On a more serious note, I doubt that you’re correct about the coverage. The more likely scenario, although like you I’m entirely speculating, is that the car’s policy was involved on the theory that the carwash through its employee was a “user.” if that in fact happened, and there was $1M in covergae, you would get to $2M with the carwash’s primary limits thrown in. Very few insurance companies would have paid if the best theory plaintiff could come up with is a double occurrence for one accident. That’s an issue an insurer would typically win.

I note Blake’s education because (1) the plaintiffs made a big deal out of it, basing liability on the failure to screen better in hiring Blake, and (2) it shows that working in a car wash is one of the few legitimate opportunities available to Blake to be more than a ward of the state, and lawsuits like this one would take even that away.

I don’t have a problem with liability for the carwash. I have a problem with the punitive compensatory damages award, with Yerrid’s “not about the money” claim, with the seeking of punitive damages, and with the sloppy press coverage. And I have to wonder if the insurer was unfairly treated.

Yes it does.

Compensation for untimely death should come from Life Insurance when such deaths are related to accidents. There is no correlation between sudden-acceleration and car washing. Why was this in court?

Ted speculates that Mr. Blake’s mental level was a factor in the accident. The early “60-minute” sudden acceleration case involved a dentist driving his expensive car into his swimming pool.

Does it bother you that a Plaintiff or a trial lawyer occasionally gets good press?