The first story comes from the world of Bad Boy Records. Francesca Spero has filed suit against Sean Combs and his record label, for discrimination. She was fired and now claims that she was pushed out of her position, at age 51, for a younger woman who does no possess her skill set. 

     Known as “the Mom”  or “Auntie” at the record label, she was let go, allegedly, after she revealed that she needed hip surgery.  Her attorney said that “Spero opened the door for Combs’ career and now he showed her the door”. Of course, you may recall that when he was in his “Puff Daddy” phase, he decided to be known as “P-Diddy”. Then, he didn’t want the “P” to come between he and his fans, so he became just “Diddy”. Maybe there is merit to the suit or maybe he just likes to change his mind. (almost made it without comment)

     In our second story, Lance Armstrong has been named as a defendant in a whistle-blower lawsuit, according to the US Department of Justice. US cyclist, Floyd Landis, has accused Armstrong of illegal doping under the False Claims Act. If Armstrong is found guilty, Landis would possibly be entitled to monetary compensation if money is recovered. I guess it’s a case of Landis saying, “I took performance drugs, you took performance drugs; Now pay me for reporting that  you took performance drugs”.   No truth to the rumor that the government is considering a name change to the US Department of Juice.

     In the final story, a crook, James Jimenez, was just sentenced to four years in jail for stealing Kirsten Dunst’s purse, from her unattended penthouse suite. His defense was that “I really don’t understand the charges”. I guess his lawyer thought he was providing a helpful defense, when he called his client “a little Mongoloid”.

     When the crook tried to say he didn’t understand and that he didn’t even know that he was at the hotel, the Judge didn’t seem impressed. Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Jill Konviser shot back, “I understand, because I presided over this trial and I’m familiar with all the evidence”.   Unfortunately for Jimenez, the hotel video surveillance could not be overcome by the “I’m too dumb” defense.

     It seems fitting to end with Paul Harvey’s closing remarks, “And now you know the rest of the story”.

     The President of the organization that was presenting the award, Cynthia Meltzer, was asked why Mr Borden was chosen. “He’s got energy, he’s got enthusiasm, he’s got passion.”

     Mr Borden still picks up his dry cleaning, goes to work every day to his law office and still co-hosts a local radio program. In addition, he serves as a greeter at First Baptist Church of Weatherford, which is about 30 miles from his house.

     He arrives at his law office at 6:30 every morning and leaves about 6PM each night. Because he suffered a bout of pneumonia about 4 years ago, he does take a 45 minute nap, just before noon.

     He is regularly asked why he continues to work. His response is that, ”When I was five years old, my father handed me a hoe and said the corn needs weeding. And that’s how I got started”.

     Even for the article, the author wanted to know what the secret is to his long life. He nodded and indicated that he is asked that all that time. His answer, “I’m a firm believer that God has His hand in everything that happens. He is letting me live for some reason. I try to do the things that I believe he wants me to do”.  

     I know that you and I will be facing various challenges today. Maybe somebody will just need a word of encouragement. Maybe somebody will bring us a word to lift our day. We’re both here for a purpose and for that, I think that Mr Borden  is a good reminder.

Here is an interview of Mr. Borden:

     We don’t arrive at that information because elephants are champions of the game  ”Trivial Pursuit”. No one has interviewed an elephant and Thomas Elephant didn’t invent the light bulb. Instead, these are gathered eductated facts that  lead us to that conclusion.

     Elephants live in herds and in studying their movements, they have demonstrated that they can recall a mental map of their home range, that defies our memory capacity. This range has been calculated to be the size of the state of Rhode Island. Plus, a study of their brains demonstrates that the pure size of their brains indicates a large memory mass.

     I could go on and on about the fascination of elephants, but I know that you didn’t come to the blog today, for a lesson on elephants or a Discovery Channel blog. Instead, I wanted to remind you of the lessons of the elephant, because they are applicable to an employer who has come to town.

     The Elephant Insurance Company has come to Richmond, Virginia. Soon, they will be one of the areas leading employers. Plus, they will try to “out cute” the Gecko; “out friendly” Flo of Progressive; and “out silly” whatever that poor advertising idea is,  that Nationwide is currently using. You know, that pitiful guy who works 25/7.

     Initially,  Elephant will be hitting our airwaves with price comparisons. That seems to be the method of getting insurance business. For some reason, no insurance company wants to focus on the fact that they handle claims in good faith.

     Like Biologists, Zoologists or Ecologists studying elephants; I have been studying insurance companies for a while. I have come to the conclusion that their only purpose is to make money. No surprise there.

     To digress, I have always found Warren Buffett’s motives a bit suspect. Maybe it’s just the chair that I sit in. Why be philanthropic in the end and not while earning and doing business?

      Buffett’s primary investment vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway, owns Geico; In my opinion, Geico is a difficult company, when it comes to resolving claims quickly. In 2006,  Berkshire Hathaway  paid the state of New York,  a 92 Million dollar fine arising out of its involvement in an alleged AIG fraud scheme.  Just two of Buffett’s investments.  Just something to keep in the memory.

     A study of insurance companies is like a study of elephants; I guess you can get pretty obsessed over them; But, the more you study them, the more you learn.

     Where does that tie in to Elephant Insurance. Well, like an elephant, I hope you will remember this blog in the coming days, if you have dealings with Elephant Insurance. Last Friday, they gave each of their employees 100 shares of stock . Now, like any good employer, all the employees benefit in the profit of the company. The best way to turn a profit in the insurance industry? Well, it’s collecting not paying.  Just something to remember.

 Tragedy is never expected.  On April 10, 1912, the Titanic embarked on its maiden voyage. The initial passengers that boarded could smell the fresh paint and they had to be careful, because it still had not dried in some areas. The powerful and influential had jockeyed to be the first passengers to sail on this mountain of steel,  that was to be captained by the highly qualified Edward John Smith. The first class passengers had paid a tremendous sum of $4350 for a parlor suite ticket.  The Titanic had been proclaimed “Unsinkable”.

     On April 14, 1912, the party was in full tilt. At once, tragedy stuck as the ship crashed into an iceberg, causing the head to begin taking on tons of water. No one was worried that there were only enough lifeboats on board for half of the passengers. In fact, even as the unseen Death Angel had climbed aboard, Bruce Ismay, who was the President of the company who owned the Titanic, went around to let those in ear range know, “Not to worry, all is well. This ship is unsinkable and it’s clear as far as the eye can see”.

     Despite the assurances of Mr Ismay, you know the ending.  On the early morning of the 15th, the unsinkable was no longer. Even after the ship was at the bottom of the sea and 1517 people had perished, the headlines of the New York  paper announced “All saved from the Titanic”. Telegrams were sent with such messages as “All passengers are safe” and ” The Virginian is towing the Titanic to safety”.  Everyone was in complete denial because the Titanic could not sink.

     We look back now and wonder what they were thinking. Of course, I could do multiple blogs on how Big Business and the greedy completely ignored signs of problems. Not sending enough life boats had to do with taking up passenger space; Which would have cut into profits. The Titanic was not equipped properly to send warnings  since it had no red flares. With just one flare, the ship named “California” could have seen the distress signal, because it was reportedly less than 10 miles away. 

     Skip reading to the bottom, if you are tired of the failures, because I am guessing that my point is clear.  However, just to mention two other things; There were no binoculars in the crow’s nest for the watchman to see the iceberg.  The temperature of the water was unknown to the crew because the thermometer was on a rope that was too short for the water. So, when the captain read the temperature log,  there were no worries about freezing water.

     The lessons of the Titanic are many. Jury consultants have told me that there will be those who sit on juries, who bring a bias with them that basically says, “That couldn’t have happened to me”. The “harms bias” juror then puts some fault on the plaintiff for not avoiding the harms caused by the defendant.

     It is this same reason why many people carry little or no car insurance. In the state of Virginia, the minimum coverage is 25K.  Somehow, that makes people think that they have enough coverage.  Plus, they never think that the person crashing into them might not have any insurance.

     The ending to this blog is to encourage you to step up your coverage limits. I think you will find that it is much less expensive than you expect. Then, if tragedy strikes, coverage won’t be an issue. Even if the person that hits you is insured because you will have uninsured motorist coverage. Think about it. Minimum coverage is not enough if there is serious injuries and significant medical bills. Most of the time, coverage becomes an issue in serious injuries. Call your agent.  For a minor cost, the binoculars could have been in the crow’s nest.

       I initially decided that I was going to tie in the different viewpoints, and discuss how Glenn Beck has elicited quite the reactions to his recent rally. If you are a supporter, you call him a Patriot and a person who is working for our country. If you are the Wall Street Journal, you report on the meaning and impact of the rally. Of course it also helps that the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, are both under Murdock ownership. 

    The opposing view of Glenn Beck is that he is ruining America. Like all things political, there are  very passionate opinions, as expressed by the attachment of articles.   

     While researching the various opinions, I came across the attacks on Beck,  for being Mormon. That led me to this  lawsuit , that this blog is really about.

     A Las Vegas man has filed suit against the Latter Day Saints Church (Mormon), claiming that he ruptured a disc in his back and suffered a permanent injury, while serving as a volunteer youth leader in North Carolina. According to the lawsuit, he was tasked with performing over 200 baptisms of the dead.  The pleading states, “the repetitive motion for performing baptisms for the dead could cause serious damage”.  (Can’t argue with that) He also claimed that some of the bodies weighed over 250 lbs

     I think that I really need little blog comment. You can see why this lawsuit grabbed my attention. From a strategy standpoint, I don’t understand why it was filed in Utah rather than North Carolina. How could he get a more favorable jury for his claims there?

     As in many articles, the comments below it raise some interesting points. One person raised the question of ”doesn”t fat bob in the water?” Others commented , “Why didn’t he just back out?” or “It’s a good thing he didn’t haul hay at the church barn.”  I’m not sure these “posters” would be favorable for the plaintiff on the Utah jury.

     Pilot Online has been reporting about a continuing story that involves  a man who was killed, when he was run over by a Virginia Beach dump truck (story), while he was sleeping on the beach.  The stories have been focusing on the two sides of the story.

     One one hand, there is evidence that the dump truck driver had some previous driving issues and a driving record. Separately, there have been other stories about  issues of oversight regarding other city employees and improper credit card spending, that could show that the City is not properly supervising its employees. In addition, if you read the possible background evidence about the dump truck driver, she apparently would regularly post entries on her Facebook account, about how tired she was, or how long she had stayed up the night before. Her job required early morning trash pick-up on the Beach front.

     If you were going to present the case, you would hope to keep the emphasis on the conduct of the dump truck driver. Instead,  most of the emphasis has been placed on the man who was killed. All of a sudden, homelessness is in the news. While the city is not accepting liability, it is offering to set up a fund to help the homeless.

     Separately, most of the reporting directs a focus on the lawyer, representing the estate of the man. The lawyer has said that he wants the city to pay 25 million to settle the case. Since the city says that it has immunity, it is refusing to pay. Not surprisingly, when this story came out, all the online comments were about greed. The Viewpoint had shifted to the money, instead of the fault and harm of the dump truck driver. 

     Meanwhile, the newspaper ran an editorial on why there should be basically be no payment, because the man was homeless and now,  it is outrageous that his family has taken a sudden interest in him, now that there might be money involved.

     As a sidenote to the editorial that was written, the writer  is married to a Virginia Beach Judge. In fact, if a lawsuit  is filed, he could potentially hear motions or even preside over the trial. Of course, there is no rule that says a Judge is conflicted out of a case, just because his wife disagrees with the lawsuit. Normally though, I’m guessing the public wouldn’t know about that opinion.

     I blog on this because I suspect the city will not voluntarily pay. Then, suit will be filed and there will have to be a ruling on whether the dump truck driver was performing a governmental function. If so, then gross negligence, instead of ordinary negligence, will have to be proven. Basically, a proof of reckless, willful and wanton conduct is how the jury instruction would read.

     As I type this, I guess there are more than  two sides to this. Ultimately, a jury of seven, in the civil suit, may have to decide who is the “TruthGiver” when the evidence is presented. I’m sure the openings of the two lawyers would present different viewpoints.

     By the way, did I happen to mention that there were two rallys over the weekend. One led by Glenn Beck and the other by Al Sharpton. No one could get them together for one rally, to celebrate Martin Luther King’s “I had a dream” speech. I’m guessing they didn’t have the same viewpoint.    

     .

     For the purpose of this blog, and in case it has been a while since you have heard the facts about the McDonald’s coffee case; I am posting information from the American Association of Trial Lawyers website . I hope you will wade through the facts of the case and arrive at your own conclusion as to whether it was a “runaway jury” or whether McDonalds should have been punished. You can consider the source and think that this information is skewed, since it came from a trial lawyer organization. Of course, you can also do fact checking and, I believe that you would conclude that this is an accurate description of the course of events:

• Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonald’s coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, now 84, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald’s.
• After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
• The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused.
• During discovery, McDonald’s produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck’s. This history documented McDonald’s knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
• McDonald’s also said during discovery that, based on a consultant’s advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
• Further, McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald’s had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.
• Plaintiff’s expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
• McDonald’s asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company’s own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
• McDonald’s also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a “reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
• The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald’s coffee sales.
• Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald’s had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement 

     I think that I aired my first television legal ad in 1989.  I remember the first ad as being pretty tame and basically was a name recognition advertisement that included the slogan “Leave it to Bieber”. When I was in law school, I would always joke that I would have Ward and June characters outside of a house, like the old “Leave it to Beaver” show, calling to me and saying something about “The Bieber” while the June actor would be saying something like, “Do something, Ward” . If you’ve seen the old re-runs from that show, I’m sure you’ve seen that line a few times. 

     When I really used the theme of “Leave it to Bieber”, I didn’t expect much of a reaction. I recall getting a great deal of business from the ad but I also recall getting calls and hearing grumblings from lawyers, about the fact that we were doing TV advertising. To this day, there are lawyers still complaining about it; but mostly, so many lawyers are on TV, that it has become “old hat”.

     When I first arrived at law school, I quickly learned that there were some first year students that were very friendly. Those same friendly students are now friendly lawyers. They brought their personality to the practice of law.   When I am asked about what I think of lawyers, one of the responses I give is that all lawyers that come to the office make me happy. Some make me happy when they arrive and others when they leave.   

     I still sometimes speak on advertising. In the beginning, many would ask me if television really works. Now, I’m not asked that question. I guess they figure that we have been around long enough that something must be working or maybe, we have the “Secrets to the Secrets” locked up in a vault somewhere.

     We still do a bit of advertising on TV but the amount has been greatly reduced. Now, people get their information from many sources; There are so many channels on cable or TV that it is hard to target a large viewership. You can now more effectively, though, target a specific audience. ESPN targets young males. Dr Phil targets a female audience. For me, I like that we keep just hanging around. In the next 5 years, who knows what will be the hot item for advertising.

     God willing, we’ll still be here. I suspect that we won’t be advertising by bullhorn or megaphone. Maybe by then we will be in 3D and you’ll see me standing in the middle of your living room, while you wear your fancy 3D glasses. I guess if that’s true, I better go out and buy some new clothes. I have to look good from all angles,  you know!

     One of the partners at the firm, sent me on a divorce hearing in some small town, outside of Oklahoma City. I had talked briefly to the now assigned client, by telephone, and made arrangements to meet her at the Courthouse. I put some documents into evidence and the uncontested divorce was granted by the Judge. At that point, I turned to the client and expressed congratulations.

     I now know how inappropriate and inconsiderate that my one word was, at that moment. The client immediately let me know, by her non-stop crying. I vowed to work toward the day that I would never be handling divorces and I knew that I would never say any mention of congratulations, following such a hearing, unless the client indicated something like, ”Well, I guess that means I can marry my girlfriend/boyfriend now”. I have kept both of those ”notes to self” since  that day.

     There is no winner in a divorce. The international news that Tiger Woods and his  wife were officially granted a divorce on Monday afternoon, rings sadness for them and especially for their 19 month-old son and 3 year old daughter.  Their joint statement that was issued simply said, “We are sad that our marriage is over and we wish each other the very best in the future”.  When I saw that news release, my mind traveled back to that Courtroom in Oklahoma.

     It didn’t take the shooting of President Lincoln to put everyone on notice that you shouldn’t bring guns to the theater. Despite that, Granby Theater has agreed to pay 1 million dollars to a family, after a shooting occurred that killed one of it’s patrons.  It makes you wonder if the day is coming where we will be going through airport security, just to go to the movies.

     Here’s two stories involving Best Buy’s Geek Squad. First, a man has filed suit against the Geek Squad for 450K; He claims that when he turned on his “Geek repaired” computer, it electrically shocked him so hard that it dislocated his shoulders, which required him to seek physical therapy.  

     The second lawsuit has been filed by the Geek Squad, against a minister. The Geeks claim that the minister should not be allowed to use a logo that says “God Squad” on his car, because it is infringing on the Geek Squad name and logo. If the first lawsuit is truthful, maybe they ought to think about changing their name.

     I could keep going, but I will end with this story about a Saudi Judge.  Apparently, he is taking the idea of an eye for an eye to a new level in the Courtroom. He is allegedly calling hospitals to see if they have the capability to operate and paralyze a man. The man has been convicted of attacking another man and paralyzing him with a meat cleaver. Now, the Judge is trying to figure out a fair punishment for the conviction.