REI appeals Monika's case

Steve, I respect and appreciate your thoughts. I nevertheless find it incredulous that REI is and has been powerless in this matter. The petitioner in the appeal is REI, not REI's product liability insurance carrier. What's more, nothing has precluded REI from making a gesture, of ANY kind, to recognize that Monika was victim in this case.

At the very least, REI could have bought her a tooth.....

I'm also a lawyer. Steve's analysis was very informative (thanks for that Steve), but I disagree that REI is not in control in this case. I'm sure they wield incredible power over their insurer compared to the typical policy holder, because of the amount of coverage they likely procure on an annual basis. If they wanted the insurer to pay the claim or offer a reasonable settlement, I'm confident that would happen. They also have the means to settle and/or pay the claim directly, without affecting their bottom line in the least. The legal issues Steve mentioned are all relevant from a business perspective, but if the same thing happened to REI's CEO or one of her family members, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been any appeals. Would you disagree with that conclusion Steve?

At this point, even if REI settles / pays out - I am still very hesitant about supporting it.

After all, it seems that when it does (IF it does) - it would be driven only out of concern for lost potential profits. I prefer to spend my money with organizations, which are motivated to do the right thing based on their ethics and concern for customers / members

Cheers
Ivo

Yes, G2G I will respectfully disagree.  I deal with insurance carriers (mostly professional malpractice carriers because I sometimes represent or sue attorneys or other professionals) but I have reviewed numerous products liability policies and been involved in a few PL coverage disputes.  IME, all PL policies allocate control to the carrier and a carrier will control the litigation decisions notwithstanding the insured's protests, especially when a legal issue of first impression is at stake and that issue may have a future ripple effect of millions of dollars.  So, I will disagree with the notion that REI could have pressured its carrier to settle in this case.  I am currently dealing with a similar situation, and the carrier is wholly unmoved by my client's strong desire to settle.

Also, the policy likely provides that REI is not permitted to make any payouts, publish apologies, etc., lest it forfeit coverage.  And doing something to forfeit coverage would be a breach of the REI’s board’s obligations to its members.  Let me say it again: unless something wholly outside my experience is happening, the carrier is in control and REI cannot do anything about that.

But this misses the point.  Directing anger at REI is what the insurance industry wants you to do, that is, blame someone other than the insurance carrier and the lawmakers in its pockets which  created these circumstances.  I would hope that this sort of injustice would get people focused on the real culprit.  But that doesn’t appear to be happening so the insurance industry’s tactics once again prove successful.

I’m not trying to defend REI here.  I’m just trying to answer some questions here based on my experience and background.  And in doing so, I really do not want in any way to diminish Monika’s legacy.  In my few encounters with her, she was delightfully friendly and I’ve never heard an unkind word about her.  I contributed to this thread because I’ve seen many other victims of insurance carriers and it saddens me that they are so successful in deflecting blame to others.

ETA: FWIW, I have a bias against REI’s bicycle biz.  As a former participant in the bicycle industry, I’ve watched REI’s dominance in some markets crush the mom & pops. 

Thank you for posting the update.  I'm sorry that Monika's friends and family have to experience this aggravation.  I hope that Monika prevails.

BigSteve provided excellent information.  Products liability is outside my expertise, but I thought this was a pretty straightforward case.  The WA Products Liability Act sets forth a provision for vicarious liability when a seller sells a product under its own name - it's as if the seller is the manufacturer.  It can be huge burden for a consumer to track down the manufacturer of a defective product, especially when there are parts coming from multiple sources all over the world.  The WPLA allows the consumer to get damages for his/her injury directly from the seller if the seller brands the product as his own.  The seller can still turn around and get damages from the manufacturer for defective parts.

This is a pretty important consumer issue.  Think of all the REI branded gear that is sold (or any other company for that matter).  If I'm injured by a defective REI  product, I wouldn't want to track down all of the different manufacturers that provided parts; REI is in a better position to do that.

For those of you who might be interested in the opinion by the WA Court of Appeals...
www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/65463-2.p...=r&cq=&id=4d50eb385f

I agree with that analysis, smoogle. I hope that the WA Supreme Court agrees with you and Division I.