Again, they get 800 million warnings. I don't think it's realistic to have a plan in place to prevent each and every one of them from happening. I'm sure they've been warned that someone could set off a car bomb in their drop off area. I'm not going to say they should be sued for allowing people to drop off and pick up in front of the hotel if someone sets one off.
Risk isn’t just the likelihood of an event occurring, it’s also the damage that event causes if it does. Assessing the cost and effort needed to mitigate that risk is part of understanding the risk as well. I think it’s quite likely that all of those issues have been discussed by large Las Vegas casinos in regards to mass shooting incidents well before this particular event happened. How seriously they took that risk and how they responded to it were all things that would have come out as part of the litigation process.
Right. The world is changing and those odds will continue to come down. I just wanted to present how big of a statistical anomaly this event was. What could come of changes in SOP way more than avoiding mass casualty events would be reductions in things like human trafficking, self harm, illicit drug operations, and general 2-party or domestic violence.
In discovery, the plaintiffs certainly depose the Mandalay Director of Security, and he almost certainly testifies that 1) metal detectors would have identified the arsenal this guy had brought to his room and that 2) Mandalay decided not to use metal detectors out of considerations for the cost and convenience of its guests. That’s a pretty clear cut basis for why MGM is and should be compensating victims.
Other than using the freight elevator, we don’t know what other evidence exists that MGM knew the amount of guns or ammo in the room, but generally the law does not impose a duty upon a party to prevent the criminal acts of a third party. Hotels are held to a higher standard to protect their guests, but I’m not sure that standard applies here unless the victims were on hotel property. One thing for sure, there are no group of insurers who willing cough up $751 million to settle claims without absolutely damning evidence of liability. Insurers force these into litigation. The defense may be $20-30 million to defend them all, but it pales in comparison to what is saved on settlement if liability can be defended. If these insurers agreed to settle for this amount, they knew there was damning liability. It’s their money. They don’t care about MGM’s reputation if suits are litigated.
If they made a business decision to prioritize business and profit over safety then when things go wrong why shouldn't their liability reflect their decision making?
What the standard is isn’t the only question asked a trial. The question is going to be whether what they were doing was adequate given what they knew.
It’s pretty simple. Someone at the hotel had to have actual knowledge that this guy had an Armageddon arsenal in his room and ignored it. No insurer is going to pay $751 million on the theory that we have to have airport level bag security to check into a hotel when that is not the current standard of care anywhere.
There also has to be a standard for it to be admissible. A practice or procedure cannot be a default standard of care, by legal definition, if that practice or procedure is not used by anyone in the industry or mandated by statute/regulation.
Insurers don’t settle $751 million claims without testing theories of liability through litigation unless there is clear evidence of liability. They don’t care at all forcing MGM to litigate or the damage that may cause to MGM’s reputation. For a settlement that large, they don’t care about defense costs. They only care about liability and exposure.
To be fair, I don't think anyone has seen a true split of who is paying what. MGM could be eating a much large portion than $50m for all we know. If MGM is eating $400m to make it go away it might be worth it to insurance to eat $350 to avoid the trial and a possible bigger exposure on the back end. Them settling isn't an indication of guilt. Innocent people cop pleas every hour of the day.
They have a duty to defend MGM against suits where there is no liability and obligation to their shareholders to minimize loss. And their duty to defend is greater than their duty to indemnify isn’t it? All of that seems to indicate that they had significant reason to believe they could get an unfavorable judgment based on the evidence.
"He was facing 20 years. He copped a plea for 5 years. He must have been guilty if he was worried about a trial." Not a good look, fellas.
MGM and it’s first layer insurer have been in litigation since 6/19 on the duty to defend. Every policy is different, so we are talking in the abstract about what this policy or excess layer policies may provide. The duty to defend typically attaches if there is arguable or potential for indemnity, but simply because there is a duty to defend does not mean there is a duty to settle or indemnify. An insurer usually can defend and reserve its right to deny coverage for settlement or indemnity. Insurers defend at the outset, but they do not indemnify unless the facts prove liability. No insurer pays on a case of this magnitude unless there is some clear evidence of liability.
Yeah, this what I was getting at. The insurance company has legal obligations to the insured but it also has a fiduciary duty to its own stakeholders that is going to limit its willingness to pay a settlement of this size without some serious concerns about proceeding to trial. And those concerns aren’t going to exist in a relative absence of evidence.
bwi2 I bought a Red Bull. I'm down to $8. You should take it before I get hungry and spend it on food.
Co-worker goes to Costco and buys them by the case. I throw him $2 every time I raid his fridge for one. I think they are $2.39 in our office market thing.
Grazing in the cafeteria fridges on your coworkers food and drinks Why am I not surprised you’re that guy in the office
Getting back to the core issue, without knowing what might be different in Nevada: 1. The law does not impose a general duty upon anyone to prevent the criminal acts of a third party. If I see dblplay1212 beat FSU Dan in an assault in the parking lot of Dan’s apartment, Dan can’t sue me for failing to intervene or stop the fight. I don’t owe any duty to do that. 2. Hotel operators owe a heightened duty to guests, but that usually only extends to guests on the property. If Dan is staying st my hotel, I owe a duty to prevent Dbl from getting into his room or assaulting him on property. 3. No jury is allowed to hear a hypothetical standard of care that has not been implemented anywhere. There must be a standard used in the industry or mandated by the government to be admissible. If hotels aren’t checking bags with metal detectors or there are no regulations to review bags, then Plaintiffs cannot argue MGM should have done that. It’s not a “standard” if it doesn’t exist anywhere. There had to be direct evidence that MGM knew this guy had these guns and this amount of ammunition on the property. 4. If you know someone is using or planning to use your property to commit a crime, you can owe a duty. A premises owner owes a duty to keep his premises safe from danger the owner is aware is there.
We're good friends. I keep M&M's and Reese's on my desk and he grazes those often and doesn't even pay me for them. In fact, he just finished off the can.
You’re talking about a situation with a vastly different power relationship. Most criminal defendants don’t have the financial resources to fight their case against the state. Large insurance and hotel corporations have more than enough money to defend their case against litigants. Their size may make them a target for lawsuits but it also is frequently used to stonewall plaintiffs and use up their more meager legal resources. Settling for an amount greater than the expense of going to trial isn’t something they are likely to do without a genuine fear that they were on the hook for more.
The same can be said for the innocent man facing 20 years. He's 100% innocent but he's not willing to gamble 20 years on a jury so he takes 5 years. That doesn't make him guilty. Taking a settlement doesn't make MGM guilty either.
We all take turns bringing stuff in. It was my turn so I brought those and big bag of Reese's pumpkins in. It was all gone in 2 weeks. Some people bring in weird shit like Skittles or Twizzlers and it sits for months.
You’re ignoring the power disparity. The state has all the power and money in the criminal case. The hotel and insurance companies have all the power and money in this case. The decision to settle is vastly different in each case as a result.