3 ms·

A settlement isn't a court deciding that they are liable, its the MGM Grand paying out rather than taking a risk of the court case (likely would generate a ton

• mc32 7y ago
  Right, in a statement it said it was not to be “interpreted as an admission of guilt”. Or some legal boilerplate to that effect.
• lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I can’t imagine avoiding bad PR (for something that clearly wasn’t the hotel’s fault) is worth $800M. They must have thought there was some possibility of legal liability, at least the the cost to defend with lawyers. But there shouldn’t be, in a sane world the suit would have been tossed immediately.
  • throwaway2048 7y ago
    What they thought is mostly irrelevant, acting as if this is some kind of precedent and that hotels are now responsible and prepare to have your bags and rooms searched every day is stupid overblown alarmism. The payment was large because they had liability insurance that covered 7/8ths of it, and the plaintiffs realized it would be very easy to get them to pay at least that amount out.
    • lotsofpulp 7y ago
      In my experience, just because your insurance pays, it doesn’t mean you don’t have an incentive to stop the payout. Premiums are based on how much insurance pays in claims, so their future premiums will be higher than if there were not to be a payment in the first place. I still don’t see why a hotel would be at all culpable, so I would love to see the analysis of the lawyers involved. It is not legal precedent, but it is precedent in the sense that if MGM’s lawyers thought it best not to fight it, then what can a smaller company do?