2 ms·

He is very much doing something under-handed to destroy Gawker. Gawker owns insurance to decouple financial harm from existential harm in the case of lawsuits

by tardos 10y ago

He is very much doing something under-handed to destroy Gawker. Gawker owns insurance to decouple financial harm from existential harm in the case of lawsuits like these. The civil system expects that victims who are harmed will try to maximize expected payout in case of a suit. If Hulk's legal case is indeed robust, he should have included every possible harm in the suit to maximize his payout. The decision to structure the suit in a way that excludes Gawker's insurance coverage is an under-handed technique which turns a civil suit into an indirect tactic to destroy Gawker. It is underhanded because, at the very least, it violates an expected principle of the civil suit system. This signals that the goal of the suit is not to compensate Hulk for damages, but to put Gawker out of business.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Right, exactly - question is how aware of this was Hogan? If he was aware, it's still not great. If he wasn't, that raises significant questions about SLAPP from Thiel, if not malpractice from his lawyers (whose direction are they fallowing, their apparent client, or his financier?).
willvarfar 10y ago
If a lawyer explained such a choice to me I'd likely choose to take the insurer out of the picture too. Principles.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  "Your Honor, the actions of Gawker caused emotional distress and irreparable damage to the earnings capability of my client, and thus we seek an award to compensate him for this loss." "Your Honor, we are dropping this claim here, but keeping all the rest intact." "You realize that this means the defendant will have little to no ability to compensate you for the damages you claimed and sought and stated caused you duress?" "... Yes... Your Honor." If you state it's about compensation for lost potential earnings, and such, and say you need to be made whole, then waive away a large part of your practical ability to be made whole, at what point does that become disingenuous?
Trundle 10y ago
>It is underhanded because, at the very least, it violates an expected principle of the civil suit system. This signals that the goal of the suit is not to compensate Hulk for damages, but to put Gawker out of business. I'm genuinely curious, where did you learn that the only goal of the civil suit system is to compensate the damaged party? It would seem odd to me that punitive damages would be a thing that exists, distinct from compensatory damages, if they're not meant to be a part of the system. I don't see how there was an "expected principle" of that at all. >Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by tardos 10y ago

FireBeyond 10y ago

Right, exactly - question is how aware of this was Hogan? If he was aware, it's still not great. If he wasn't, that raises significant questions about SLAPP from Thiel, if not malpractice from his lawyers (whose direction are they fallowing, their apparent client, or his financier?).

willvarfar 10y ago

If a lawyer explained such a choice to me I'd likely choose to take the insurer out of the picture too. Principles.

FireBeyond 10y ago
"Your Honor, the actions of Gawker caused emotional distress and irreparable damage to the earnings capability of my client, and thus we seek an award to compensate him for this loss." "Your Honor, we are dropping this claim here, but keeping all the rest intact." "You realize that this means the defendant will have little to no ability to compensate you for the damages you claimed and sought and stated caused you duress?" "... Yes... Your Honor." If you state it's about compensation for lost potential earnings, and such, and say you need to be made whole, then waive away a large part of your practical ability to be made whole, at what point does that become disingenuous?

Trundle 10y ago

>It is underhanded because, at the very least, it violates an expected principle of the civil suit system. This signals that the goal of the suit is not to compensate Hulk for damages, but to put Gawker out of business. I'm genuinely curious, where did you learn that the only goal of the civil suit system is to compensate the damaged party? It would seem odd to me that punitive damages would be a thing that exists, distinct from compensatory damages, if they're not meant to be a part of the system. I don't see how there was an "expected principle" of that at all. >Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some portion of the punitive damage award.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]