Let's Boycott United Airlines

I don't know, but there should not be a rule against being on a plane that you have a ticket to be on.

There is.
Airline passengers have rights. According to the carriage contract that the Dr. signed, he shouldn't have been removed. That is why the CEO appologized. I published the relevant portion of said agreement earlier in this thread.
 
There is.
Airline passengers have rights. According to the carriage contract that the Dr. signed, he shouldn't have been removed. That is why the CEO appologized. I published the relevant portion of said agreement earlier in this thread.

OK maybe he should not have been removed, I'll grant you that. But nothing says he can't be dragged around and beaten to a bloody pulp.
 
Jarod, i'm not sure why you think I should apologize to you since the stories you posted about say nothing about the settlements coming from a general fund. you were a DA. you should know how these things work. cities have insurance policies strictly for use to settle cases due to misconduct. and sailor is still a retarded dumbass. his posting style is very reminiscent of another boneheaded idiot who used to post here in the past always claiming he's right but never having a shred of proof for it.
 
I believe you are lying. i've posted numerous threads about this. the only reason I can think of that a general fund settlement would be approved is that the insurance wouldn't do it. very rare


He's not necessarily lying. He is making an incorrect generalization based on his personal experience.

It does come from the general fund in some jurisdictions. The biggest jurisdictions are self insured. They have litigation funds for this purpose. Some smaller districts use private insurance.

http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Schwartz-63-5.pdf
 
Jarod, i'm not sure why you think I should apologize to you since the stories you posted about say nothing about the settlements coming from a general fund. you were a DA. you should know how these things work. cities have insurance policies strictly for use to settle cases due to misconduct. and sailor is still a retarded dumbass. his posting style is very reminiscent of another boneheaded idiot who used to post here in the past always claiming he's right but never having a shred of proof for it.

Read again, several of them discuss where exactly the funds come from and they all discuss the City Counsel approving the settlements. When an insurance company settles, they do not need approval from the insured.

You are simply, flat out wrong. You are talking with a lawyer who has been through the process.
 
He's not necessarily lying. He is making an incorrect generalization based on his personal experience.

It does come from the general fund in some jurisdictions. The biggest jurisdictions are self insured. They have litigation funds for this purpose. Some smaller districts use private insurance.

http://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Schwartz-63-5.pdf

There are some municipalities who have insurance for general negligence, I have done those cases also, but I don't think they can get insurance for a 1983 action.
 
Read again, several of them discuss where exactly the funds come from and they all discuss the City Counsel approving the settlements. When an insurance company settles, they do not need approval from the insured.

You are simply, flat out wrong. You are talking with a lawyer who has been through the process.


You are both wrong to some degree. Bigger cities do not carry private insurance but they don't usually pay from the general fund either. They have so much money it makes no sense to buy private insurance. They self insure by creating a fund separate from the general fund.

Outside the cities private insurance is fairly common.
 
Back
Top