"More to the story - Homeowner insurance denied medical bills saying the nephew was responsible. She sued the kid because you have to name a defendant. Direct the hate to the messed up insurance system that refuses medical claims because a little kid might be responsible."I asked why she and her lawyer didn't get in front of this by saying that was the situation before social media got hold of it.
"Just guessing, but it probably wouldn't serve the aunt well to publicly blast the insurance company until after the medical bills got covered."All of that sounds completely logical to me. Further, this person (I won't reveal their name) works at a high level in a field where they would absolutely qualify as an expert in a situation like this. It's almost enough to make me rescind the entire original post. Almost.
But I'm not going to do that because while it's highly likely that there is more to the story (there almost always is), it's still really scummy. For starters, how did they ever think that any jury not comprised of actual monsters would ever side in a million years against an 8-year-old who loves his aunt?
|"Actually, we're with the kid on this one, too. I mean, yeah, we're monsters, but come on."|
So, no I'm not rescinding the post. Maybe Connell and Beckert don't deserve utter hatred (although I still wonder how enthusiastically Beckert offered any alternatives to a lawsuit that he had to know had less than a snowball's chance of succeeding) but they should have used better judgment.