his late estate, as theoretically, the insurer would have to cover the cost for her negligence while driving.
Originally the district court dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed the ruling.
And it all boiled to semantics – or the curse of all: grammar.
The court of appeals determined that the “absence of punctuation marks separating” the words “death of a person” from “of another” in the language is read to mean that the two are connected, and “another” only refers to a person other than the decedent, according to the opinion.
The lawyers Bagley’s insurance company provided to defend Bagley, the heir to the estate, argued that the reading of the statute to allow for her to file an action against herself, was “‘contrary to…basic notions of fairness and decency’ and contrary to public policy.”
But the court of appeals rejected the argument because the defendant did not define the public policy nor make reference to any policy within the jurisdiction regarding the notions of fairness and decency.
Confused yet?
In November 2011, Barbara Bagley was driving with her husband when she lost control of the vehicle. Her husband died from his injuries in the crash when the car rolled over.
Bagley is the executor of her late husband’s estate (plaintiff) and the person responsible for his death (defendant).
Proving she has one very savvy lawyer, she was forced to bring a wrongful death suit against the driver for negligence causing her husband’s death on behalf of his late estate, as theoretically, the insurer would have to cover the cost for her negligence while driving.
Originally the district court dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed the ruling.
And it all boiled to semantics – or the curse of all: grammar.
The court of appeals determined that the “absence of punctuation marks separating” the words “death of a person” from “of another” in the language is read to mean that the two are connected, and “another” only refers to a person other than the decedent, according to the opinion.
The lawyers Bagley’s insurance company provided to defend Bagley, the heir to the estate, argued that the reading of the statute to allow for her to file an action against herself, was “‘contrary to…basic notions of fairness and decency’ and contrary to public policy.”
But the court of appeals rejected the argument because the defendant did not define the public policy nor make reference to any policy within the jurisdiction regarding the notions of fairness and decency.
Confused yet?
