It seems these days that everyone has a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

Children and their grandparents alike seem to be “tweeting” a Twitter and posting on Facebook.

Facebook users are also becoming less guarded with the information they post on their pages.  You can find out just about anything about a person from their Facebook page-everything from political views to what they ate for dinner.   Facebook and Twitter users are also more likely to post opinions on topics they feel strongly about.

Because of the amount of information that can be discovered through social media, Facebook and other social media sites has become an important tool for attorneys.

During a part of jury selection called voir dire, lawyers ask jurors questions to try and gauge biases and to understand the type of person a juror is – all in the pursuit of a fair jury for their respective clients. Sometimes attorneys fail to ask just the right question or to ask it in a way that causes the juror to provide important information about their opinions on a given topic. The use of social media investigation has provided lawyers and their clients with new information allowing more insight into juror bias and personality than the need to perfectly formulate just the right question.

According to a July 2011 ABA Journal article, Casey Anthony’s defense team found social media helpful in formulating their defense strategy.  Anthony’s defense counsel also used social media during jury selection.

A consultant for the Casey Anthony team analyzed more than 40,000 opinions on social media sites and blogs, including Facebook and Twitter.  Jose Baez, Anthony’s lead attorney, took these opinions into account when determining how the defense would proceed in the case.

“I’ve spent 32 years listening to people’s reactions to trial stimulus, but it’s never been anything like this,” said Amy Singer, the Fort Lauderdale-based consultant for the Casey Anthony trial.  “This whole case was driven by social media.  We really tapped into people’s minds and I think it’s a tool that should be used by defense and prosecution.”

**Megan O’Connor is a law student at Florida State University. We have been fortunate to have her working at our firm as a summer assistant.**

The ABA today released a list of 30 books that 30 different lawyers suggested every lawyer should read.  The ABA admitted, “…they are not the greatest or the most popular” and the ABA has not ranked or reviewed them, so I am curious to know your thoughts.

Personally, one of my favorite books is Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell.  After reading that book, you will feel like you can tackle the world.  I assure you it is a fantastic read and worth your time.

As a dedicated law student, I am curious what your thoughts are about the list.

Are some better than others? Are some a waste of time?

Clearly, none of us has the time to read all 30 so I thought I would ask everyone their thoughts.

Here is the list:

1. My Life in Court by Louis Nizer
2. Colossus: Hoover Dam and the Making of the American Century by Michael Hiltzik
3. 1861: The Civil War Awakening by Adam Goodheart
4. The Story of My Life by Clarence Darrow
5. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being by Martin E.P. Seligman
6. And the Dead Shall Rise: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank by Steve Oney
7. Personal History by Katharine Graham
8. Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
9. Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff
10. The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
11. Leadership on the Federal Bench: The Craft and Activism of Jack Weinstein by Jeffrey B. Morris
12. My Personal Best: Life Lessons from an All-American Journey by John Wooden with Steve Jamison
13. The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs
14. The Horse’s Mouth by Joyce Cary
15. In the Shadow of the Law by Kermit Roosevelt
16. One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School by Scott Turow
17. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality by Richard Kluger
18. The Man to See by Evan Thomas
19. The End of Anger: A New Generation’s Take on Race and Rage by Ellis Cose
20. Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process by Robert M. Cover
21. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ by Daniel Goleman
22. A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines
23. The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking about the Law by Ward Farnsworth
24. Cry, the Beloved Country by Alan Paton
25. A Nation of Immigrants by John F. Kennedy
26. Respect for Acting by Uta Hagen and Haskel Frankel
27. The Trial by Franz Kafka
28. Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn
29. Justice for All: Earl Warren and the Nation He Made by Jim Newton
30. Civility: Manners, Morals and the Etiquette of Democracy by Stephen L. Carter

Automobile accidents happen. With the sheer numbers of people driving on roads in South Florida crashes, fender benders and car accidents are inevitable. In many of those accidents no one is seriously injured; sadly in some people suffer significant injuries and tragically sometimes death.

When an automobile accident happens information is important, but it is also a time when recalling that important information is difficult.

So, we created the accident checklist on our site to assist drivers in the unfortunate event of a car crash and we have tried to remind you that obtaining accident information is important.

Now, “we have an app for that”! We have produced a free iPhone app for use in the event of an accident. You can obtain the SearcyLaw Accident Dashboard for free, on the Apple site by clicking here.

We hope that you never suffer a traffic accident, but if you do, we hope the app we have created will be of assistance to you.

The Florida Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal yesterday made by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. following a $28.3 million jury verdict in 2009.   The court upheld the verdict in a one-page order, denied jurisdiction, and noted, “no motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.”  RJ Reynolds had claimed that the lower court improperly applied the famous Engle decision.

That decision involved Howard A. Engle, M.D. who was a Florida Pediatrician and died in 2009 as a result of lung cancer.  Dr. Engle was the lead plaintiff in the Florida tobacco class action.  A jury awarded the class $145 billion in punitive damages; however, the Florida Supreme Court rejected and ruled that the case could not continue as a class.  Nevertheless, the decision upheld the factual findings in the case and said the findings would apply in all of the subsequent cases filed by smokers who were part of the class. Those smokers are now proceeding with individual lawsuits called “Engle progeny cases”.

The decision that was denied appeal yesterday was made by a Pensacola jury who awarded widow, Mathilde Martin $3.3 million in compensatory and $25 million in punitive damages.  Her husband, Benny Martin, died in 1995 of lung cancer following his long-time smoking addiction to “Lucky Strike” cigarettes.  The jury found RJ Reynolds 66 percent responsible and Benny 34 percent responsible.

The jury determined in the Martin case:

1. smoking cigarettes caused a variety of health problems,
2. cigarettes containing nicotine were addictive,
3. the defendants manufactured unreasonably dangerous cigarettes, and
4. the defendants concealed important information from the public.

Mathilde Martin’s attorney, Matt Schultz, stated, “today the Florida Supreme Court sent a message to Big Tobacco that the era of endless appeals is over. The industry must now answer for its decades-long conspiracy to defraud the public in pursuit of the almighty dollar.”

The Engle progeny cases are unique from most tobacco related lawsuits in the past. The plaintiffs in these cases were people who began smoking and became addicted to cigarettes before the 1960’s Report of the Surgeon General relating to the dangers of cigarettes.

Many of these people began their addiction as a result of cigarettes given away free on street corners by tobacco companies; many were in the military during WWII and started smoking the free cigarettes given to servicemen and women by tobacco companies; and many simply started smoking because everyone seemed to be doing it. Tobacco companies ran advertisements with the rich and famous promoting the positive health and social effects of smoking cigarettes.  Actors, actresses, sports heroes and doctors were used in advertisements telling people that smoking cigarettes was good for them.

It seems as if it has been several decades ago that people learned of the addictiveness and harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. It is true that the Surgeon General issued his warning in the early 1960’s, but as late as 1994, tobacco companies still maintained that cigarettes and nicotine were not addictive. In this video, the seven CEO’s of tobacco companies testified under oath that nicotine was not addictive. These CEO’s became known as “the seven dwarves”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQUNk5meJHs[/youtube]

In fact, tobacco lawyers still, today, come into courtrooms across Florida and the nation claiming that cigarettes are not addictive.

With only a month or so until summer is up, now might be an excellent time to consider childproofing your home.   Many parents can become quite busy around the fall season with the start of school, homework, soccer practices, PTA meetings, etc. (not to stress you out).   Furthermore, for many, fall begins a time when more people enter your home because of football season and the holidays.   This can lead to extra little ones running around your home and it is important that both you and your house are prepared.  Consequently, even though you may have less time for projects, this one should be at the top of your “To Do” list.

In fact, did you know that every year, there are more than 3,000,000 unintentional injuries to children 14 and under that happen in the home and require care in an emergency room? That works out to 8,219 injuries per day.   And sadly, each day approximately six children die from injuries resulting from fires, burns, drowning, poisoning, choking, suffocation, strangulation, and falls in the home.

Kids can be curious and do not always understand the difference between toys and dangerous objects.  Take a thorough look at your home and ask yourself – what looks interesting for my child to play with that could lead to an unsafe situation?

Babies who can sit and crawl are at risk for choking, poisoning, burns, falls, and furniture tip-overs. Once your little one becomes mobile and begins to cruise around, childproofing becomes even more important.

So what can you do as a parent? While constant supervision is the most important safety precaution you can take, it is impractical and sometimes not enough. To create a safer home for your child, look for potential hazards and take steps to remove them before it is too late.  You should also review a home safety checklist that will help remind you of some of the spots in your home you might have forgot.

Topamax, is the antiepileptic drug that has been shown to cause oral clefts in infants whose mothers took the drug while pregnant and may actually increase a woman’s chance of becoming pregnant.

According to Topamax’s label, the drug may reduce the effectiveness of oral contraceptives.  Topamax use can lead to the development of a cleft lip or cleft palate during the first trimester of pregnancy, often before many women are aware that they are pregnant.  Cleft lip and cleft palate are craniofacial birth defects that are the result of the improper formation of a child’s upper lip or palate during fetal development.  Oral clefts continue to cause complications throughout life including feeding difficulties, ear infections, hearing loss, dental problems, and speech and language delays.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gomOKSsWokQ[/youtube]

Studies have also shown that Topamax reduces the effectiveness of birth control pills when it is used in combination with valproic acid, an anticonvulsant drug also used for the treatment of epilepsy.  When taken with valproic acid, Topamax decreases the body’s expose to ethinyl estradiol, a form of estrogen used in oral contraceptives.

Data collected from the North American Antiepileptic Drug (NAAED) Pregnancy Registry shows a 1.4% incidence of oral clefts in infants whose mothers were treated with Topamax during the first trimester, compared to 0.07% in infants of mothers who were not treated with antiepileptic drugs.

Because of the risk of birth defects associated with Topamax use, the FDA urges doctors to discuss birth control with their female patients.  If a woman discovers she has become pregnant while taking Topamax, she should contact her doctor immediately.

Many times consumers are perplexed as to why they have had their auto insurance rates increased after an accident that was not their fault. In Florida, there are actually some statutory guidelines of which consumers should be aware. These guidelines fall under the domain of Fla. Stat. 626.9541 - Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices

First, let me make sure there is an understanding of the difference between a general global insurance rate increase and that of an actual surcharge to an individual policy holder. Typically, insurance rates are governed by the Florida Department of Financial Services. When it comes to increasing rates on a global basis for an entire class of policy holders, insurance carriers have specific processes and procedures they are required to follow. What we are discussing here are the incidences when an insurance carrier specifically surcharges* ( adds an additional extra premium) a specific policy holder due to an accident. Fla. Sta. 626.9541 indicates that it is, in general, an unfair act or practice to surcharge a policy holder solely because the insured was in an accident, unless the insurer in good faith believes the insured was substantially at fault in the accident. Insurance carriers fault code each accident for underwriting purposes, hence if an adjuster wrongly indicates an insured is 51% or greater at fault. Sometimes carriers, without substantial fault by their policy holder, chose to pay a liability claim just to avoid a complaint or an expensive legal battle. That is indeed their prerogative to do. However, they should not surcharge the policyholder. Please note the insurer, at the time of notice of any surcharge, is required to advise the insured that he, or she, is entitled to reimbursement of the surcharge amount, if the named insured demonstrates that the operator involved in the accident was, in fact, not substantially at fault. Following, are the specific conditions, outlined in the statutory language, that are associated with an accident surcharge, that if proven true, allow for a challenge and a reimbursement of the surcharge:

(I) Lawfully parked;

(II) Reimbursed by, or on behalf of, a person responsible for the accident or has a judgment against such person;

(III) Struck in the rear by another vehicle headed in the same direction and was not convicted of a moving traffic violation in connection with the accident;

(IV) Hit by a “hit-and-run” driver, if the accident was reported to the proper authorities within 24 hours after discovering the accident;

(V) Not convicted of a moving traffic violation in connection with the accident, but the operator of the other automobile involved in such accident was convicted of a moving traffic violation;

(VI) Finally adjudicated not to be liable by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(VII) In receipt of a traffic citation which was dismissed or nolle prossed; or

(VIII) Not at fault as evidenced by a written statement from the insured establishing facts demonstrating lack of fault which are not rebutted by information in the insurer’s file from which the insurer in good faith determines that the insured was substantially at fault.

These are clear circumstances that, if applicable, are relatively easy to prove. As you can see, even if the first 7 conditions do not apply, the insured still has the ability to provide a written statement, to their insurance carrier, outlining why they were not substantially at fault in the accident.

Of course you will need to be able to have evidence to prove this but that should be easy.

Next, as it relates to accidents an insurer can’t non-renew your policy just because you had one at-fault accident in a 3 year period. Unfortunately if you are a car magnet and have 3 accidents, at fault or not they can non-renew your policy.

When it comes to tickets beware! While one non criminal traffic infraction won’t get your premiums raised or non-renewed it definitely will if its 2 or more in a 18 top 36 month period of time. Of course if it is a speeding violation of 15mph over the limit get ready to, rightfully, pay both at the courthouse and at the insurance premium house of pain.

Here are some key things to remember. First and foremost drive safe! Second know that the way the law as written places a substantial onus on you, the consumer, to carefully review any premium increase, and to determine if you have in fact been surcharged wrongly. Insurance companies can make mistakes when they determine at fault percentages for underwriting purposes. Sadly, many insureds may not have the knowledge to know when they have been surcharged, or even if they realize it, they may not be savvy enough to understand how to challenge a wrongful surcharge. Now that you’re an educated consumer, don’t be afraid to ask questions of your auto insurance carrier and challenge any surcharge that you think is incorrect. Finally, know when you are prepared and know how to approach their carrier with the facts, you can successfully prevail in these disputes!

Remember the days when you drove your car into a “service station” and you simply expected that, in addition to gas, you would receive, well, service?

When I was a boy, I would often go to the gas station with my Dad. Back then, it was not just about gasoline. The gas would be pumped for him; his windows would be washed; and all the necessaries under the hood would be carefully examined for problems; he might even get some service work done. My Dad knew the gas station attendant by name and would “shoot the breeze” with him about everything from baseball to politics. Ah, the good ole days: when men were men and service station attendants were professionals.

Well as they say, yes, times they have changed.

Now, when you go to get gasoline there are no professionals. No one meets you at the pump and you, the consumer, have become the gas station attendant in some respects. Now, the “station attendant” is likely the poor guy or gal putting up the signs for the 29 cent hot dog, while keeping the slushy and coffee machines filled to the brim! They are the people selling lottery tickets and paying off the winners. Station attendants now are more a combination grocer, coffee shop person and numbers runner than they are anyone the least bit skilled in the very sensitive trade of dealing with flammable and explosive liquids.

I guess when it comes to one of the most dangerous flammable and combustible liquid/gas mixture in our society Big Oil and Big Business want to add a degree of difficulty to keep it exciting. Thanks, but no thanks….

Seriously, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard about or actually witnessed gasoline overflowing out the gas tank of an unattended car or on to an unsuspecting consumer.

Most often, the emergency of over flowing flammable liquids is the result of broken automatic cut off valve. This is both a serious occurrence and one that requires some amount of professional knowledge. Sadly, we can not, in all fairness, expect the grocer, coffee person, numbers runner to really have the expertise to properly identify the malfunction as a serious occurrence and have the specialized knowledge to know how to fix it. Certainly, shutting down a malfunctioning pump is not a call that a clerk in a gas station is going to want to make.

Here in Florida we have the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to inspect the gas pumps, pursuant to Florida Statute Chapter 531 – Weights and Measures. Their primary job, however, is to make sure that the amount pumped out is the proper amount received and charged.

However, I must wonder; between that division and the local fire departments is there really effective oversight on the safety aspects of these modern convenience store-gas station combos.

I think it is fair to say that the incidence of reporting of overflows, spills, and injuries is loosely regulated at best. Frankly, based on my research it is pretty much a self monitoring reporting system for the wrongdoer.

Yeah, I know, not likely to be all that effective. For additional legislative comfort, we have Florida Statute 526.141; which sets forth that the attendant at a self service station is to be “primarily” monitoring the pumps.

Do we really believe that is actually happening? What is happening is that in between the grocery sales, cigarette sales, numbers running and coffee peddling, the issue of flammable liquids and their inherent danger may be getting some fleeting thoughts. It appears the “attendants” or more like cashiers and stock persons; woefully undertrained, understaffed, and overworked. I have no doubt they are underpaid considering the seriousness of that for which they are “alleged” to be responsible.

Sorry, call me cynical but I have seen firsthand the fires and injuries.

Ok, so what to do?

Well you can look for the stains on the ground of old fuel spills, but that doesn’t really tell you how old or new they are.

Next, even though the store may be luring you in with signs of 2 for 1 burritos, don’t bite; at least until after you finished pumping the gas. Leaving the car unattended can make a bad situation worse.

Finally, if you notice an overflow problem, report it! Report it to the store and get the name of the person and a copy of the report but also notify the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the local Fire Dept. The links contained in this article and will help you see prior complaints but will also let you file a complaint “for the record”.

This extra effort will help keep people safe, save people money, and help the environment. Not a bad return on a modest effort. I am in favor of business, progress and technology, but not when it comes at the unnecessary expense of tragic injuries, loss of life and the safety of our families.

Next summer, sunscreen bottles will be seeing many changes as a result of new federal regulations announced on June 14.  The regulations were created to ensure that sunscreens meet modern standards for safety and effectiveness.

For the first time ever, sunscreen labels that pass FDA approved testing will be able to claim they can reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging, in addition to preventing sunburn.  In order to pass this requirement, sunscreens must be proven to be “broad spectrum” — meaning they protect against both ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B radiation and have a sunburn protection factor of 15 or higher.  Those that do not meet both criteria will carry a warning label indicating that they have not been shown to help prevent skin cancer or early skin aging.

Effect on terms “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” & “sunblock”

The FDA will forbid these terms from being included on labels because they are considered inaccurate.  Sunscreens will be able to claim water resistance based on testing, but they must note whether they are effective for 40 minutes or 80 minutes while swimming or sweating.  Sunscreens will now also carry drug fact labels like those that you see on an over-the-counter medication box.

What about those SPF 100 sunscreens?

The FDA has proposed to limit the maximum SPF to “50+” since there is insufficient, reliable  evidence that higher values, such as 70 or 100, provide greater protection.  Some experts hope this will stop the “escalating war of SPF factors.”

Dr. Warwick L. Morison, a professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University and chairman of the photobiology committee for the Skin Cancer Foundation, was disappointed the FDA did not ban the products that contained SPF numbers higher than 50 because such products expose people to more irritating sunscreen ingredients without meaningful added protection.

Some thoughts from the experts:

• There is really no difference between 50 or 70 or 80 SPF designations.
• If you apply the proper amount of sunscreen, with frequent reapplication, you really do not need an SPF that is above 30.
• The amount that should be applied is equivalent to a shot glass full, but on average, people apply only about half that amount.
• Make sure you are re-applying often enough; particularly after swimming.

Concern over sunscreen ingredients

Kelly McMasters, director of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center’s melanoma clinic, is concerned that the agency did not go far enough in addressing safety concerns about some sunscreen ingredients.  For example, some sunscreens may include endocrine disruptors, such as oxybenzone, which may interfere with certain hormones and pregnant women may want to avoid retinyl palmitate because of possible negative effects.  Moreover, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles might have potential reproductive and developmental effects.  The FDA is awaiting the results of new studies to determine whether retinyl palmitate is harmful.

Bottom Line

Excessive sun exposure is the most important preventable cause of all skin cancers, including potentially deadly melanoma. If you would like to view a list of the best beach and sport sunscreens, the environmental working group has an excellent list –available here.

What else can you do to avoid the potentially harmful effects of the sun:

• Wear broad-brimmed hats.
• Cover up with clothing to protect skin—the tighter the weave and the darker the color, the better the SPF protection.
• Avoid sun exposure especially during the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.
• Be aware that reflective surfaces like water, sand and cars increase chances of sunburns.
• You can still burn on cloudy days. Since UV rays are still strong enough to burn your skin.
• Rinse off when coming indoors or at the end of the day.
• Children’s skin is delicate and can be damaged in as little as 15 minutes of unprotected sun exposure. It takes 15 minutes to see initial effects of exposure, but 12 hours before the whole burn effect to be realized.
• Wear sunglasses that protect against UVA and UVB rays. The rays of the sun can damage eyes; causing cataracts and acceleration of age related vision loss.

As a citizen of the sunshine state, make sure you and your loved ones are lathering up before playing or working in the sun!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC-d9ZsnLds[/youtube]

It’s not often I read a sports article and find somebody who truly understands the industry I work in like Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel did on his take in the tragic wrongful death case of football player Ereck Planchar. I hope many people take the time to read it so they get the “rest of the story”.

As outlined in an article in a HuffPost College, the case involved a real tragedy:

“During opening arguments in the wrongful death trial, attorneys representing his parents said the 19-year-old died three years ago from complications of sickle cell trait after an excessive workout where Coach George O’Leary ordered water and trainers off the practice field. They claim the university never told Plancher that he tested positive for the genetic problem. They also said coaches and trainers didn’t follow proper emergency procedures after Plancher stumbled, gasped for breath and collapsed.”

The truth is many times our civil courts are backed up because the insurance carriers are in total control of the money and the decision making. I cannot tell you the number of times where the plaintiff wants the case settled, the defendant wants the case settled, the lawyers want the case settled, the mediator and Judge wants the case settled, but sadly the insurance company just wants to make money by holding on to its money longer.

No, I haven’t “drank the Kool-Aid.” All insurance professionals aren’t bad and all lawyers aren’t good.

However this does appear to be a case where the carriers are playing fast and loose with UCF’s reputation and brand. It is reckless to keep doubling the risks for the parties with appeals and dragging the case out. It is tragic for Ereck’s family to be forced to relive the circumstances of his tragic and, apparently, unnecessary death.

I am not even talking just about the moral thing to do for this poor family, I’m talking about the insurance carrier’s duty to the “insured” (the UCF Athletics Association) who paid them significant premiums for the promise that they would be protected and that the insurance company would compensate parties for the negligence of the insured.

The jury was not a run away. They found no punitive damages, but did find negligence in the policies and methods used by UCF; and the jury clearly found that Ereck’s untimely death was the result of ignoring obvious safety issues.

The verdict is not a message that UCF acted monstrously or nefariously, but simply UCF and its staff made serious mistakes; hopefully, mistakes that have been or will be corrected so this young man’s death is not in vain.

The Orlando Sentinel reporter, Mr. Bianchi, is correct. Entities such as UCF need to show some muscle and push back on these aggressive insurance carriers. The idea of insurance is you pay premiums because you are going to potentially make mistakes and face the results of those mistakes. If a carrier simply takes in money and is unwilling to recognize compensible claims then that’s a shell game.

According to published reports in this case it could have settled for half of the verdict! So who’s to blame for a lingering, extended court battle? The family? Please, tell me a wrongful death is not viewed as frivolous even by my conservative peers? UCF? I doubt it. I suspect they want this over as badly as the plaintiffs.

When I see this type of situation, my money is with a “cowboy” carrier that likes betting the farm, especially when it’s not entirely their farm; an insurance company who is quite willing to gamble theirs and their insured’s reputation; an insurance carrier going all in, in order to hold onto moneymaking dollars as long as possible.

Is that what has happened here? Reach your own conclusions.

Next time when you read about one of these verdicts ask yourself who was in control of getting the case to that posture? I bet the farm it’s an insurance carrier that could have avoided it, and saved a lot of money and valuable court resources. I’ll bet it’s an insurance company willing to gamble its insured’s reputation and assets in exchange for just a little more profit.

I guess Mel Brooks was right, “It’s good to be the king”.