Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Where do you guys come up with this bullshit?

To answer the question:  Liberal Fantasy Land Feedback Loop.  

[immortal13 4,059]

On 6/10/2019 at 11:08 AM, Foosters said:

lol, zavala didn't go to college

[JimmyJames 12,271]

I know absolutely nothing about this case, but since I’m talking on the net, here’s my take anyway.

1) juries usually get things right, so who cares.

2) I would hope that Oberlin had insurance, and they almost assuredly do, so what y’all are really debating on is whether to not some insurance company has to pay .00000000000001 percent of its claims for the year, if the verdict is upheld on appeal. Again, so who cares. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I know absolutely nothing about this case, but since I’m talking on the net, here’s my take anyway.

1) juries usually get things right, so who cares.

2) I would hope that Oberlin had insurance, and they almost assuredly do, so what y’all are really debating on is whether to not some insurance company has to pay .00000000000001 percent of its claims for the year, if the verdict is upheld on appeal. Again, so who cares. 

Coverage won’t apply if it’s an intentional defamation finding.  As you can’t insure against intentional torts as a matter of public policy.  Given that the jury lit them up for $11 million in compensatory damages and is about to light Oberlin up for punitive damages, I’m thinking they found this intentional.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Coverage won’t apply if it’s an intentional defamation finding.  As you can’t insure against intentional torts as a matter of public policy.  Given that the jury lit them up for $11 million in compensatory damages and is about to light Oberlin up for punitive damages, I’m thinking they found this intentional.  

You can insure for allegedly intentional acts. Jails do it all the time for allegedly wrongful acts including sexual abuse. Employment practice liability insurance for example for discrimination is for by definition intentional acts.  Its not definitive and of course depends on the type of policy. If their general counsel had any sense at all, they would have had insurance for this. Obviously I have no idea whether to not that’s the case here. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

You can insure for allegedly intentional acts. Jails do it all the time for allegedly wrongful acts including sexual abuse. Employment practice liability insurance for example for discrimination is for by definition intentional acts.  Its not definitive and of course depends on the type of policy. If their general counsel had any sense at all, they would have had insurance for this. Obviously I have no idea whether to not that’s the case here. 

Insurance doesn’t cover intentional torts.  And defamation can be an intentional tort.  If this one is, it won’t be covered.    

 Employment claims aren’t intentional acts.  It’s not an element of the claim.  Intent may come into whether you can recover punitives.  And a hell of a lot of those policies exclude punitives

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Insurance doesn’t cover intentional torts.  And defamation can be an intentional tort.  If this one is, it won’t be covered.    

 Employment claims aren’t intentional acts.  It’s not an element of the claim.  Intent may come into whether you can recover punitives.  And a hell of a lot of those policies exclude punitives

You can’t discriminate unintentionally but at this point were engaging in a semantic debate based on incomplete knowledge. Maybe Oberlin will hire one of us to give them a coverage opinion and then we can post it to surly and let the mob figure out who is right. 

[David Dennison 18,661]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Insurance doesn’t cover intentional torts.  And defamation can be an intentional tort.  If this one is, it won’t be covered.    

 Employment claims aren’t intentional acts.  It’s not an element of the claim.  Intent may come into whether you can recover punitives.  And a hell of a lot of those policies exclude punitives

You can absolutely purchase insurance to cover certain intentional torts. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You can absolutely purchase insurance to cover certain intentional torts. 

I very seriously doubt their insurance covers the intentional tort of defamation.  Or punitive damages from defamation.  

Jim Avila cost his employer and their insurer 400 hundred million by popping off about North Dakota beef.  They both took the L on that at the settlement stage.  

Edited June 12, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 18,661]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I very seriously doubt their insurance covers the intentional tort of defamation.  Or punitive damages from defamation.  

Jim Avila cost his employer and their insurer 400 hundred million by popping off about North Dakota beef.  They both took the L on that at the settlement stage.  

Probably not, but you never know.

I doubt very seriously the plaintiffs are going to end up seeing anything close to $33 million even with punitives. But if they do, Oberlin College will be just fine.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

One thing I have noticed is that state court judges are notoriously bad with the First Amendment, maybe all Constitutional claims/defenses.  Wouldn't surprise me much if the trial judge screwed the pooch on this one.

[jimmyjazz 45,560]

10 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Maybe Oberlin will hire one of us to give them a coverage opinion and then we can post it to surly and let the mob figure out who is right. 

Hell, we don't need information to figure out who is right.  You new around here?

[AUS-97HORN 11,682]

bump

 

$31.6M appeal upheld

it was a 3-0 decision where the appeals court felt the preponderance of evidence in Gibson's favor came from hundreds of electronic, email and social media comments, statements posted by, or sent by, Oberlin's academic leadership, that have an electronic trail that lasted more than a full year AFTER the original incident and even well after the school knew the primary student at the center of the whole event had pleaded guilty to shoplifting. 

 

Oberlin is refusing to pay.  So I guess that means they are going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Or maybe the USSC

Interestingly enough, part of Oberlin's plan to appeal and delay has worked, as the 2 oldest Gibson's have since passed away after the original jury verdict.   

Not a lawyer, but if the last plaintiff dies before the appeals process is completed, doesnt that mean Oberlin would win by default?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

bump

 

$31.6M appeal upheld

it was a 3-0 decision where the appeals court felt the preponderance of evidence in Gibson's favor came from hundreds of electronic, email and social media comments, statements posted by, or sent by, Oberlin's academic leadership, that have an electronic trail that lasted more than a full year AFTER the original incident and even well after the school knew the primary student at the center of the whole event had pleaded guilty to shoplifting. 

 

Oberlin is refusing to pay.  So I guess that means they are going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Or maybe the USSC

Interestingly enough, part of Oberlin's plan to appeal and delay has worked, as the 2 oldest Gibson's have since passed away after the original jury verdict.   

Not a lawyer, but if the last plaintiff dies before the appeals process is completed, doesnt that mean Oberlin would win by default?

No it does not.

[C-Man 27,058]

On 6/11/2019 at 10:10 PM, David Dennison said:

Probably not, but you never know.

I doubt very seriously the plaintiffs are going to end up seeing anything close to $33 million even with punitives. But if they do, Oberlin College will be just fine.

 

On 5/9/2022 at 10:02 AM, AUS-97HORN said:

bump

 

$31.6M appeal upheld

it was a 3-0 decision where the appeals court felt the preponderance of evidence in Gibson's favor came from hundreds of electronic, email and social media comments, statements posted by, or sent by, Oberlin's academic leadership, that have an electronic trail that lasted more than a full year AFTER the original incident and even well after the school knew the primary student at the center of the whole event had pleaded guilty to shoplifting. 

 

Oberlin is refusing to pay.  So I guess that means they are going to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Or maybe the USSC

Interestingly enough, part of Oberlin's plan to appeal and delay has worked, as the 2 oldest Gibson's have since passed away after the original jury verdict.   

Not a lawyer, but if the last plaintiff dies before the appeals process is completed, doesnt that mean Oberlin would win by default?

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit-payment-reaj/index.html

Quote

On Thursday, Oberlin College and Conservatory said it would pay a $36.59 million judgment to Gibson Bakery after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on August 30 not to take up the college's appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld the judgment.

It's over. Oberlin will pay $36.59M to Gibson Bakery owners after Ohio Supreme Court decided not to take up the school's appeal.