The Cincinnati Enquirer has an article here that discusses the lawsuit that Kings Island filed against the insurance company for the Roller Coaster Corporation of America, the defunct company that designed and built Son of Beast. Kings Island sued the insurance company in 2005 after RCCA went bankrupt.

not a good sign.

Not surprising.

But it does set the course for the Manufacturer's Insurance company to share in the cost to settle the personal injury claims.

You can bet they will appeal the decision: Appeal to the state or to the feds.

Mike

Uh...the decision WAS the appeal decision. The article states it is unclear whether the decision can be appealed...but it almost certainly can be. The next step would doubtless be to Ohio's Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.

hmmm... I could live if I got "stiffed" over $20... to a lesser extent $200. $2,000 would suck but I'd deal with it. But I woul definitely "miss" $20 million.

Ask yourself who the general contractor was for Son of Beast. And then ask yourself why Paramount Parks and those who bought it should be able to be reimbursed for losses caused by how that thing was built (as opposed to how it was designed). And this is separate and apart from the issue of what the general liability insurance policy did and did not cover.

The decision actually seems to be sound.

You can't blame the park for trying.

There was always the chance it would be successful.

A much more detailed news account:

http://www.western-star.com/n/content/oh/s...sislandweb.html

And a totally incorrect account is here:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008...ash_award/3106/

The case may have implications for the July 9, 2006 incident, but it did not directly involve it at ALL.

The only group that will make money no matter what the out come are the lawyers.

Mike

The only group that will make money no matter what the out come are the lawyers.

Mike

They always do.

Lawsuits are tricky. Last year I sued someone who denied me property that I was due - and I lost!

Were you represented by learned counsel?

Here is the link to the actual decision. It was a contractual issue between the insurance company for RCCO and Paramount. There is no indication that CF was substituted as a party, so this apparently has little, if any, effect on the current status of the park. Personally, I have my feelings about the situation...For example...If the coaster wasn't built to specifications (i.e. the plans), how was that missed for so long? If Paramount didn't carefully check something that important, I'm glad they aren't in charge anymore......

In addition, Paramount Parks took over as the general contractor on the project...and was in charge during most of the construction phase.

Thats right. I forgot that.... Even though I don't care for insurance companies, I can't have sympathy for Paramount on this one......

Thats right. I forgot that.... Even though I don't care for insurance companies, I can't have sympathy for Paramount on this one......

You don't care for insurance companies?

Now why exactly is that?

Well, for me, insurance companies fall into the catagory right above lawyers.

...and the lawyer catagory is pretty low.

Well, for me, insurance companies fall into the catagory right above lawyers.

...and the lawyer catagory is pretty low.

Not sure where a lot of people would be without their insurance company.

Ohhhh yes I do.....

They'd be in a world of hurt.

I pay out Thousands and Thousands of dollars every day for losses.

Most claims I pay on would never come close to being made up by an insured in written premiums.

I find that many (not all) insurance companies are greedy and seemingly do all in their power to avoid paying legitimate claims. FOr example, I remember all of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi who had to sue their insurance companies after the hurricanes just to receive the coverage they had paid for.

I find that many (not all) insurance companies are greedy and seemingly do all in their power to avoid paying legitimate claims. FOr example, I remember all of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi who had to sue their insurance companies after the hurricanes just to receive the coverage they had paid for.

In turn, insurance companies are normally far more generous and approving than would be required under their policies.

In fact, if something is ambiguous in a policy, the company is obligated to find for the insured.

Don't always believe the commercials they run during Jerry Springer.

I find that many (not all) insurance companies are greedy and seemingly do all in their power to avoid paying legitimate claims. FOr example, I remember all of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi who had to sue their insurance companies after the hurricanes just to receive the coverage they had paid for.

In turn, insurance companies are normally far more generous and approving than would be required under their policies.

In fact, if something is ambiguous in a policy, the company is obligated to find for the insured.

Don't always believe the commercials they run during Jerry Springer.

Um, no. I don't believe for one second that insurance companies are far more generous than required. If anything, it takes a lot to get them to pay up what they are supposed to. And I didn't get my info from Jerry Springer commercials. That is a simple fact of life then it comes to insurance companies.

I find that many (not all) insurance companies are greedy and seemingly do all in their power to avoid paying legitimate claims. FOr example, I remember all of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi who had to sue their insurance companies after the hurricanes just to receive the coverage they had paid for.

In turn, insurance companies are normally far more generous and approving than would be required under their policies.

In fact, if something is ambiguous in a policy, the company is obligated to find for the insured.

Don't always believe the commercials they run during Jerry Springer.

Um, no. I don't believe for one second that insurance companies are far more generous than required. If anything, it takes a lot to get them to pay up what they are supposed to. And I didn't get my info from Jerry Springer commercials. That is a simple fact of life then it comes to insurance companies.

Laws are very specific as far as acting in "Good Faith."

By and far, more claims are paid that are that are questionable than are improperly denied.

I've worked for a total of three seperate insurance companies and know the workings of a variety others.

You simply would not believe the hoops and reviews that must be completed before a claim is denied.

No thanks. I've already seen the hoops you have to jump through just to get what's coming to ya.

No thanks. I've already seen the hoops you have to jump through just to get what's coming to ya.

Do you have examples?

I find that many (not all) insurance companies are greedy and seemingly do all in their power to avoid paying legitimate claims. FOr example, I remember all of the people in Louisiana and Mississippi who had to sue their insurance companies after the hurricanes just to receive the coverage they had paid for.

In turn, insurance companies are normally far more generous and approving than would be required under their policies.

In fact, if something is ambiguous in a policy, the company is obligated to find for the insured.

Don't always believe the commercials they run during Jerry Springer.

I think it depends on the company. Having worked with insurance companies, I have found that some are very fair and reasonable, but they seem to be the minority in the industry. I saw one case where a certain company sent a person a letter saying they wouldn't cover a fire under a homeowner's policy on the basis that the fire department sprayed water on the fire making the damage "Flood damage" which was excluded under the policy. And, no, I'm not kidding.

Were you represented by learned counsel?

Yes, I had a lawyer. The judge's decision was OUTRAGEOUS. The lawsuit was over a relative's will. And the judge allowed my greedy, rich, opponent to do something that the Will didn't. The judge over-stepped his authority. I could appeal, but lack the money. So I got screwed out of my inheritence. And after losing my job in January, you can only imagine how unhappy I am.

On a positive note, I really do like my temp job and hope that it'll go full-time.

Good luck with that, Chef.

Woofer, I've seen the same kind of thing that Bavarian Beetle was talking about. I know one of my college professors had his house burn down and he said it was like pulling teeth trying to get his insurance company to pay up.

Were you represented by learned counsel?

Yes, I had a lawyer. The judge's decision was OUTRAGEOUS. The lawsuit was over a relative's will. And the judge allowed my greedy, rich, opponent to do something that the Will didn't. The judge over-stepped his authority. I could appeal, but lack the money. So I got screwed out of my inheritence. And after losing my job in January, you can only imagine how unhappy I am.

On a positive note, I really do like my temp job and hope that it'll go full-time.

Good luck...... I don't know if you are a religious man who would appreciate this, but I will make sure that I pray for you and your family.