REI appeals Monika's case

Steve, you speak as though a breach of insurance policy and forfeiture of coverage is a natural and definitive place to end discussion about REI's responsibility in this.  As though either or both of those alternatives represent a line which REI is unable to cross. I disagree. Breaching an insurance policy and forfeiting coverage would be no more difficult to navigate and no more of an inconvenience to REI than any of the challenges Monika had to overcome in the past 4 years.  Apples to oranges, perhaps. But rotten apples and rotten oranges are both rotten.

What's more, as Monika's attorney has pointed out, REI could have avoided having to make such a difficult decision had it worked out the most basic type of contract with its supplier ( Fairly Bike Manufacturing Company was contracted by REI to make Monika's bike) such that REI would have recourse in the event of an accident due to a defective component manufactured by an entity other than the supplier (Aprebic, contracted by Fairly, made the fork).  REI failed to do this, and now it "has its hands tied". The insurance carrier is insisting that REI appeal because REI failed to protect itself.

I don't doubt anything you've said, Steve, and I certainly don't think you've been disrespectful or insensitive in any way.  I also appreciate your enlightening me about the state of affairs in the insurance industry. I just can't get over the irony, for lack of a better word, that REI-- the company that preaches 100% satisfaction guaranteed-- left Monika high and dry. As her attorney wrote to me an email,

"REI is all about branding to its members, creating that strong sense of value, community and reliability in their products.  But when push comes to shove, when a member is seriously hurt through no fault of her own, this is their response.  Shameful"

I may be naive, and I may not understand the case completely. But I believe that REI is responsible on some level for the bike it sold Monika and that it has failed on every level to accept any of that responsibility. Even a letter saying what you said, Steve, would have eased Monika's mind. She actually felt guilty at times for seeking compensation.

So like I began....
Fuck REI

Steve, you speak as though a breach of insurance policy and forfeiture of coverage is a natural and definitive place to end discussion about REI's responsibility in this.

Ryan, I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I said.  For example, among other things, in my prior post I said:

REI marketed a dangerously defective fork and there is nothing wrong with being outraged by that and refusing to do biz with such a company.

I am dismayed to hear that REI failed to have meaningful recourse against its supplier.  (BTW, I dealt with Bob Christie years ago.  He's a very fine attorney.)  I have not suggested that REI be given a pass.  If you got that impression, please read my messages again.  But I will stand on my position that the decision to not compensate Monika and instead appeal was made by the insurance carrier, and that confining the anger to REI will not do much good to prevent future injustices to people in Monika's circumstance.  She was the victim of a system rigged in favor of the insurance carriers.  The system needs fixing.

But I will stand on my position that the decision to not compensate Monika and instead appeal was made by the insurance carrier, and that confining the anger to REI will not do much good to prevent future injustices to people in Monika's circumstance.  She was the victim of a system rigged in favor of the insurance carriers.  The system needs fixing.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

While I agree the system needs fixing, it's easier to target outrage towards an entity than an industry.

I'm not a litigator, but I have purchased commercial insurance on behalf of US corporations, and I continue to stand behind everything I said.  REI's purchasing power does significantly influence the decisions made by its insurers, irrespective of what the policy says.  Are you suggesting that an insurer does not have to take the insured's best interests (apart from just payment amounts) into account when fulfilling their defense (and potentially indemnification) obligations?  Also, do you believe the insurer acted against REI's wishes at any point in this case?  My guess is that REI has been complicit throughout.  And, a "huge judgement" to you and me is hardly even worth mentioning on REI's annual report.  As such, the BJR should be sufficient to insulate the Board's decision to settle or pay in the manner I described above.

Finally, do you disagree that the result would have been different if the injury had happened to REI's CEO or a member of her family?  IME, the rules you are touting only apply to people like Monika, but not "VIPs".  How can that possibly be the case if a corporation's hands are tied by the insurance industry, as you are suggesting?  

IMO, the focus can and should stay squarely on REI.  If there is enough public outcry, the case will be swiftly resolved.

Did REI have the bike and/or the fork designed to meet its cost requirements?

Did REI have the bike and/or the fork designed to meet its cost requirements?

Interesting question.  I would assume that cost was a factor.  Legally, in WA, it's not very relevant because the WPLA imposes strict liability on REI a private labeler.  Strict liability means that once Monika (and now her estate) establishes that the fork was dangerously defective and the defect caused injury to her, she is not required to prove fault to establish liability.  OTOH, in states with punitive damages, the manufacturer's use of cost as a factor might be relevant, e.g., the Ford Pinto memo.

G2G, I'll keep my response to your most recent comments brief and then withdrawal from this thread.  I'm not an expert on insurance bad faith law, but I have dealt with the subject numerous times in the past 20+ years.  I am pretty certain that the duty of an insurance carrier does not extend anywhere near the extent you suggest.

I'm out of this thread.  I have done what I can to raise awareness of a rigged system and hope some of someone here might do something (e.g., vote against the next anti-victim/pro-carrier initiative) to help future victims of that rigged system.  (Mofro, note that I condemned the entire system, i.e., the insurance industry, its lobbyists, its PR blame the victim propagandists and the legislators.)

I wish Monika's estate, Monika's loved ones and Mr. Christie's firm all the best.  I am hopeful that justice will be served and that the WA Supremes will either deny cert or affirm Division I.