To me this does not make sense. To avoid a $75K claim, they sue Apple? This is gonna be a money loser for sure. I would have my questions about the "new" ness of the 4S, too, in 2014, but trust me on this, we are never going to get to the facts of this one. Waaay too minor. Next?
They're probably testing the legal waters before launching a salvo of lawsuits against Apple.
I doubt that. If, in fact, they had evidence of a pattern of iPhones causing files (and therefore costing State Farm millions), they would bundle those together now and take that to court. The biggest problem with this current case (from their perspective) is that it seems like a one-off event which makes it impossible to argue that Apple has released a dangerous device.
Then why even bother with the lawsuit? The amount sought is insignificant to both companies. I believe they are looking for a hole and if that hole is breached, they'll file additional suits. They're just testing out a legal theory right now.
To me this does not make sense. To avoid a $75K claim, they sue Apple? This is gonna be a money loser for sure. I would have my questions about the "new" ness of the 4S, too, in 2014, but trust me on this, we are never going to get to the facts of this one. Waaay too minor. Next?
They're probably testing the legal waters before launching a salvo of lawsuits against Apple.
I doubt that. If, in fact, they had evidence of a pattern of iPhones causing files (and therefore costing State Farm millions), they would bundle those together now and take that to court. The biggest problem with this current case (from their perspective) is that it seems like a one-off event which makes it impossible to argue that Apple has released a dangerous device.
Then why even bother with the lawsuit? The amount sought is insignificant to both companies. I believe they are looking for a hole and if that hole is breached, they'll file additional suits.
I think that makes the most sense. Although, an alternative could be that they're finding ways to have their law firm(s) bill hours to square up a nonrefundable retainer. I.e.: throw shit at a wall because it doesn't cost State Farm any money to do so, even if their chance of success is less than the chance of the Apple's negligence in this case.
To me this does not make sense. To avoid a $75K claim, they sue Apple? This is gonna be a money loser for sure. I would have my questions about the "new" ness of the 4S, too, in 2014, but trust me on this, we are never going to get to the facts of this one. Waaay too minor. Next?
They're probably testing the legal waters before launching a salvo of lawsuits against Apple.
I doubt that. If, in fact, they had evidence of a pattern of iPhones causing files (and therefore costing State Farm millions), they would bundle those together now and take that to court. The biggest problem with this current case (from their perspective) is that it seems like a one-off event which makes it impossible to argue that Apple has released a dangerous device.
Then why even bother with the lawsuit? The amount sought is insignificant to both companies. I believe they are looking for a hole and if that hole is breached, they'll file additional suits.
I think that makes the most sense. Although, an alternative could be that they're finding ways to have their law firm(s) bill hours to square up a nonrefundable retainer. I.e.: throw shit at a wall because it doesn't cost State Farm any money to do so, even if their chance of success is less than the chance of the Apple's negligence in this case.
Their lawyers are in house and salaried. My brother is a lawyer for GEICO. State Farm's end game is not necessarily to get all the money but to recover some of the money they paid out which is entirely in the realm of possibility.
we are never going to get to the facts of this one
This. This also makes me shake my head when I read SO MANY stupid and ignorant comments not based on evidence but mere moronic bias. The ration of cogent thought to lunacy here is about 1:25. Some people seem to think that because they thunk it it must be fact.
Insurance companies, like any company, are in business to make money. How does anybody not know that when companies pay a claim for their client, they go after the at-fault party. If it's their client maybe they raise rates or drop them. Maybe not. If it's anybody else then they go after their insurance company or them. Simple. This is no different.
Do we know it's Apple's fault? No. Do we know it's not Apple's fault? No. Do we know a third-party charger was at fault? No. Do we know there was a third-party charger? I don't know. Does either Apple or State Farm know what caused the fire? I don't know.
Without knowing any or all of the above it's pretty difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the subject, but that doesn't stop a parade of idiots.
State Farm is not a ambulance chaser so there's probably no conclusive proof at this point that the phone (Apple's product) didn't cause the fire. If Apple had such proof, and that it was a third-party charger or something else and not the phone.
Apple obviously has a strong legal team, so I have to think that State Farm feels they have a strong case or they wouldn't engage in what otherwise would be a horrendous waste of time and billable hours.
But we will never know the facts. I now return you to our regular bitch-fest, still in progress.
Right?! Sex is irrelevant unless one tries to make a lame argument that girls aren’t very good with electronics. I guess we need to know her weight, height, hair color, and other physical aspects, too¡
Only redheads file frivolous lawsuits. Everyone knows that.
A lot of people seem to know everything about the case and didn't even catch that HE is a SHE...
I missed that the plaintiff is female also. Important? No.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
Right?! Sex is irrelevant unless one tries to make a lame argument that girls aren’t very good with electronics. I guess we need to know her weight, height, hair color, and other physical aspects, too¡
That's not the point. If one read the article, one would know that the plaintiff is female. Referring to the plaintiff as "him" suggests the person making the comment didn't read the article very carefully. If they got that detail wrong, it leads one to wonder what else they may have missed or misunderstood? It's hard to take an opinion seriously when the person presenting it doesn't appear to have a very firm grasp of the particulars.
So, it's not that the sex of the plaintiff is relevant, it's that some people comment without paying attention to the details, some of which may be important.
A lot of people seem to know everything about the case and didn't even catch that HE is a SHE...
I missed that the plaintiff is female also. Important? No.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
Right?! Sex is irrelevant unless one tries to make a lame argument that girls aren’t very good with electronics. I guess we need to know her weight, height, hair color, and other physical aspects, too¡
That's not the point. If one read the article, one would know that the plaintiff is female. Referring to the plaintiff as "him" suggests the person making the comment didn't read the article very carefully. If they got that detail wrong, it leads one to wonder what else they may have missed or misunderstood? It's hard to take an opinion seriously when the person presenting it doesn't appear to have a very firm grasp of the particulars.
So, it's not that the sex of the plaintiff is relevant, it's that some people comment without paying attention to the details, some of which may be important.
This is an Internet forum not a research paper so I'm definitely not going to "read the article very carefully." Pronouns and prepositions add so much filler that I can't even be sure that I read them at all when I skimmed the article—maybe I did, but then failed to create a memory because it was irreverent data. I couldn't even tell you who wrote the article and yet I'm sure the authors name was clearly posted. I also couldn't tell you if there was a picture, the number of paragraphs or any other data, but I do seem to recall it included a Scribd(?) attachment, which I definitely would've skipped. Kudos to you if you peruse every article very carefully or have an eidetic memory, but that isn't me.
A lot of people seem to know everything about the case and didn't even catch that HE is a SHE...
I missed that the plaintiff is female also. Important? No.
Why? Because at least theoretically, the gender of the plaintiff is legally irrelevant. You know: "equal justice under the law".
So, when I read the complaint, I was reading for the legally relevant language: jurisdiction, legal theory (contract or torts, statutory claim), negligence or intentional, damages, timing, whether the complaint would pass a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff attorney.
Given the complaint, and that legal entity filing is from State Farm, I'm surprised by the lack of specificity. Frankly. an entity like State Farm, always has a litany of courts cases active at any time, and complex boilerplate complaint forms modified for the particular allegations. The complaint simply does not read like a complaint from an entity who files cases like this routinely.
Right?! Sex is irrelevant unless one tries to make a lame argument that girls aren’t very good with electronics. I guess we need to know her weight, height, hair color, and other physical aspects, too¡
That's not the point. If one read the article, one would know that the plaintiff is female. Referring to the plaintiff as "him" suggests the person making the comment didn't read the article very carefully. If they got that detail wrong, it leads one to wonder what else they may have missed or misunderstood? It's hard to take an opinion seriously when the person presenting it doesn't appear to have a very firm grasp of the particulars.
So, it's not that the sex of the plaintiff is relevant, it's that some people comment without paying attention to the details, some of which may be important.
This is an Internet forum not a research paper so I'm definitely not going to "read the article very carefully." Pronouns and prepositions add so much filler that I can't even be sure that I read them at all when I skimmed the article—maybe I did, but then failed to create a memory because it was irreverent data. I couldn't even tell you who wrote the article and yet I'm sure the authors name was clearly posted. I also couldn't tell you if there was a picture, the number of paragraphs or any other data, but I do seem to recall it included a Scribd(?) attachment, which I definitely would've skipped. Kudos to you if you peruse every article very carefully or have an eidetic memory, but that isn't me.
Fine. I accept that. If anything, it reinforces the point I was making, which was and is: The sex of the plaintiff isn't the relevant issue, it's that people make comments based on only a subset of the information presented.
[...] "Xai Thao" says "third-party charger" to me.
I hope you don't live in my community with that attitude. Generalizing about a person's assumed behaviour based on their name is not only really faulty logic, it's insulting.
This suit is absurd. even on the off chance of a "defective" device working issue free 2 to 7 years after purchase and well after Apple care or warranty would have expired State Farm is in no way entitled a single cent beyond miss Thao's deductible and premiums that were presumably paid.
State Farm is an insurance company and insurance is purchased for scenarios like this
the only court outcomes should be State Farm being forced into reimbursement to Ms Thao for anything they've yet to cover
from Apple's perspective at the very most albeit it quite unlikely I would consider settling for nothing more than 1 FREE Apple Product or iPhone Make and model of choice and maybe throw in free Apple Care+
but Apple darn sure shouldn't be obligated for anything beyond that cost or monetary wise
so much for "Like A Good Neighbor State Farm is there" such a sham
You seem to misunderstand how insurance works. State Farm covers the fire claim, but they will always try to be reimbursed from the "responsible" party, even if that means suing them. For the sake of argument, let's say that Apple is indeed responsible. In such a scenario, State Farm pays the homeowner, then sues Apple, and assuming State Farm wins, then Apple's insurance pays State Farm.
It's like when you're involved in a car accident that wasn't your fault. Your insurance doesn't pay for your damages when it's not your fault - the insurance of the person responsible for the accident does. In this case, the person responsible for the fire (i.e., Apple) ultimately pays, or at least their insurance. (Again, for the sake of argument. The best State Farm can hope for here is a settlement, but I'd be surprised if they even get that.)
If you caused the fire in your own house (left the stove on before leaving, for example), does State Farm sue you because you're responsible for the fire? Or deny the claim? Of course not - that's part of what insurance covers - people making mistakes. Just like accidents in cars.
I agree insurance companies may go after a third party, but there has to be something worthwhile. Like the 4S having a history of catching fire and Apple refusing to do a recall. Or an automotive manufacturer knowingly selling a car with a safety defect. A one-off event isn't enough for them to sue Apple. Or to claim Apple knowingly sold a defective device.
I think we're saying the same thing. The post I replied to seemed to think that it was weird that an insurance company would go after a third party for damages. It's not at all. But I agree that this particular case is folly.
If you caused the fire in your own house (left the stove on before leaving, for example), does State Farm sue you because you're responsible for the fire? Or deny the claim? Of course not - that's part of what insurance covers - people making mistakes. Just like accidents in cars.
I agree insurance companies may go after a third party, but there has to be something worthwhile. Like the 4S having a history of catching fire and Apple refusing to do a recall. Or an automotive manufacturer knowingly selling a car with a safety defect. A one-off event isn't enough for them to sue Apple. Or to claim Apple knowingly sold a defective device.
This. Where does it stop? In your scenario about the stove, does State Farm go after General Electric because they made the stove?
I have not heard of anyone going after the manufacturer of an appliance every time there is a fire, or you would hear of this ALL the time! Companies that made toasters and hairdryers just wouldn't be in business anymore! Ridiculous.
In the tragic Grenville Tower fire in London recently, they are not looking at the manufacturer of the fridge that shorted! They are looking at the decisions of those that approved the outside wall cladding that allowed the fire to spread between floors, and which was put up to save money against industry standards and legislated practice in the US for buildings over three stories tall!
If you caused the fire in your own house (left the stove on before leaving, for example), does State Farm sue you because you're responsible for the fire? Or deny the claim? Of course not - that's part of what insurance covers - people making mistakes. Just like accidents in cars.
I agree insurance companies may go after a third party, but there has to be something worthwhile. Like the 4S having a history of catching fire and Apple refusing to do a recall. Or an automotive manufacturer knowingly selling a car with a safety defect. A one-off event isn't enough for them to sue Apple. Or to claim Apple knowingly sold a defective device.
This. Where does it stop? In your scenario about the stove, does State Farm go after General Electric because they made the stove?
I have not heard of anyone going after the manufacturer of an appliance every time there is a fire, or you would hear of this ALL the time! Companies that made toasters and hairdryers just wouldn't be in business anymore! Ridiculous.
In the tragic Grenville Tower fire in London recently, they are not looking at the manufacturer of the fridge that shorted! They are looking at the decisions of those that approved the outside wall cladding that allowed the fire to spread between floors, and which was put up to save money against industry standards and legislated practice in the US for buildings over three stories tall!
How do you know what anyone is looking for, or what we would hear?
Comments
Insurance companies, like any company, are in business to make money. How does anybody not know that when companies pay a claim for their client, they go after the at-fault party. If it's their client maybe they raise rates or drop them. Maybe not. If it's anybody else then they go after their insurance company or them. Simple. This is no different.
Do we know it's Apple's fault? No.
Do we know it's not Apple's fault? No.
Do we know a third-party charger was at fault? No.
Do we know there was a third-party charger? I don't know.
Does either Apple or State Farm know what caused the fire? I don't know.
Without knowing any or all of the above it's pretty difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the subject, but that doesn't stop a parade of idiots.
State Farm is not a ambulance chaser so there's probably no conclusive proof at this point that the phone (Apple's product) didn't cause the fire. If Apple had such proof, and that it was a third-party charger or something else and not the phone.
Apple obviously has a strong legal team, so I have to think that State Farm feels they have a strong case or they wouldn't engage in what otherwise would be a horrendous waste of time and billable hours.
But we will never know the facts. I now return you to our regular bitch-fest, still in progress.
So, it's not that the sex of the plaintiff is relevant, it's that some people comment without paying attention to the details, some of which may be important.
I hope you don't live in my community with that attitude. Generalizing about a person's assumed behaviour based on their name is not only really faulty logic, it's insulting.
But hey, "freedom" ahr ahr ahr
This. Where does it stop? In your scenario about the stove, does State Farm go after General Electric because they made the stove?
I have not heard of anyone going after the manufacturer of an appliance every time there is a fire, or you would hear of this ALL the time! Companies that made toasters and hairdryers just wouldn't be in business anymore! Ridiculous.
In the tragic Grenville Tower fire in London recently, they are not looking at the manufacturer of the fridge that shorted! They are looking at the decisions of those that approved the outside wall cladding that allowed the fire to spread between floors, and which was put up to save money against industry standards and legislated practice in the US for buildings over three stories tall!