Old City Shooting Case Update: Lawsuit & Interesting Insurance Implications ...

Many of you will remember the Gerald Ung case fro 2010/2011. Here is the old thread: http://forum.pafoa.org/news-123/8607...-shooting.html Makes for a good evenings read ...

Seems that, as predicted then, in 2012 a suit was initiated on behalf of the shootee (DiDonato.) Not only against the acquitted shooter (Ung,) but against all of the bars (read as deep pocket insurance companies) that served all of the parties. http://abovethelaw.com/2012/01/didon...ith-a-lawsuit/

Some pre-trial legal thinking on a prospective suit: http://www.litigationandtrial.com/20...ax+Kennerly%29

Recently there has been an interesting judgement (though not fully resolved yet) on the responsibility of the Ung's homeowners insurance company for defense and indemnity of Ung in the civil case. Something that could be a issue for many of us if we found ourselves in a similar case of a defensive shooting. Here are a couple articles:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...72938740,d.cGU
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...72938740,d.cGU

Can't see much, or anything, without an account, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Can't see much, or anything, without an account, unfortunately.

---

Try it now. I inserted the full Google links. I guess they have an "arrangement."

I guess the "bro" who went out drinking with his other "bros" should've stopped drinking and should've left other people alone like the vast majority of society does. Now daddy's deep pockets are funding a fishing exercise against a man who had every right and in fact the responsibility to protect himself from harm.

The "bro" even claims that he wasn't drinking in sworn testimony yet he's suing the bars? Either he wasn't drunk as he alleges, in which case everyone else gets off, or he was drunk, in which case Ung will get off and who knows what else. I'm hoping for a finding of no liability all around and that a countersuit nets him a big payday, though he'll likely never see it due to the "bro" fortune being tied up in a trust.

This BS with the insurance happens every damned time in the hopes that the insured will simply go away. Insurance is a damned scam if you're not willing to go to the mat with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaliRefugee

The "bro" even claims that he wasn't drinking in sworn testimony yet he's suing the bars? Either he wasn't drunk as he alleges, in which case everyone else gets off, or he was drunk, in which case Ung will get off and who knows what else. I'm hoping for a finding of no liability all around and that a countersuit nets him a big payday, though he'll likely never see it due to the "bro" fortune being tied up in a trust.
.

---

I think they are suing the bars Ung was at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by internet troll

I think they are suing the bars Ung was at.

---

You're right and they are, but my point is that they can't have it both ways.

Thinking about this more, I'm not sure they can. This is mostly a fishing expedition and shakedown to get to the liability limit of the bars' insurance coverage OR Ung, but not necessarily both.

Personally, I'd rather have health than a pile of money and all that tissue and organ damage. No amount of money will make the guy better again. And he frankly deserves it.

I haven't looked at the pleadings in a long while, but my recollection is that the aggressive a-hole's legal theories are that (a) it was all Ung's fault for the unprovoked shooting of the peaceful gentlemen, even though the jury was unable to see that beyond a reasonable doubt; and at the same time (b) it was the fault of the bars who served the wolfpack that attacked Ung, making them so drunk and aggressive that Ung was forced to use force to defend himself.

It would be interesting to see the factual proof offered to support both of those theories without nullifying both theories.

The reality is that the wolfpack members were adults, allowed to wander the world without handlers or guardians, and they bought their own drinks and made their own choices. And they chose to antagonize and attack 3 harmless-looking victims, and the colander guy was the lead aggressor. His buddies merely pushed him into it so they could watch and safely take a few swipes when the opportunity arose.