Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 12:40pm PT
|
Time to shut down this nonsense about insurance once and for all.
I checked the law firm that handled this case: it's Perkins Coie.
That's REI's regular law firm
(REI may use other firms, but they regularly use Perkins Coie). It's a large, prestigious, "white shoe" firm. I recently saw it's name in another matter--when President Obama sent his lawyer to pick up the long firm birth certificate--guess what law firm his lawyer his with?
So all of you who think that REI turned this to over to an insurance company who got a lawyer beholden to the insurance co. and not REI--you're just flat out wrong. Time to move on.
Thank you, blahblah.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 12:48pm PT
|
Perkins Coie has REI all over its web site. Here's just one example.
http://www.perkinscoie.com/labor_employment/
We're proud to represent some of the best known, fastest growing, and most interesting clients in the American economy, including Boeing, UPS, REI, Microsoft, Weyerhaeuser, Puget Sound Energy, Qwest, Smart & Final, Starbucks, Vulcan and the Baseball Club of Seattle.
While our lawyers offer a full range of services, we are first and foremost trial lawyers with formidable experience trying cases, small and large, in federal and state courts throughout the country. Indeed, our lawyers are among the handful of lawyers anywhere in the nation who have taken employment class actions to trial – and prevailed. Moreover, we have a unique depth of experience with negotiating and administering collective bargaining agreements for some of the largest union employers in America.
Also, whoever is arguing that REI is not a Megacorp cannot argue that they do not have Megacorp legal representation.
|
|
ryanl
climber
seattle
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 12:59pm PT
|
A friend just told me about this thread so I'm only now reading it for the first time.
I would like to offer a few things that I think are relevant.
 It's my opinion, from having dated Monika for the last three years and from having recovered her body after she died, that the injuries related to her bike accident in no way contributed to her death. She was taking a picture on a beautiful day when the cornice she was standing upon collapsed, causing her to fall about 1800'.
Leaving all the medical expenses to the side (only for a moment), REI refused to reimburse Monika for her fairly expensive carbon fiber bike. It refused to reimburse or even share costs for the forensic bike test that determined cause of failure. Even though REI requested the test, which cost Monika close to 10k. Neither of these reimbursements amount to an admission of guilt.
-As to the spirit of REI throughout this whole mess, I was questioned on the phone by REI's lawyers about matters relating to the case, and the impression I got was that REI was exploring every possible angle for pinning the injury onto anyone other than itself, including Monika. REI requested Monika's personal journals, from before the accident, that she kept while going through a difficult divorce. How that relates to her bike injury is beyond me. How it relates to the psychological well being of a woman who had gone through some traumatic events in her life, on the other hand, and who only wanted to get on with her life....that is and was painfully apparent.
-Big Steve (from the original ski thread) raised very good points about the insurance carrier calling the shots. I don't doubt what he has said, and am thankful for his patience in sharing his knowledge. What bothers me, though, is that his emphasis flat out ignores the fact that REI has, has always had, and always will have, the power to act differently than the way the insurance carrier demands. The petitioner in this case is REI, not REI's insurance carrier. It seems more to the point, in my opinion, to discuss whether it's worth it for REI to breach its contract-- and I've completely lost sense of the currency of worth in this case-- than it is to say that REI isn't responsible for the appeal.
One last point, which I also feel is important. REI could have avoided this whole mess had they done due diligence and signed a contract with Fairly Bike Manufacturing Co that gave them recourse in the event of a part defect by a manufacturer sub contracted by Fairly. (Aprebic manufactured the fork.) REI falied to do this. It's their own fault that "their hands are tied".
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 01:11pm PT
|
There are two separate issues here, and as long as people keep trying to push them together into a single issue, nothing but silly arguments will ensue.
The first issue is the legal one, and as the legally-aware have pointed out, there will be long-term ramifications from whatever decision is made, and to demand an instant conclusion is a mistake.
The second issue is REI's ethical stance. They are a big company now, but they continue to say something like "We're really just a bunch of super-nice outdoor folks who, even though we've grown huge, are still the same honest bunch we always were."
I think they could have done the right thing here on the ethical issue without prejudicing the legal outcome. That is, without admitting guilt or fault, they could very easily have supported -- or even spearheaded -- some kind of help campaign for the injured woman. "We won't know the legal outcome for many years, but we want to help one of our members."
Would that have been so difficult?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 01:15pm PT
|
The problem with that, ghost, is that it makes them look culpable.
The real problem here; contingency fees.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 01:24pm PT
|
Ron, I disagree. I think it would not have affected the legal outcome, and would have made them look compassionate.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 01:45pm PT
|
Preface: I don't do litigation, or that sort of law.
They've done studies of medical negligence cases. Often at the start, the patient more than anything wants only sympathy, an apology, whatever treatment might help, and reimbursement for expenses. Once you get lawyers involved, whether they're your own or an insurance company's, most of that isn't possible - it may be construed as an admission of liability. Which in turn may lead to what it is intended to prevent, a lawsuit.
So whether the law firm mentioned is directly retained by REI, or simply the 'usual' firm retained by REI's insurers to defend it, may be moot. Once it's gone legal, it in effect freezes things until the case is heard or settled. And "gone legal" is as soon as the prospective defendant notifies its insurer or lawyer that there may be a claim. At that point, the defendant may simply have to do what it's told.
In this case, REI is a fairly large and sophisticated corporation, and it sounds like the lawyer may be REI's own, not that of an insurance company. That might give it a bit more flexibility. If the lawyer is retained ('instructed') by an insurance company, that's who calls the shots. If you don't do what your (the insurance company's) lawyer tells you, you may not be covered.
|
|
reddirt
climber
PNW
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 21, 2011 - 01:55pm PT
|
Based on how the taco highlights the OP's post, I'm reposting ryanl's msg so that people who want to read facts before posting their comments can do so more easily.
May 21, 2011 - 09:59am PT
A friend just told me about this thread so I'm only now reading it for the first time.
I would like to offer a few things that I think are relevant.
It's my opinion, from having dated Monika for the last four years and from having recovered her body after she died, that the injuries related to her bike accident in no way contributed to her death. She was taking a picture on a beautiful day when the cornice she was standing upon collapsed, causing her to fall about 1800'.
Leaving all the medical expenses to the side (only for a moment), REI refused to reimburse Monika for her fairly expensive carbon fiber bike. It refused to reimburse or even share costs for the forensic bike test that determined cause of failure. Even though REI requested the test, which cost Monika close to 10k. Neither of this reimbursements amount to an admission of guilt.
-As to the spirit of REI throughout this whole mess, I was questioned on the phone by REI's lawyers about matters relating to the case, and the impression I got was that REI was exploring every possible angle for pinning the injury onto anyone other than itself, including Monika. REI requested Monika's personal journals, from before the accident, that she kept while going through a difficult divorce. How that relates to her bike injury is beyond me. How it relates to the psychological well being of a woman who had gone through some traumatic events in her life, on the other hand, and who only wanted to get on with her life....that is and was painfully apparent.
-Big Steve (from the original ski thread) raised very good points about the insurance carrier calling the shots. I don't doubt what he has said, and am thankful for his patience in sharing his knowledge. What bothers me, though, is that his emphasis flat out ignores the fact that REI has, has always had, and always will have, the power to act differently than the way the insurance carrier demands. The petitioner in this case is REI, not REI's insurance carrier. It seems more to the point, in my opinion, to discuss whether it's worth it for REI to breach its contract-- and I've completely lost sense of the currency of worth in this case-- than it is to say that REI isn't responsible for the appeal.
One last point, which I also feel is important. REI could have avoided this whole mess had they done due diligence and signed a contract with Fairly Bike Manufacturing Co that gave them recourse in the event of a part defect by a manufacturer sub contracted by Fairly. (Aprebic manufactured the fork.) REI falied to do this. It's their own fault that "their hands are tied".
I can totally appreciate the sentiment behind a boycott or Return Every Item campaign but am pretty pessimistic that it will have little effect.... and what effect it will have will really only be on W coast states.
As for the REI fork-induced head trauma as it relates to her ski related death, it is a non-issue w/r/t the legal proceedings. I do however think it could never be ruled out. I didn't have a chance to formulate that correlation myself... it came up in a convo when a physician skier friend of mine was initially telling me about the incident.
All I would like to see is justice for the original plaintiff & for news of REI stringing this case out to be known to a wider consumer audience (like a climbing forum where many buy from REI) so people can make informed decisions.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 02:30pm PT
|
Piton Ron:
The real problem here; contingency fees.
Look at this!
The guy who sued a friend in court for the few cents (what was it fifty cents? a dollar?) for the cost of a single collect phone call thinks he has a solution for the problem of litigation.
The truth is that without contingency fees, people like Monika would not have a chance to recover ANYTHING from a big company like REI, no mater how egregious the offense.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 03:09pm PT
|
Perhaps the difficulty is that we're speaking two apparently similar but actually quite different languages. One is the language of those who are advocating justice, by which they apparently mean that REI should apologize, cover all the medical and other bills, not bother with what seems a weak defence or the precedent that might be sent, and not make use of its legal rights. (In a few cases, that REI or its insurer should admit liability, write Ms. Johnson's lawyer a large cheque, abase itself in public, and admit that it's no longer a small folksy community co-op but a large corporation.) The other language is "lawyer", which is to say that REI should act as any large corporation, in its economic interests only. The amoral stance of corporate America.
Neither is ideal. The legal system is at most an imperfect reflection of society, and an attempt at justice.
I wonder what REI's overall litigation record shows about how it approaches these matters, or at least how its insurer does? It has what seems a generous return policy.
|
|
Mangy Peasant
Social climber
Riverside, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 07:27pm PT
|
It refused to reimburse or even share costs for the forensic bike test that determined cause of failure. Even though REI requested the test, which cost Monika close to 10k.
I appreciate that someone is bringing more facts into the discussion, but the part above creates more confusion, IMO.
She needed money for medical expenses, but REI asked her to do a forensic test on her bike. So she agreed, and paid $10K.
In other words, REI sent her a letter saying, "please do this test, at your own expense, and we'll get back to you." And at that point she wrote a check for ten thousand dollars, just to move the matter forward?
Or do forensic labs typically extend $10K credit to first-time customers?
Doesn't make sense.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 07:40pm PT
|
All I would like to see is justice for the original plaintiff & for news of REI stringing this case out to be known to a wider consumer audience (like a climbing forum where many buy from REI) so people can make informed decisions.
If this is your public stance, then what does REI gain by doing the first, since you are going to do the second, anyway?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 07:57pm PT
|
If this is your public stance, then what does REI gain by doing the first, since you are going to do the second, anyway?
Doing the second increases the chances of REI doing the first. It increases the cost to REI. REI spends millions to create a certain "image" because they believe that image is of economic benefit to them. I think the facts here severely undermine that image.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 08:09pm PT
|
I'm keeping this a polite post but if anyone posts anything further on this thread about an insurance company handling this rather than REI I'm going to call you out on it and it may get ugly.
By the way--to the smart ass who called me out on calling REI a "megacorp"--its last reported revenue was $1.45 billion in 2009. I suppose you can argue about what a "megacorp" is but I'm feeling pretty good about this, relative to the issue we're talking about (whether REI controlled this case or was at the mercy of the big, bad insurance company).
Blithering anonymous jerks that are unwilling to put their names to their statments, then make threats, have little meaning to me.
I don't know who REI's insurer is, but Chubb, for example, not a particularly large insurer, had income in 2009 of THIRTEEN BILLION, making it TEN TIME BIGGER than REI. It's also been around for 130 years.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 08:44pm PT
|
Doing the second increases the chances of REI doing the first. It increases the cost to REI. REI spends millions to create a certain "image" because they believe that image is of economic benefit to them. I think the facts here severely undermine that image.
Doing the second, when doing it is going to happen whether or not the first happens, makes the first almost certain to never happen.
If you and I were involved in litigation, and instead of allowing the courts to decide and in the middle of the litigation, you went out to undertake a public smear campaign against me, it would become my mission in life to see that you never see one penny, if it cost me a million to make that happen.
So what you have done is to screw the estate of Monika. Nice way to f**k a dead person.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
May 21, 2011 - 11:50pm PT
|
Doing the second, when doing it is going to happen whether or not the first happens, makes the first almost certain to never happen.
It depends on what kind of people we are dealing with here.
If you and I were involved in litigation, and instead of allowing the courts to decide and in the middle of the litigation, you went out to undertake a public smear campaign against me, it would become my mission in life to see that you never see one penny, if it cost me a million to make that happen.
First I wouldn't call it a "smear" campaign. That implies that false or libelous statements are being made, and I haven't seen that.
Second, it may be tempting to have this attitude ("it would become my mission in life to see that you never see one penny, if it cost me a million to make that happen.") but those who easily succumb to to are unlikely to succeed in business. The CEO's "mission in life" in his job at REI is to keep the company profitable and this includes protecting its reputation. If he decides his "mission in life" it engage in a vindictive feud, he'll be eased out the door.
Anyway, if they made it their mission in life to see that Monika never saw one penny, they succeeded.
So Monika's friends probably don't care whether or not her estate or lawyers recover anything. It's probably now more about "justice" and "making them pay." So if REI want to pay a million fighting this and further damage their reputation in the process, I don't think Monika's friends will be sorry about that.
So what you have done is to screw the estate of Monika. Nice way to f**k a dead person.
Way to keep it classy! Her friends are behind this and I'm sure her family is also. Nice of you to accuse them of this.
If anyone is getting screwed (and I'd agree that that is happening), its REI that's doing it, and you seem to forget that they already (before this "campaign began) appealed it to the Supreme Court. Can you explain what MORE REI can do? REI is already going all out against them. Her friends and family don't have anything to lose.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 12:51am PT
|
And at that point she wrote a check for ten thousand dollars
You assume its her money. It could just as easily have been family or friends who supported her.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 01:00am PT
|
First I wouldn't call it a "smear" campaign. That implies that false or libelous statements are being made, and I haven't seen that.
Actually, that has been exactly what I've seen.
I went to the site that was linked, and about two posts in a see a post by a lawyer, who was a bike maker, who knew Monika. He fairly totally refutes every thing that you say about the law in Wa, and how product liability works.
As for her friends and family carrying this on, which are you?
With your ignorance of law, you don't know that these things tend to be negotiated away at some point. However, the more that the smear goes on, the more unlikely that is to happen.
|
|
frog-e
Trad climber
Imperial Beach California
|
|
|
May 22, 2011 - 01:07am PT
|
#1 REI defines (in writing) the manufacturing specifications of what
Their contractors produce for their (assorted) brands. They ARE accoutable
For defects/liability.
#2 REI could have chosen to settle OUT OF COURT thus avoiding setting
A legal precedent; this is what Coleman does when someone suffocates
In one of their tents (happens every year).
#3 Mighty Hiker is FULL Of SH*t. (No question on that one, this thread
proves it.
#4 REI is a just another blood sucking nit-picking representative of the
Full on corporate adjendaists (and Wall street blow job artists) who now
Own many of their vendors; think Vanity Fair, etc.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!