|
|
|
Court: $1M coverage for Conn. fire victim families
Law & Court News |
2013/06/11 08:58
|
Families suing the operator of a Hartford nursing home where 16 patients died in a 2003 fire suffered a setback Monday, when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the home's insurance coverage was $1 million instead of the $10 million claimed by the victims' relatives.
The justices' 3-2 decision reversed a lower court judge's interpretation of Greenwood Health Center's insurance policy in favor of the families. The high court instead found in favor of Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.
"It just seems completely inadequate," Van Starkweather, an attorney for one victim's family, said about the lower coverage figure. "I'm disappointed. It was a close decision. Three justices went with AIG. Two justices went with the victims."
A lawyer for Lexington Insurance declined to comment Monday.
The fire at Greenwood Health Center on Feb. 26, 2003, broke out after psychiatric patient Leslie Andino set her bed on fire while flicking a cigarette lighter. Officials at the time said it was the 10th deadliest nursing home fire in U.S. history. Andino was charged with 16 counts of arson murder, but was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Relatives of 13 of the 16 victims sued the nursing home's operator for cash damages, saying it failed to adequately supervise Andino. Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. ruled in 2009 that Greenwood's insurance policy with Lexington provided $250,000 in coverage for each plaintiff and the policy's maximum coverage was $10 million.
But Lexington Insurance appealed Berger's decision, saying that the $10 million was the total coverage for all seven nursing homes run by Greenwood's operator and that each home was insured up to $1 million.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, the Supreme Court's majority found that each plaintiff actually was eligible for up to $500,000 from the insurance policy if they won their lawsuit, but that the policy's total coverage was limited to $1 million. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Antonio, Texas Probate Attorney - Aldrich Law Firm
Law Firm Blog News |
2013/06/11 08:58
|
What, exactly, is probate?
The term “probate” refers to a variety of legal procedures which involve the transfer of a person’s assets after death and the conclusion of the deceased person’s affairs. The cost, length, and complexity of the available probate procedures vary widely. A consultation with a Texas Probate Attorney will typically be needed to determine which of these procedures are needed given your particular situation. Two of the most important considerations in determining the right probate procedure are:
1. Did the decedent die with or without leaving a valid written will?
When a decedent leaves a valid written will in Texas, he is said to have “died testate.” In these cases, the terms of the will dictate the distribution of estate assets to individuals or entities named in the will as beneficiaries. In these instances a probate lawyer will file an Application to Probate Will, after which a probate hearing is held to “prove up” the facts in the Application and further to ensure that the will is valid.
In San Antonio, Texas, probate refers to the legal procedures that involves distribution of a person's assets after their death. Many times families are told by court officials that it is advised to seek a probate attorney. Our attorney at Aldrich Law Firm can assist you with the legal process needed to close out their deceased loved one’s affairs. Many times they may not know exactly what probate is and this is where we come in to help using our years of knowledge and expertise in this matter. In some cases it may be possible to avoid probate altogether. The best way to avoid probate is through the use of appropriate estate planning. We can assist in this as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ID court rules man can face felony stalking charge
Top Court Watch |
2013/06/10 08:23
|
The Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled that allegedly violating a Washington-issued no-contact order is sufficient to elevate charges against an Idaho man to felony first-degree stalking.
The judges on Friday reversed a 2nd District Court decision that had reduced charges against Paul Carey Hartzell to second-degree stalking, a misdemeanor.
According to court documents, a counselor who lived in Washington but worked in Idaho sought a no-contact order preventing Hartzell from contacting her for a year.
That's after he allegedly made unwanted advances, including at her home.
Initially charged with first-degree stalking, a judge reduced the charges against Hartzell.
That didn't sit well with prosecutors.
The Appeals Court agreed, ruling unanimously the district court judge erred by concluding the Washington state order couldn't elevate the Idaho charge to first-degree stalking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. court declines to address email warrants
Law & Court News |
2013/06/07 10:09
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court has declined to address whether state judges can issue search warrants for email accounts maintained by out-of-state companies like Google.
The court took up the issue in the case of former Monroe youth minister David Esarey, who was sentenced in May 2010 to six years in prison for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl and trading nude photos with her.
Justices upheld Esarey's convictions Friday. But they decided not to address his appeal argument that a state judge had no authority to issue a search warrant for his Google Gmail account because Google is based in California.
The court ruled instead that the issuing of the search warrant didn't affect the jury's verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intel chair says NSA court order is renewal
Attorney Blog News |
2013/06/06 21:42
|
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee says the top secret court order for telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon is a three-month renewal of an ongoing practice.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California spoke to reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference on Thursday after the Obama administration defended the National Security Agency's need to collect the records.
Other lawmakers have said previously that the practice is legal under the Patriot Act although civil libertarians have complained about U.S. snooping on American citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
