Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The
Process ??":
I think actually that the "client" in your case is the
insurance company. They instruct the lawyer, even if it is not visibly apparent
to you. In this case, you are the "insured".
KA-NON
**********
Everything on this isssue is new to me.
I do know I am the client of the law firm, MacDonald and Associates.
The defendants' costs are covered for a lawyer provided by the town's insurance company.
Apparently,they successfully argued six persons representing themselves as a Council of nine,of which I am one, were executing responsibilities as elected representatives of the people of Aurora when they did the deed of which they are charged.
By moi.
I am advised by town staff, they are not paying legal fees.
In this case, the town is the insured.
Although four of the six are no longer elected representatives , they are still indemnified for their actions while in office.
I understand your argument.
But those named by me on court documents are not the Town's insurance company.
The insurance company is not called to defend their actions.
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Sorry Evelyn, I am getting "lawsuit merge"!
You have no insurance company backing you in this case so you are indeed the "client".
The gang-of-six are the "insured", and their (the town's) insurance company is the "client".
Think of it this way, if a settlement is negotiated between the lawyers, who do you think has the final say for the defendants? The gang-of-six, or the insurance company?
KA-NON
A while ago, there was a plaintive comment wishing for more positive material on this Blog. I do hope that the individual who wrote that has stuck around long enough to see that we would dearly love to discuss all the good things about Aurora. We do sincerely do our best but circumstances keep dragging us down into defensive mode. The Birthday Party has not been forgotten. Nor have all the terrific programs in town. We even stop and appreciate the weather on occasion.
A few characters keep inserting themselves into the limelight sometimes posing problems for Aurora. The rest of us would prefer to remain anonymous and just enjoy this wonderful place. Hopefully, the deadwood will be eliminated and we can go back to super comments about everything positive to enjoy.
Please bear with us.
KA-NON
For a moment, I was concerned that you had the stick by the wrong end. My problem with the appearance of Evelyn's lawsuit is the absence of any indication that the period of a negotiated settlement is even on the horizon.
Ms/Mr KA-NON
Do you happen to know the name of the insurance company? It might give us an idea of how to answer your question about who would have the call if there were a negotiated settlement.
Don't negotiate over such a matter of principle.
Keep grinding until they are dust and their insurer has to eat it.
Until the examinations for discovery, the insurance company will have no idea what kind of case they are facing. It is puzzling why they don't get on with the matter and at least determine if negotiations are in order. Not my field.
Ontario"s Justice System is in trouble because it is simply antiquated. There is no will or money to fix it. I offer 2 examples. A court date was set, and the court "lost " it despite there being a signed receipt. Loss of 6 months. A lawyer was getting worried because the judge had been ' considering ' his case for more than a year. When he finally got up his nerve and asked about the case, the judge had ' forgotten ' about it.
Bless you, Evelyn, may the wind be at your back. Try to keep laughing.
Anonymous said...
Don't negotiate over such a matter of principle.
Keep grinding until they are dust and their insurer has to eat it.
15 September, 2012 12:59 PM
Here is the hypocracy of this blog. The "insurer" is now the bad guy. You are telling Ms Buck to continue until the insurer has to pay. You know what will happen after that? The "insurer" will raise the premium that they will charge the Town. And then, we the tax payers of Aurora will have to pay to cover that.
Absolutly brilliant!
Anonymous: 17 September, 2012 7:56 AM: "You are telling Ms Buck to continue until the insurer has to pay."
As stated elsewhere, I suspect that the town's insurance policy covers legal bills but may not cover the penalty if the defendants are found guilty of abuse of power, defamation or negligence. Someone may want to call the town in order to confirm.
My hope remains that our local media starts to ask some more questions given the serious nature of the accusations and the significant delays we have seen to date.
At the end of the day, I doubt that any potential penalty would amount to a lot of money above and beyond a portion of the legal fees, but the defendants could have to fork over thousands of dollars each and possibly even offer a formal apology if this is settled out of court.
Time will tell (apparently a lot of time).
Post a Comment