Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ambler, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,505
    Rep Power
    2320645

    Default 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
    Last edited by -JD-; August 13th, 2014 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Fixed Links
    Keep perspective, recognize the good in your enemies and the bad in your friends.
    "--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." - Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Windsor Twsp., Pennsylvania
    (York County)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    6,904
    Rep Power
    21474858

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

    Can't see much, or anything, without an account, unfortunately.
    While many claim to support the right, precious few support the practice.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ambler, Pennsylvania
    (Montgomery County)
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,505
    Rep Power
    2320645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    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."
    Keep perspective, recognize the good in your enemies and the bad in your friends.
    "--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." - Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    30
    Rep Power
    0

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

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Glen Mills, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,604
    Rep Power
    21474857

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CaliRefugee View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania
    (Lancaster County)
    Posts
    30
    Rep Power
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by internet troll View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CaliRefugee; August 14th, 2014 at 11:04 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bucks, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    13,618
    Rep Power
    21474867

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

    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.
    Attorney Phil Kline, AKA gunlawyer001@gmail.com
    Ce sac n'est pas un jouet.

Similar Threads

  1. Update (?) to § 6106 and implications?
    By OwnTheRide in forum Concealed & Open Carry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 15th, 2012, 02:30 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 29th, 2009, 11:15 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 13th, 2008, 05:12 PM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 12:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •