Author Topic: CIVIL LAW SUITS  (Read 16018 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2013, 08:51:27 PM »
I though such agreements were usually confidential if both parties wanted it so.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2013, 09:13:52 PM »
Maybe we will find out what the settlement was in a few days (http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/4/5/trayvon_martin_s_par.html).

"Crump asked that the agreement remain confidential. However, the court has decided that there is no reason for the agreement to remain confidential, and is giving Crump 10 days to appeal that decision.

We have learned, that the homeowners association's insurance company did not have to pay out a claim on the case."


I reposted your comment (with credit) on the Random Topics blog. Hope that's okay.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2013, 09:43:05 PM »
I though such agreements were usually confidential if both parties wanted it so.

It reads like Crump is the one who wanted the agreement to remain confidential. (CF13tv)  Not so much Travelers.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2013, 11:43:40 PM »
I reposted your comment (with credit) on the Random Topics blog. Hope that's okay.

News13 is probably referring to Travelers as "the homeowners association's insurance company did not have to pay out a claim on the case."

The OS article also states that Travelers did not pay out as they are not a party to this settlement, since the incident occurred before their policy was in effect.
Quote
"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," the company said in a prepared statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners association and/or the property managers."

The policy had a $1 million limit, according to federal-court records, and went into effect March 30, 2012, a few weeks after Trayvon was shot. Trayvon's mother filed a claim with the insurer after it went into effect, according to federal-court records.

The previous HOA insurer may have been the one to pay the settlement and O'Mara may have advised them to do so.


Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2013, 12:48:32 AM »
News13 is probably referring to Travelers as "the homeowners association's insurance company did not have to pay out a claim on the case."

The OS article also states that Travelers did not pay out as they are not a party to this settlement, since the incident occurred before their policy was in effect.
The previous HOA insurer may have been the one to pay the settlement and O'Mara may have advised them to do so.

Why would O'Mara even take a phone call from them, much less offer advice?

How could that possibly end other than badly?

"O'Mara said the insurance company should settle.   That means he knows his client is guilty as sin."

See?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2013, 01:34:05 AM »
Why would O'Mara even take a phone call from them, much less offer advice?

How could that possibly end other than badly?

"O'Mara said the insurance company should settle.   That means he knows his client is guilty as sin."

See?

Exactly.  I asked about this "rumor" about MOM and naturally got the "insider information."  I got some insider information, too.  The dude is crazy!

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2013, 03:59:53 AM »
It reads like Crump is the one who wanted the agreement to remain confidential. (CF13tv)  Not so much Travelers.

Travelers isn't a party, meaning it did not agree to confidentiality about the settlement.

As for Crump wanting to keep the settlement confidential, he should not have filed it in a pending criminal case then.  Hahahahahah.  If this news report is to be believed, Nelson give Crump 10 days to appeal her decision to make his filing in the criminal case, a matter of public record.

So, now Crump has two chores to take care.  The appeal of Nelson's decision that he not be deposed; and the appeal to Nelson, that his filing remain forever sealed.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2013, 04:20:03 AM »
Travelers isn't a party, meaning it did not agree to confidentiality about the settlement.

As for Crump wanting to keep the settlement confidential, he should not have filed it in a pending criminal case then.  Hahahahahah.  If this news report is to be believed, Nelson give Crump 10 days to appeal her decision to make his filing in the criminal case, a matter of public record.

So, now Crump has two chores to take care.  The appeal of Nelson's decision that he not be deposed; and the appeal to Nelson, that his filing remain forever sealed.

Are we quite sure that the judge in question isn't the one in charge of the civil case and it was not him or her to whom Crump submitted the settlement agreement?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2013, 05:51:28 AM »
Are we quite sure that the judge in question isn't the one in charge of the civil case and it was not him or her to whom Crump submitted the settlement agreement?

I think so.  The civil case can be dropped without giving a reason to the court.  Crump has no reason to file a copy of the settlement agreement with the civil trial court.  And we have a filing in the criminal case with that odd title, "NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING," combined with a USA Today news report that:

The Orlando Sentinel reported Friday that an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents - Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin - filed that paperwork in Seminole County and that portions of it were made available for public review Friday. ...
Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents, declined to comment Friday. He told the Associated Press that the filing was confidential.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2013, 06:05:10 AM »
Are we quite sure that the judge in question isn't the one in charge of the civil case and it was not him or her to whom Crump submitted the settlement agreement?

A related thought.  Settlement agreements include an agreement to maintain confidentiality, and if the settlement is well-written, it will include a recitation of the consequences if the agreement is breached.  It would be funny if the payor in the agreement (the HOA and/or an HOA insurer) sued Crump for breach of contract.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2013, 06:09:28 AM »
I think so.  The civil case can be dropped without giving a reason to the court.  Crump has no reason to file a copy of the settlement agreement with the civil trial court.  And we have a filing in the criminal case with that odd title, "NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING," combined with a USA Today news report that:

The Orlando Sentinel reported Friday that an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents - Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin - filed that paperwork in Seminole County and that portions of it were made available for public review Friday. ...
Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents, declined to comment Friday. He told the Associated Press that the filing was confidential.


But what reason would he have to file with the criminal court?

How can settlement of a lawsuit Zimmerman is not involved in as a party, and over which he has no control, possibly be considered relevant to the criminal case?


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2013, 06:16:45 AM »
But what reason would he have to file with the criminal court?

How can settlement of a lawsuit Zimmerman is not involved in as a party, and over which he has no control, possibly be considered relevant to the criminal case?

Crump is establishing that he is opposing counsel, for purposes of avoiding being deposed in the criminal case.  I think filing the settlement agreement is unnecessary for that purpose, as his proffer that he is counsel for the Martins and he intends to sue Zimmerman is likely sufficient to establish him as "opposing counsel" in that sense.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2013, 08:54:57 AM »
Travelers isn't a party, meaning it did not agree to confidentiality about the settlement.

As for Crump wanting to keep the settlement confidential, he should not have filed it in a pending criminal case then.  Hahahahahah.  If this news report is to be believed, Nelson give Crump 10 days to appeal her decision to make his filing in the criminal case, a matter of public record.

So, now Crump has two chores to take care.  The appeal of Nelson's decision that he not be deposed; and the appeal to Nelson, that his filing remain forever sealed.

You are right.  It isn't Travelers.  I would think that the pay out is coming from the insurance company that held the policy before them.  Rumored to be Liberty Mutual.

Experience says that if Crump is trying to hide something then the news isn't all that hot for him.  Like the settlement isn't as high as we are being lead to believe.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2013, 09:15:07 AM »
Experience says that if Crump is trying to hide something then the news isn't all that hot for him.  Like the settlement isn't as high as we are being lead to believe.

He's contractually bound to confidentiality with respect to the settlement.  What I find amusing is that he filed it in the criminal case.  As mentioned below, I think his (legal) point is to establish that he is opposing counsel, but so what?  That doesn't come close to addressing the issue of waiver of privilege.

As a PR move, it's not bad.  The public is bamboozled into a belief the settlement is recent, and naturally associates it with an admission of guilt.  The public isn't smart enough to see the difference between HOA duties and the right to use force in self defense.  Crump is good at making smoke screens, and this is just another one of many.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: CIVIL LAW SUITS
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2013, 09:58:01 PM »
I don't think it's recent either. I suspect it was arrived at months ago. The mediation was scheduled on October 26. An e-mail from the Association's lawyer to Traveler's lawyer on Oct 8 said the Association was not going to claim Traveler's was liable and it had no objection to Traveler's taking a default in the federal declaratory suit.  Here's the e-mail that's on PACER in the federal suit:

Quote
From: Tom Slaten [redacted]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:27PM
To: Catizone, John
Cc: Paula Aitken
Subject: Travelers v Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners' Assoc., Inc. I Estate of Trayvon Martin v. RTLCase
No. 6:12-cv-1185-0ri-18TBS

Mr. Catizone,

As you know, I am corporate counsel for Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners Association, Inc. Your client, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, filed a declaratory action against the Association and Sybrina D. Fulton in Case No. 6:12-cv-1185-0ri-18TBS. You were kind enough to grant my client, Retreat at Twin Lakes, an extension of time to respond to your client's complaint and offered to grant an additional extension past the upcoming October 26, 2012 mediation.

However, there are several Court imposed deadlines that require action if the Association wishes to dispute your client's declaratory action. Based on my review of Travelers insurance policy attached to your declaratory complaint the Association has
decided not to challenge your client's declaratory action in the above styled case. Therefore, please feel free to file a motion for default against the Association. If you require a formal letter please let me know.

Thomas R. Slaten, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Larsen & Associates, P.L.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking