S04.E09: The Flying Carpet

[thewhiteowl]

Pizzeria owners are being sued for negligence by a teenager who was injured while climbing their rooftop signage.

[Dowel Jones]

I am confused here.  The plaintiff's attorney made a settlement offer to the defendant.  Benny took the offer to the defendant, and it appears they were amenable to it.  Doesn't it stop there?  Does the insurance company have the right to determine if it will go to trial, or are they just supposed to pay up?

Secondly, Benny should have deposed the other two kids and have been aware in the discrepancy in testimony.  The injured kid committed fraud and perjury by stating that he got the idea from the pizza owners.  Maybe Bull is right in that it probably wouldn't help the case, but fraud and perjury it still is.

Thirdly, Bull openly admitted he had possession of confidential company emails.  If the insurance rep was on her feet, she would have realized that and started her own investigation, and TAC would be in severe trouble. 

[Bobbin]

6 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I am confused here.  The plaintiff's attorney made a settlement offer to the defendant.  Benny took the offer to the defendant, and it appears they were amenable to it.  Doesn't it stop there?  Does the insurance company have the right to determine if it will go to trial, or are they just supposed to pay up?

Secondly, Benny should have deposed the other two kids and have been aware in the discrepancy in testimony.  The injured kid committed fraud and perjury by stating that he got the idea from the pizza owners.  Maybe Bull is right in that it probably wouldn't help the case, but fraud and perjury it still is.

Thirdly, Bull openly admitted he had possession of confidential company emails.  If the insurance rep was on her feet, she would have realized that and started her own investigation, and TAC would be in severe trouble. 

The one paying has the final say over what they will pay, barring a court order. What puzzles me is why the insurance ccompany's higher-ups didn't overrule their closer to preserve the company's reputation. If becomes known that they refuse to pay claims and instead leave their clients in the lurch, no one is going take out insurance coverage with them. But then this is TV, not real life.

[alegtostandon]

51 minutes ago, Bobbin said:

The one paying has the final say over what they will pay, barring a court order. What puzzles me is why the insurance ccompany's higher-ups didn't overrule their closer to preserve the company's reputation. If becomes known that they refuse to pay claims and instead leave their clients in the lurch, no one is going take out insurance coverage with them. But then this is TV, not real life.

I thought it was said that the insurance rep was the vice president of the insurance company.  I took it as she took over the claim because she was tired of paying out for reckless selfies. 

[Mystery Author]

I, too, was confused. How did Bull "blackmail" the rep into paying the $4M?

[Mike from Bklyn]

Bull claimed under the New York State Bad Faith law her and the insurance company could be taken to court and charged with damages.

[Grrarrggh]

This was one of the worst Bull episodes yet. Bull and TAC were jerks. The Insurance Woman was completely right. 

[Kfir]

18 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I am confused here.  The plaintiff's attorney made a settlement offer to the defendant.  Benny took the offer to the defendant, and it appears they were amenable to it.  Doesn't it stop there?  Does the insurance company have the right to determine if it will go to trial, or are they just supposed to pay up?

Secondly, Benny should have deposed the other two kids and have been aware in the discrepancy in testimony.  The injured kid committed fraud and perjury by stating that he got the idea from the pizza owners.  Maybe Bull is right in that it probably wouldn't help the case, but fraud and perjury it still is.

Thirdly, Bull openly admitted he had possession of confidential company emails.  If the insurance rep was on her feet, she would have realized that and started her own investigation, and TAC would be in severe trouble. 

Agreed it was a really dumb episode. Why wouldn't they just go to the kid and his family and tell them that they have proof/information that the kid committed perjury and fraud? If nothing else they may have backed down, case closed. 

I think they made the Insurance Co. woman into such a bitch because we were supposed to feel good when she lost. But I saw her as the only intelligent person in the whole ep. Except for when she didn't act on Bull disclosing he had confidential documents from her company. Or is that just considered acceptable practice now?

I did like seeing Samantha Mathis again, have had a soft spot for ever since her first film Pump Up The Volume. 

Benny as per usual just annoyed me and I still don't quite understand what purpose the tall guy who likes loud suits serves. 

[Sake614]

if I was supposed to feel sorry for the kid and see the insurance agent as the wicked witch of the west, sorry show but EPIC FAIL! He blatantly ignored a 10-foot-high fence, a huge NO TRESPASSING sign and climbed onto the roof of private property just to take a photo. Yeah yeah, he's 14. But that doesn't excuse his behavior in my book. 

Did he deserve to be paralyzed? No of course not. But neither does the insurance company (or the store owners) deserve to be penalized for a teenager's stupidity. Add to that, the kid lied under oath (which I knew immediately) and I was left feeling vastly underwhelmed by his or his mother's sob story.

Maybe I'm just cold-hearted but if they pay him $4 million, what are they going to pay the next person who does something stupid and gets hurt? 

[Moxie Cat]

14 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

The Insurance Woman was completely right. 

I'm so glad to read this same reaction by multiple people on this thread. During her long explanation to the pizzeria couple about why they wouldn't pay, I thought "They're trying to make her seem like a bitch, but she's totally in the right." I'd even argue that she was in the right about not wanting to set a precedent AND leaving immediately when it was revealed that the couple had lied WHEN EXPRESSLY ASKED by the insurance company about any accidents.

I don't think it's bad faith if an insuree lies during the application process, is it? There's a pretty good argument to be made that when the concrete pepperoni fell on that guy, the couple should have taken down the sign because it was clearly a hazard. They WERE negligent - just not responsible for what the kid did.

Anyway: pretty impressive when a show makes me sympathize with an insurance company!

I also thought the voir dire was crap, at least for me. I would have been the guy who grabbed the photo albums in an emergency. But I was definitely on the side of the insurance company through the whole episode. Just because you value irreplaceable memories doesn't mean you lack a sense of fairness. Fail, Dr. Bull.

The awful kid reminded me of Max from Parenthood. I was only glad that the poor suffering mother got some compensation.

On the plus side, this episode and the last one with the sociopath kid (are horrible kids on Bull a new trend?) both held my interest throughout, which not every show does.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Moxie Cat

[Netfoot]

Did the 10' tall chain link fence cause that kid's injuries?  Was it the huge "No Trespassing" sign?  Was it the stout chain and strong padlock?  No.

Did the fact that the ladder was normally inaccessible due to it's height cause the fall?  Did the fact that a dumpster had to be moved to facilitate reaching the ladder cause the fall?  No.

The fall was caused by SHEER STUPIDITY on the part of the kid, and BAD PARENTING which raised him to ignore all warnings and do what ever he felt like, in the face of common sense.

The bad part of this episode was when the kid got four million dollars for being an ass.

What would have made this episode awesome would have been right after the kid hit the pavement?  Two tons of concrete pizza fall on top of him. Like a cast-iron skillet on a mouse. Splat! And as per the Darwin Awards, the average Human Intelligence level is improved a little bit......

[Moxie Cat]

46 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

BAD PARENTING

One question I had was: what time of night did this happen? The pizza shop was closed up. Nobody was around. We didn't see anyone who lived above the pizza shop look outside when they heard the noise on the roof. To me, it felt like the middle of the night - or let's say, even 11 or 12, obviously some late hour when a city street would be deserted. Why was this 14-year-old kid out wandering with his friends at that time? I get that Benny wasn't trying to be an ass to the mom, but maybe asking why he was out alone could have gotten something out of the mom that would have shown the kid didn't listen to her, wasn't an angel, etc.

I didn't mind the eventual settlement because it seemed clear that it would go to the mom, who had to quit her job, had substantial medical expenses, needed to refit the house, and buy a special vehicle. Maybe the bad parenting case could have been stressed more, but she was the only person I really felt for.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Moxie Cat

[LuvMyShows]

My faith in mankind is restored by reading the posts here!  People using their brains and applying critical thinking....what a refreshing change of pace.  People not succumbing to emotional manipulation...didn't know that was still possible. 

[Tony Dickson]

What I noticed also was the complete lack of the "soap opera" elements that are usually in every episode.  In other words, we didn't hear anything about any of the regular characters' personal lives in this episode.  My guess is this episode was meant to be a standalone and not part of any story arc, so that it could be shown at any time during the season.

[mythoughtis]

I agree that the owner had fencing, padlocks, etc keeping people out of places they shouldn’t be.  I agree that lots of places have goofy things like pizza sculptures on their facades. However, the owners were the people encouraging the selfies that the insurance VP hated so much. Yet, she never said a word to them about it. She just ranted about teenagers taking selfies.  I’m not saying that the owner personally talked to the boy( the boy lied), or that they expected people to climb on the roof.  I’m just pointing out that the VP only ranted about the selfie takers, not the encouragers.   The kids wouldn’t have taken a selfie even on the ground if the owners hadn’t run a contest.  
Also, in real life.... there isn’t an insurance company worth their salt that wouldn’t have settled the case.  Regardless of whether the  boy lied or not.  It’s cost effective to settle.   
oh, and that VP absolutely was on the hook for bad faith.  Those are words  that actually make an insurance company  act. 

Edited December 18, 2019 by mythoughtis

[mythoughtis]

25 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

I agree that the owner had fencing, padlocks, etc keeping people out of places they shouldn’t be.  I agree that lots of places have goofy things like pizza sculptures on their facades. However, the owners were the people encouraging the selfies that the insurance VP hated so much. Yet, she never said a word to them about it. She just ranted about teenagers taking selfies.  I’m not saying that the owner personally talked to the boy( the boy lied), or that they expected people to climb on the roof.  I’m just pointing out that the VP only ranted about the selfie takers, not the encouragers.   The kids wouldn’t have taken a selfie even on the ground if the owners hadn’t run a contest.  

Also, in real life.... there isn’t an insurance company worth their salt that wouldn’t have settled the case.  Regardless of whether the  boy lied or not.  It’s cost effective to settle.  Bad faith absolutely applied here.