Steveo wrote:
Dan Hartung wrote:
The criminal case is nothing next to the civil suits.

They won't get anymore than whatever his liability insurance coverage
provides.

Nah. IF his insurer gets everyone to settle, yes, but no jury is
required to stay within the limits of somebody's insurance, sheesh! The
award would be for actual damages (e.g. medical costs, or in this case,
replacement value of homes and possessions) and may include punitive
damages as well.

IF he carried excess/umbrella liability, he MIGHT be covered up to the
$1M-$5M range. Beyond that, he's on his own, and may be facing bankruptcy.

Dan Hartung wrote:
Steveo wrote:
Dan Hartung wrote:
The criminal case is nothing next to the civil suits.

They won't get anymore than whatever his liability insurance coverage
provides.

Nah. IF his insurer gets everyone to settle, yes, but no jury is
required to stay within the limits of somebody's insurance, sheesh! The
award would be for actual damages (e.g. medical costs, or in this case,
replacement value of homes and possessions) and may include punitive
damages as well.

IF he carried excess/umbrella liability, he MIGHT be covered up to the
$1M-$5M range. Beyond that, he's on his own, and may be facing
bankruptcy.

Yep, that's what I said.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:52 GMT, "Srgnt Billko"
wrote:

California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.

That is a Liberal State for ya. They spend way too much time playing
with thier peters and not focusing on task at hand!