REI appeals Monika's case

Randy, you are talking about a victim's medical insurance carrier subrogating to the position of the victim.  I don't know what sort of coverage Monika had, and it's none of my business.  If she had med coverage, the carrier likely did subrogate because she had some severe, expensive to treat, physical injuries.  But, as Ryan's messages seem to indicate, she suffered damages which medical insurance would not cover, e.g., deductible, lost wages, loss associated with residual brain injury.  Also, many med policies do not cover dental work.

It's a Catch 22.   No, I’m not suggesting that.  I tried to make people aware that the insurance carrier, not REI, is the entity which has failed to compensate Monika or her estate, and that the law upon which the carrier relies was the product of intensive lobbying by the insurance companies (which was enabled by the industry's multi-million dollar blame the victim propaganda campaign).  If people are angry and want to do something to help future victims like Monika, they should direct their efforts to the legislators who time and again pass laws which favor the insurance industry and screw victims, stop buying into the industry’s propaganda and resist continued efforts to influence laws which will create more victims like Monika.  Blaming REI and ignoring the powerful insurance industry merely plays into the latter’s hands.

Seems like a catch 22.  Maybe it is time for industry to stand up along with the public to fight insurance.  I can only venture a guess as to where industry would side on this issue.  Maybe a little "civil disobedience" on REI's part might be in order here.  Sure it might piss the insurer off.  Sure it might require that REI go get insurance somewhere else, or self-insure such as some medical doctors do in pools (and if they can afford to do so certainly a company like REI could).  But regarding their backs being pinned to the wall and their having to answer to their members and board, I say that the public reason they can give is that it is bad business (and could dramatically hurt their business, $$$) if this become a public relations disaster.

Maybe if companies stand up to insurance, insurance might change.  Why is it always left to individuals to take on the big dollar responsibilities?  It is far easier for the public here in this case to put pressure on the retailer (and it is ultimately their responsibility) than it is to write letters to their state or fed. legislature. Edited to add: I think that we should also write the legislature as well.

I don't disagree with any of the technical legal stuff you state.  It is perfectly logical within the bounds of our current society.  I completely disagree with you if you are suggesting that REI take none of the heat in this situation.  At the very least let us make REI stand up in public (not their insurance representative) and explain where they stand on the issue and what their goals are.

Alan

At the very least let us make REI stand up in public (not their insurance representative) and explain where they stand on the issue and what their goals are.

As I state above, doing so before the litigation is resolved would likely be a breach of the insurance policy and may result in a forfeiture of coverage.

Some here seem to assume that REI has more bargaining power than it actually has when purchasing products liability insurance.  IME, product liability policies are offered on a take it or leave it basis.  In case you haven't noticed, the insurance companies, banks, defense contractors and a few other country clubbers control this world.  I once heard Yvon Chouinard speak about his frustration with the product liability system.  A couple decades ago, a series of products liability suits forced Chouinard Equipment into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The technical equipment assets got sold out of BK to some CE employees (who formed Black Diamond).  Yvon took the soft goods into Patagonia.  He said that he missed dealing with the hard goods -- he was, of course, the inventor of many modern climbing devices -- but that he had grown weary of the product liablity issues and thus stayed away from BD's operation.  He specifically mentioned his frustration with the litigation control exerted by the insurance carriers.  (IIRC, he was dismayed by one insurance payout to a victim who had misused a product and, in his opinion, was not entitled to compensation.)

I don’t want to start a political argument here but, to fully understand the grip that the insurance industry has on American manufacturers, retailers and other industries, one might compare our system to Western Europe.  Western Europe does not have a tort system like ours (although one seems to be emerging in some nations).  Instead, people like Monika are compensated via socialized programs.  The government regulates designs and quality, and imposes fines, often very stiff fines, on manufacturers of dangerously defective products, and can even shut down the worst offenders.  The proceeds of the fines go into the govt general funds, thus helping to set off expenditures for compensation victims like Monika, whose medical expenses, lost wages and disability are covered by socialized systems.  This system cuts out the insurance middleman and the trial attorney middleman.  Americans seem to prefer the so-called tort (jury lottery) system even though a great deal of wealth gets skimmed off by the insurance companies and trial attorneys.  I am not suggesting here which system is better.  I bring up the issue only to help people take a big step backwards and see a bigger picture of how other parts of the developed world compensate victims of dangerously defective products.

is there any chance the state supreme court would refuse to review the case and thus let the prior ruling stand as the final judgement?

Randy, you are talking about a victim's medical insurance carrier subrogating to the position of the victim. I don't know what sort of coverage Monika had, and it's none of my business. If she had med coverage, the carrier likely did subrogate because she had some severe, expensive to treat, physical injuries. But, as Ryan's messages seem to indicate, she suffered damages which medical insurance would not cover, e.g., deductible, lost wages, loss associated with residual brain injury. Also, many med policies do not cover dental work.

Steve I think you make some good points -- doesn't it seem like if her medical insurance company persued cost recovery for the expenses covered by their policy that liability for expenses not covered would be (at least to some degree) established? It seems like the unpleasant thing here isn't that REI is offering a settlement that is unjustly small -- but that they are contending they bear no responsiblity for the injuries incurred.

is there any chance the state supreme court would refuse to review the case and thus let the prior ruling stand as the final judgement?

Yes and no. Yes, the WA Supremes could deny cert. No to the second question becuase there is no final judgment. The case would be remanded to the trial court and proceed. That's how I interpret the procedural status of the case.