Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Maybe not...

Maybe I was being a bit too easy on ole' Judge Joyce. Perhaps he did strong arm Erie Insurance into forking over the cash....

6 comments:

Stan Langerhaus said...

I wonder how happy S.B. is with the result. Also, I really don't understand how Erie Ins did not face liability here. If there are any lawyers who read this blog, I'd love to see them explain that.

Anonymous said...

I for one think they had the wrong person on trial. Don't take me wrong...I think the Judge is a first class dick...but the fine folks at Erie Insurance are the ones who committed the crime here. As for the Judge's former fiance...she's a narcissistic tramp and proved it with her vindictiveness. S.B. has profited quite handsomely from her associations with the Judge's dubious friends...you know the ones. The shifty real estate tycoon with the initials of G.R. and others....

Ralph said...

Ah, I was waiting for ole' G.R.'s name to surface in all of this.

So, yes, Stan or an attorney, what sort of "liability" should Erie Insurance be held accountable for? As I said in my previous post, it seems to me they felt they were making a practical business decision. Do you think they could be charged with bribery of a public official?

Stan Langerhaus said...

Well, it seems to me that ERII seems to have made a statement as close to admitting that it was expecting some kind of quid pro quo as it could have. I think the statement was something like "we wanted to ensure that JJ stayed on the bench so that he can keep cranking out rulings that we expect to continue to be favorable to our industry and therefore when we were given the opportunity to review his claim we dispensed with all of normal procedures and paid him whatever amount he asked us to pay." This may not be bribery, but ultimately a bribe could be considered a "practical business decision." Especially if you do not get caught. That's why I would like to know what the e-mail traffic internal to ERII had said regarding JJ's obviously BS claim.

What I would really like to know is what investigation did the AG perform of ERII. ERII's former general counsel (for reasons known only to him) told the ETN that he personally reviewed JJ's claim and their department paid special attention to it. Based on that admission, I do not know how the AG says with a straight face that ERII is a "victim." I seriously doubt that in any time previously and any time forward will there be a situation where an insurance company pays almost maximum coverage on a 5 mph fender tap. And you know that this must have been a topic of documented discussion, especially given the fact the GC was dumb enough to shoot is mouth off to the ETN, there is no telling what the internal e-mails say.

So, maybe the more accurate charge would have been extortion (or some public official related equivalent) but perhaps the AG did not have the evidence for that. So the AG goes with the fraud fallback. I just don't know what you call it when you someone tries to rip you off, you know that they are trying to rip you off and yet you agree to be ripped off. Who is the victim? Any lawyers know anything about this?

Stan Langerhaus said...

Hey R - I just read your post "Joyce Innocent" after I posted my last comment. Seems like you and I are of the same mind on these issues. Sorry to be redundant.

Ralph said...

Well, today's coverage in the ETN says that EI is now seeking restitution from Joyce. Also, "prosecuters did not fault either company's (EI or State Farm) decision to pay Joyce. The government argued that the insurers acted on false informaiton provided by Joyce."

But there is also something in there about a "Happy hour encounter" between Joyce and a "top Erie Insurance laywer" that led to "the claim taking a detour from normal channels."

Insurance companies do have famously strong lobbyists.