You're acting like every criminal defendant is poor. That's not the case. And you're acting like the plaintiffs in the Vegas case were a bunch of poor uneducated people filing a case on their own. They weren't. They had really good lawyers on their side too. Bottom line, it's silly to assume guilt based on a please/settlement. There's many more factors that play into that than just guilt/innocence.
100% innocent very wealthy defendants are substantially less likely to settle a criminal case with time in jail than hose that are less well off. Source: 100% guilty Robert Kraft fighting his case when he was offered a literal no penalty plea deal. The insurance company and MGM have all the necessary resources to fight the case forever. They aren’t settling for that large of a sum unless the risk of an unfavorable verdict is very high.
You're assuming it's all about guilt/innocence and them wanting to move on and stop getting bad press for fighting victims played no role. Again, there's way more at play than just if they'd be found negligent or not. Having this drag out for 5 years could have cost them $800m even if the case went their way. Them suing the victims last year was a horrible look for them. Strategically it made sense but it was awful PR. I'll say it again, them agreeing to a settlement isn't a clear sign they were negligent or that they would have lost the case. Risk/reward and moving on from terrible PR plays a huge role.
The insurance company is the one that would try and drag the case out. They have greater resources than the plaintiff. Plaintiffs attorneys need to get paid.
Right, but if MGM is willing to pay a good chunk of it, say $400m, to make it go away now, it makes sense for the insurance company to kick in the other $400m to end it rather than expose themselves to much greater risk down the road. We have no idea how much of the $800 is being covered by MGM or the insurance company. We know what their coverage was but that doesn't mean they couldn't have an agreement for MGM to pay a good chunk of it. It was in everyone's best interest to end it now to avoid it being drug out and potentially a much bigger payout.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/busin...-tied-to-las-vegas-shooting-mgm-says-1692662/ From the above article and relevant to our current convo: According to MGM, it has to pay up to $500,000 for the defense of shooting-related claims, and Zurich is in charge of paying the rest, up to the point its limit of liability is exhausted by paying settlements or judgments. “The Zurich Policy is designed and intended … to provide broad coverage for the most serious claims that MGM could face,” MGM said in the case. “Zurich has not fulfilled all of its obligations … (and) has failed to pay for all reasonable defense costs.”
“This dispute does not relate to coverage for a potential settlement and is limited to Zurich’s obligation to pay defense costs in this matter,” MGM spokesman Brian Ahern said. I doubt we ever see a breakdown but I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of who is paying what of that $800m.
I have a feeling that the $500,000 deductible for shooting related claims is higher than their deductible for most if not all other types of claims that would fall under their GL.
Terrorism is included unless you reject it under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. If you reject it, the CGL policy will be endorsed accordingly. The fact that there is a specific deductible for shootings tells me that shootings are contemplated by the policy.
Every Vegas resort has/did. They responded very well. Within a minute of the initiation of firing they had security personnel on the floor.
I can only imagine dbl debating topics like this after he’s been drinking Now that we’ve seen it sober(I think)
Could it just be easier to think there was no motive at all? Ted Bundy gave all his motives (all bullshit) but the reason he killed was because he wanted to.
Most serial killers didn't have a hard and fast motive other than maybe being antisocial and angry at some segment of society. Most other mass shooters don't have one either.
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
You’re not very good at English are you? To quote some one one would usually is quotation marks and site the source.
Have I missed any real remembrance for these victims? I feel like this is weirdly one of the least talked about serious acts of terrorism? No conspiracy thoughts, just a question.
A memorial was established at the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign so that visitors could take selfies and create traffic jams on Las Vegas Blvd. It was removed after a year since MGM wanted to put distance between themselves and the shooting and to improve business at Mandalay Bay.
3 year "anniversary" today....this shit is still baffling to me from all aspects - motive, consequences, place in our collective consciousness. Seems like we just filed this one away and moved on, but it was some fucked up shit at the time. Deadliest mass shooting in US history and hardly any mentions...
You're right. Should be remembered more often, but I do hope we trend towards giving mass shooters as little attention as possible