S03.E07: Expenses

[RealReality]

6 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

I think you're missing the relief or closure that comes with finding out what happened.  That was the whole point of what Anita conveyed to Mike when she talked to him privately and told him her story.  And Mike could relate, because he's haunted by the good samaritan's family not knowing how he died.

Nacho isn't going to give him up; therefore Mike's not even in the picture.

But I don't think I am.  Because a) she is moving forward without that relief, and b) Mike couldn't tell her exactly what happened because that would put her at risk.

So either way, she isn't going to get anything that is going to substantially help her. 

As I said, I don't think cartel guys are stupid, I think they could figure out the missing link between the dead guy and Nacho without really having to ask Nacho about it.  I mean, it doesn't seem that tough and I'm not a cartel member.  You know who the guy was, you know who his wife was, you know his wife attends a grief group.  You know Nacho is asking around.  You know Mike has met Nacho a few times and you know that Mike is also in the grief group.  Doesn't seem like that many pieces to make connect four.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

That is very vague, and I believe the onus would be on the insurer to prove why they are denying the claim.  I'm also surprised that an insurance contract would have something so very vague in it and open to multiple interpretations.  I would argue that a reasonable person would expect that certain precautions be taken with their documents.  That would include locking them up in a house at night.  As for the mental/physical issues, we have never seen these keep Chuck from providing competent counsel.  He WAS right about the documents, he didn't transpose the numbers.  He is able to practice at home and do so competently, as far as I could tell.

The fact that anyone can have their house broken into is relevant because it goes to what you would expect of a reasonable person to prevent a clients documents from being taken.  How much more of a precaution does an attorney have to take to keep their house from being broken into or from a fire happening?  Jimmy's nail salon situation may have been a fire hazard as well.  I thought Chuck had the gas turned off, but cooked over a butane stove -- if thats the case I'm not sure I would see it as a toxic gas situation.  While Chucks situation was far from ideal, I don't think it was something where an insurer would automatically boot him from a malpractice policy.

Insurance contarcts are often written vaguely, because the insurance comapany, has far, far, deeper pockets than the typical insured, can much more easily use that vagueness to its advantage. No, the onus is not on the insurer to prove it doesn't have to pay a claim. It simpy refuses to do so, or cancels the policy, and the insured has to sue to rectify the matter. 

The storage of documents in a building that is a fire hazard, to the point it would have been deemed unfit for peope to occupy (if not for the corrupt influence on Albuquerque's code enforcement by HHM/Howard) is in and of itself an instance of practicing law in an incompetent manner. The fact that he was right about the break-in and the documemts being altered is irrelevant to the fact that it is an act of malpractice to store docuents in a building which is in that condition.

[RealReality]

5 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

The point is, even if Chuck "knew" the numbers were transposed, MV could still make a claim against HHM because of the hearing, Chuck's actions, and the possibility that Chuck did make a mistake.  The possibility of a claim is what concerns the malpractice insurer.  Even if HHM can prove they didn't make a mistke, a lawsuit still could have been brough and still triggered the insurance coverage.  Chuck's mental condition could adversely affect another case, another client.  All the insurance company care's about is preventing claims.

Yes, the mistake could have triggered a malpractice claim, but in terms of making the required disclosures we haven't seen Chucks condition keep him from being a competent attorney.  So should he have to report a condition that hasn't affected his ability to provide competent counsel?  I don't know.  As someone else upthread pointed out, there are any number of conditions that could adversely affect a case but they don't need to all be reported to the insurer.

[JudyObscure]

It may just come down to the fact that among the intense fraternity of Hector-Haters, everyone let's their guard down and acts out of character  when discussing him. The Hector hate overrides all other considerations.  We've seen it in Mike, Nacho and even Gus.

Edited May 24, 2017 by JudyObscure

[Bryce Lynch]

16 minutes ago, Bannon said:

The only comparison was as way of providing an example of how people with track records of brilliance can slip very, very, far in their performance, without it being plainly recognized. Since, as you note, the Penn State situation was extraordinarily more horrific (as I noted) the example strengthens the argument.

My point is that analogies that actually makes sense, on a certain level, can go over like a lead balloon, if the things being compared are

For example, Chuck comparing himself to the brother of the Unabomber was a valid analogy, in that the Unabomber's brother loved him, but informed on him because he was a danger to society.  Chuck also loves Jimmy (or claims to) but believed he needed to turn him in because he is a danger to society as a lawyer.

But, if Chuck said that in court, he would come across as a nut or at least someone who was being very over dramatic.  Jimmy may or may not be a danger with a law license, but he wasn't sending out mail bombs.  In a spasm of self awareness, he realized this and decided not to use it in court.  

Comparing Howard to Paterno is a lot like Chuck comparing himself to the Unabomber's brother.  Howard may have not done enough to protect his clients from a mentally ill partner (though only one suffered any harm and it was relatively minor and the result of a crime being committed by a 3rd party).  Paterno looked the other way while boys were raped in his lockeroom by a sex predator who had been on his staff.

It is the same principle of the corollary to Godwin's Law that says that once you bring Hitler comparisons into a discussion, you have lost the debate.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Insurance contarcts are often written vaguely, because the insurance comapany, has far, far, deeper pockets than the typical insured, can much more easily use that vagueness to its advantage. No, the onus is not on the insurer to prove it doesn't have to pay a claim. It simpy refuses to do so, or cancels the policy, and the insured has to sue to rectify the matter. 

The storage of documents in a building that is a fire hazard, to the point it would have been deemed unfit for peope to occupy (if not for the corrupt influence on Albuquerque's code enforcement by HHM/Howard) is in and of itself an instance of practicing law in an incompetent manner. The fact that he was right about the break-in and the documemts being altered is irrelevant to the fact that it is an act of malpractice to store docuents in a building which is in that condition.

Not particularly.  When I worked as an adjuster our contracts were pretty clear, because our state insurance commissioner made it a point to require that.  Not only that, a contract needs to be exact enough for there to be a meeting of the minds.  The burden of proof in the court, as far as I know, would be on the insurer to prove why they did not comply with the terms of the contract, such as it stood.

I don't think its per se incompetent to practice in a dwelling that isn't fit for people to occupy.  If that was the case, I think insurers would ask about it.  Certainly there are other situations that would present an increased risk of theft and destruction to documents besides living in a house with no electricity.  Living with people for instance in a roomate situation.  And what if an attorney has to get a few weeks of work done to their residence?  Are they expected to take every file with them to a hotel if the electricity goes out?

I'm not sure where you're getting its a per se act of malpractice to store documents in a house with no electricity.  You seem very certain about it so I'm curious.

[Hanahope]

4 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Yes, the mistake could have triggered a malpractice claim, but in terms of making the required disclosures we haven't seen Chucks condition keep him from being a competent attorney.  So should he have to report a condition that hasn't affected his ability to provide competent counsel?  I don't know.  As someone else upthread pointed out, there are any number of conditions that could adversely affect a case but they don't need to all be reported to the insurer.

I think Chuck/HHM was required to report to their insurance the circumstance/event that may trigger a claim, i.e. the allegation by MV that Chuck transposed the numbers/was negligent and cost MV damages at the hearing.  What the insurance will learn from investigating this allegation, as disclosed at Jimmy's hearing, is that Chuck has a condition that may be physical or may be mental and if mental, it could adversely affect his work and lead to more claims.  And the insurance carrier will want to prevent claims, so I'm betting the carrier will tell HHM that Chuck cannot be on their policy until there's a doctor's certification that chuck does not have a mental illness.

[LotusFlower]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

But I don't think I am.  Because a) she is moving forward without that relief, and b) Mike couldn't tell her exactly what happened because that would put her at risk.

So either way, she isn't going to get anything that is going to substantially help her. 

Maybe you missed the scene?  After Anita told Mike about her husband's disappearance, she said "even after all these years, not knowing how he passed or where he is....I wish it didn't matter, but it does."

In other words, it's not my take-away from the scene; it's what she says.

[Bannon]

17 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

My point is that analogies that actually makes sense, on a certain level, can go over like a lead balloon, if the things being compared are

For example, Chuck comparing himself to the brother of the Unabomber was a valid analogy, in that the Unabomber's brother loved him, but informed on him because he was a danger to society.  Chuck also loves Jimmy (or claims to) but believed he needed to turn him in because he is a danger to society as a lawyer.

But, if Chuck said that in court, he would come across as a nut or at least someone who was being very over dramatic.  Jimmy may or may not be a danger with a law license, but he wasn't sending out mail bombs.  In a spasm of self awareness, he realized this and decided not to use it in court.  

Comparing Howard to Paterno is a lot like Chuck comparing himself to the Unabomber's brother.  Howard may have not done enough to protect his clients from a mentally ill partner (though only one suffered any harm and it was relatively minor and the result of a crime being committed by a 3rd party).  Paterno looked the other way while boys were raped in his lockeroom by a sex predator who had been on his staff.

It is the same principle of the corollary to Godwin's Law that says that once you bring Hitler comparisons into a discussion, you have lost the debate.  

You have applied the principal inaccurately, since their there was no comparison between Chuck and Paterno. There was a comparison between overlooking the negative attributes of Chuck's performance, and overlooking the negative attributes of Paterno's performance. Since it was noted that the negative attributes of Paterno's performance were rather more horrific, it simply strengthens the overall point, that people who have performed brilliantly in the past tend to have the negative attributes of their performace overlooked. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bannon

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, LotusFlower said:

Maybe you missed the scene?  After Anita told Mike about her husband's disappearance, she said "even after all these years, not knowing how he passed or where he is....I wish it didn't matter, but it does."

In other words, it's not my take-away from the scene; it's what she says.

No, I didn't miss the scene, and I didn't miss the part where she says that she is giving away all his clothes and that she washed them before giving them away except for his navy uniform.  

Thats not my take away from the scene.  Thats what she actually said ;)

And just a preemptive LOL @ the scene that will help Anita "move on"

Mike: Anita, your husband is dead

Anita: wait, what, how? who? why? where is his body?

Mike: well Anita, shot, by bad men, and I can't really give you any more information

*Fade to black as we focus on Anita's confused face*

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[PeterPirate]

Sounds like we're going to need an Insurance thread in addition to the Lawyer thread. 

I also like the "Chuck Hitler" model. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by PeterPirate

[RealReality]

4 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

I think Chuck/HHM was required to report to their insurance the circumstance/event that may trigger a claim, i.e. the allegation by MV that Chuck transposed the numbers/was negligent and cost MV damages at the hearing.  What the insurance will learn from investigating this allegation, as disclosed at Jimmy's hearing, is that Chuck has a condition that may be physical or may be mental and if mental, it could adversely affect his work and lead to more claims.  And the insurance carrier will want to prevent claims, so I'm betting the carrier will tell HHM that Chuck cannot be on their policy until there's a doctor's certification that chuck does not have a mental illness.

I think thats a grey area.  Could it literally open you up to a malpractice suit?  Yes.  But I think attorneys do things all the time that could get them in trouble, but it doesn't, so they don't report it to their malpractice carrier.

When I adjusted claims, people were SUPPOSED to tell us when someone else moved in to their house so we could add them as a driver (which cost them money) or specifically exclude them as a driver (in which case we better not find out they were driving the car).  More often than not, we found out when that person got into an accident.  And at that point we would still cover the driver, but we would make them either add or exclude the driver at that point.

[Bannon]

11 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Not particularly.  When I worked as an adjuster our contracts were pretty clear, because our state insurance commissioner made it a point to require that.  Not only that, a contract needs to be exact enough for there to be a meeting of the minds.  The burden of proof in the court, as far as I know, would be on the insurer to prove why they did not comply with the terms of the contract, such as it stood.

I don't think its per se incompetent to practice in a dwelling that isn't fit for people to occupy.  If that was the case, I think insurers would ask about it.  Certainly there are other situations that would present an increased risk of theft and destruction to documents besides living in a house with no electricity.  Living with people for instance in a roomate situation.  And what if an attorney has to get a few weeks of work done to their residence?  Are they expected to take every file with them to a hotel if the electricity goes out?

I'm not sure where you're getting its a per se act of malpractice to store documents in a house with no electricity.  You seem very certain about it so I'm curious.

You have misstated what I wrote. I stated that storing documents in a house that would have been deemed a fire hazard, since all illumination was by flame, would be an act of malpractice, since a pronounced increased risk of fire poses a pronounced increased risk of document destruction.

In the states I have been in, it is the plaintiff, and not the defendent, who has to prove that it was more likely than not the case that the defendent didn't fulfil the terms of the contract.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

 

As to clarity of insurance contracts, we will have to agree to disagree. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bannon

[Hanahope]

1 minute ago, RealReality said:

But I think attorneys do things all the time that could get them in trouble, but it doesn't, so they don't report it to their malpractice carrier.

That could be true.  But in this case, the malpractice carrier does now know about a circumstance that could lead to a claim (as stated in Jimmy's hearing - which they did get notice of), so they will take appropriate action to prevent more potential claims (address Chuck's condition).

[LotusFlower]

1 minute ago, RealReality said:

No, I didn't miss the scene, and I didn't miss the part where she says that she is giving away all his clothes and that she washed them before giving them away except for his navy uniform.  

Thats not my take away from the scene.  Thats what she actually said ;)

I wasn't trying to be snarky with you.  I thought it was possible you only remembered her saying she was giving away his clothes.  (And on that point, it only took her eight years)!  You've said a few times that she's "moving on" and wouldn't gain anything from learning what happened, when her words in that scene express the exact opposite.

[Tatum]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

No, I didn't miss the scene, and I didn't miss the part where she says that she is giving away all his clothes and that she washed them before giving them away except for his navy uniform.  

Thats not my take away from the scene.  Thats what she actually said ;)

And just a preemptive LOL @ the scene that will help Anita "move on"

Mike: Anita, your husband is dead

Anita: wait, what, how? who? why? where is his body?

Mike: well Anita, shot, by bad men, and I can't really give you any more information

*Fade to black as we focus on Anita's confused face*

I think finding out he was shot by bad men would provide some sort of answer for her- I mean, she doesn't know if he was murdered or mauled by a bear or buried in a collapsed cave. However, it would then lead to more questions. And even if Mike could get a solid story for her- say, Husband was approached by the cartel to move some product somehow, he refused, he was killed over it, end story- I agree that helping her find closure is still going to come at great personal risk to him, and I can't see how he'd decide it was worth it.

[RealReality]

Just now, Bannon said:

You have misstated what I wrote. I stated that storing documents in a house that would have been deemed a fire hazard, since all illumination was by flame, would be an act of malpractice, since a pronounced incrased risk of fire poses a pronounced increased risk of document destruction.

In the states I have been in, it is the plaintiff, and not the defendent, who has to prove that it was more likely than not the case that the defendent didn't fulfil the terms of the contract.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

 

As to clarity of insurance contracts, we will have to agree to disagree. 

Malpractice requires a harm to the client, so the mere act of storing documents in a house that is a hazard is not per se malpractice.  Increased risk of bad shit isn't a harm to the client.  So no, I do not believe that Chuck's mere storing of the documents in his house would constitute malpractice.

Here, the simple breach would be easy for the plaintiff to prove.  You agreed to pay for malpractice, you are not covering the claim.  The defense would have to prove an affirmative defense of why they are excused from performing under the contract.  Or to prove that there was some nonperformance by the plaintiff under the contract.   Which would be the much more difficult case to make.  

2 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

I wasn't trying to be snarky with you.  I thought it was possible you only remembered her saying she was giving away his clothes.  (And on that point, it only took her eight years)!  You've said a few times that she's "moving on" and wouldn't gain anything from learning what happened, when her words in that scene express the exact opposite.

Oh, I wasn't trying to be snarky with you either.

I thought it was possible you didn't remember the part where she mentioned she was giving away his clothes.

Her words in the scene about giving away his clothing show that she is moving on, however hard it may be.

4 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

That could be true.  But in this case, the malpractice carrier does now know about a circumstance that could lead to a claim (as stated in Jimmy's hearing - which they did get notice of), so they will take appropriate action to prevent more potential claims (address Chuck's condition).

I certainly think thats possible. 

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Tatum said:

I think finding out he was shot by bad men would provide some sort of answer for her- I mean, she doesn't know if he was murdered or mauled by a bear or buried in a collapsed cave. However, it would then lead to more questions. And even if Mike could get a solid story for her- say, Husband was approached by the cartel to move some product somehow, he refused, he was killed over it, end story- I agree that helping her find closure is still going to come at great personal risk to him, and I can't see how he'd decide it was worth it.

Maybe Mike will find Anita's husband alive, in a cabin in New Hampshire or at a Cinnabon in Omaha. :)

[RealReality]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

Maybe Mike will find Anita's husband alive, in a cabin in New Hampshire or at a Cinnabon in Omaha. :)

LOL and then she can kill him!

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, RealReality said:

LOL and then she can kill him!

And bury him beneath the textured walkway in the church playground. :)

[LotusFlower]

3 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I thought it was possible you didn't remember the part where she mentioned she was giving away his clothes.

Her words in the scene about giving away his clothing show that she is moving on, however hard it may be.

Are you being serious?  It took her eight years.  She's clearly having a hard time moving on.  And then she confided to Mike that finding out what happened is important to her.  

[PeterPirate]

18 minutes ago, RealReality said:

No, I didn't miss the scene, and I didn't miss the part where she says that she is giving away all his clothes and that she washed them before giving them away except for his navy uniform.  

Thats not my take away from the scene.  Thats what she actually said ;)

And just a preemptive LOL @ the scene that will help Anita "move on"

Mike: Anita, your husband is dead

Anita: wait, what, how? who? why? where is his body?

Mike: well Anita, shot, by bad men, and I can't really give you any more information

*Fade to black as we focus on Anita's confused face*

Or, maybe:
Mike: Well, Anita, shot, by bad men, and I can't really give you any more information
Anita: Hey, thanks for telling me. I'm so relieved to know that. Let me take my clothes off for you.

But then, the next morning:
Anita: Mike, how did you get that information?
Mike: I'm a former cop. I talked to some people in the Albuquerque police department.
Anita: But if they had that information, wouldn't they have told me themselves?

I just don't see a net upside to Mike finding out what happened to Anita's husband and passing it along to Anita. 

[RealReality]

Just now, LotusFlower said:

Are you being serious?  It took her eight years.  She's clearly having a hard time moving on.  And then she confided to Mike that finding out what happened is important to her.  

I'm being serious.  However long it took her to move on, she is moving on.  Eight years after the disappearance doesn't seem like a long time to move on.  There would take time for her to realize he is likely dead and then time for her to process that grief, so no, it doesn't seem like a long time at all.  But then again, I'm not one much to say that one is taking too long to grieve or too short a time to grieve.  

I'm sure that finding out what happened would help her incrementally, especially given the limited information Mike could give her and the fact that none of his information is actionable.  But I don't think it is the huge reward and payoff you've made it out to be.

[paigow]

I am still confused about how dead Navy husband fits into this... Was he investigating the cartel in some bizarre jurisdictional wrinkle? Was he just a customer or low level dealer? Or competitor?

[PeterPirate]

Just now, paigow said:

I am still confused about how dead Navy husband fits into this... Was he investigating the cartel in some bizarre jurisdictional wrinkle? Was he just a customer or low level dealer? Or competitor?

If this becomes the lead-in to NCIS: Albuquerque, I'm just gonna barf. 

[Bryce Lynch]

11 minutes ago, paigow said:

I am still confused about how dead Navy husband fits into this... Was he investigating the cartel in some bizarre jurisdictional wrinkle? Was he just a customer or low level dealer? Or competitor?

I think the fact that he was in the Navy is probably irrelevant.  I assume he was no longer in the service, as I don't think there is a large Navy presence in NM for the same reason Hank Schraeder won't eat sushi in NM.  :)   

 

I believe the writers just threw the part about the uniform in, to get Mike's ears to perk up, thinking her husband might have been a fellow cop. They didn't want him to be a cop, so they made him a Navy vet.   If not for the mention of the uniform, Mike probably doesn't approach Anita to ask her about her husband.  

Edited May 24, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[Bannon]

Just now, RealReality said:

Malpractice requires a harm to the client, so the mere act of storing documents in a house that is a hazard is not per se malpractice.  Increased risk of bad shit isn't a harm to the client.  So no, I do not believe that Chuck's mere storing of the documents in his house would constitute malpractice.

Here, the simple breach would be easy for the plaintiff to prove.  You agreed to pay for malpractice, you are not covering the claim.  The defense would have to prove an affirmative defense of why they are excused from performing under the contract.  Or to prove that there was some nonperformance by the plaintiff under the contract.   Which would be the much more difficult case to make.  

Yes, you are correct. The house would actually have to catch fire, with documents destroyed, in order for malpractice to occur. Having said that, the insurance company, having been made aware of the condition in which Chuck is storing documents, will want to rescind his coverage immediately. What they will they will want to do about HHM is less clear. It would depend on whether they knew that Howard knew what Chuck was doing, and whether the insurer becomes aware that the only reason Chuck is able to reside in the home is because Howard influenced city government to not enforce the building code. 

Without knowing the facts of any lawsuit, one can't say that anything is "simple". It remains the case that the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

[LotusFlower]

17 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I'm being serious.  However long it took her to move on, she is moving on.  Eight years after the disappearance doesn't seem like a long time to move on.  There would take time for her to realize he is likely dead and then time for her to process that grief, so no, it doesn't seem like a long time at all.  But then again, I'm not one much to say that one is taking too long to grieve or too short a time to grieve.  

I'm sure that finding out what happened would help her incrementally, especially given the limited information Mike could give her and the fact that none of his information is actionable.  But I don't think it is the huge reward and payoff you've made it out to be.

I never said there's a "huge" reward.  I instead referred to closure or peace of mind or resolution (a reward nonetheless).  Or more accurately, SHE referred to these sentiments, which precipitated Mike's phone call to Daniel telling him he wants in on the deal.  I wasn't debating the merits of learning the truth, but merely the fact that she did, in fact, express these thoughts.  That's all.

Edited May 24, 2017 by LotusFlower

[Bannon]

14 minutes ago, paigow said:

I am still confused about how dead Navy husband fits into this... Was he investigating the cartel in some bizarre jurisdictional wrinkle? Was he just a customer or low level dealer? Or competitor?

I think you are supposed to be confused at this juncture. I know I am confused, so I hope that was the intent.

[ShadowFacts]

10 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I'm sure that finding out what happened would help her incrementally, especially given the limited information Mike could give her and the fact that none of his information is actionable.  But I don't think it is the huge reward and payoff you've made it out to be.

It might help her, or it might not help her.  She thinks it will help her, and that's what matters, but it might in fact add a whole lot to her grief/agony.  It would be a lot cleaner for Mike to just let that lie.  He knows she's on a path forward right now; he doesn't know if he would derail that by getting involved.

40 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Sounds like we're going to need an Insurance thread in addition to the Lawyer thread. 

It's fun to speculate about Chuck's insurability, but my take-home from reading the insurance representative's behavior with Jimmy is that Chuck and/or HHM are in some trouble.  Probably not insignificant. 

[RealReality]

8 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Yes, you are correct. The house would actually have to catch fire, with documents destroyed, in order for malpractice to occur. Having said that, the insurance company, having been made aware of the condition in which Chuck is storing documents, will want to rescind his coverage immediately. What they will they will want to do about HHM is less clear. It would depend on whether they knew that Howard knew what Chuck was doing, and whether the insurer becomes aware that the only reason Chuck is able to reside in the home is because Howard influenced city government to not enforce the building code. 

Without knowing the facts of any lawsuit, one can't say that anything is "simple". It remains the case that the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

They may, they may not.  They may not want to embroil themselves in something that could look like they are picking on a guy with a disability when other people put their documents at just as much risk, if not more.

Well, sure you can.  A malpractice claim would be filed, the insurer wouldn't cover the claim.  That seems like a pretty simple breach of contract to me.  I'm curious as to what factors you think would complicate the simple breach?  The affirmative defense however, would be on the insurance company to prove, in order to show why they are excused from performing under the contract.

3 hours ago, LotusFlower said:

There's no risk to his family.  And there's potentially a big reward for Anita if he gets an answer.  

 

5 minutes ago, LotusFlower said:

I never said there's a "huge" reward.  I instead referred to closure or peace of mind or resolution (a reward nonetheless).  Or more accurately, SHE referred to these sentiments, which precipitated Mike's phone call to Daniel telling him he wants in on the deal.  I wasn't debating the merits of learning the truth, but merely the fact that she did, in fact, express these thoughts.  That's all.

I'm sorry, you were saying?

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, RealReality said:

They may, they may not.  They may not want to embroil themselves in something that could look like they are picking on a guy with a disability when other people put their documents at just as much risk, if not more.

Well, sure you can.  A malpractice claim would be filed, the insurer wouldn't cover the claim.  That seems like a pretty simple breach of contract to me.  I'm curious as to what factors you think would complicate the simple breach?  The affirmative defense however, would be on the insurance company to prove, in order to show why they are excused from performing under the contract.

What seems like a simple breach? I know of no specific lawsuit which we are discussing.

Nobody would care about a rich lawyer having his his malpractice insurance rescinded, because he stored documents in a home which is a fire hazard.  People  get all kinds of insurance coverage cancelled every day, for less reason than that. Nobody gives a shit.

[RealReality]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

What seems like a simple breach? I know of no specific lawsuit which we are discussing.

Nobody would care about a rich lawyer having his his malpractice insurance rescinded, because he stored documents in a home which is a fire hazard.  People  get all kinds of insurance coverage cancelled every day, for less reason than that. Nobody gives a shit.

You're saying that an insurer would simply deny the claim.  What I'm saying is that that certainly wouldn't be the end of the story....for either party.  HHM would sue the insurer, and MV could potentially sue them as well as a third party beneficiary in the case of malpractice.  

In which case, the breach would be simple.  HHM and insurer contract for malpractice insurance to cover Chuck.  MV files a claim against Chuck.  Insurer refuses to consider claim.  That is a pretty simple breach of the contract, and it would be up to the insurer to prove any defense it would claim excuses it from performance under the contract.

Would people care more if the lawyer was poor?  Just curious.

Edited May 24, 2017 by RealReality

[paigow]

Although the White Sands Missile Range is under Army control / administration, there are a lot of joint weapon testing projects with Air Force/ Navy / Marines that might explain why the dead husband could have been on active duty in New Mexico....

Edited May 24, 2017 by paigow

[dmmetler]

17 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

It's kind of weird that Hector seems to have an attack, then takes a capsule.  The capsules are extended release.  The pills are very tiny and are placed under the tongue and start working in a minute or two.  My dad has those kind for angina.  A capsule wouldn't do him any good. 

I don't know anything about angina, but sometimes capsules are used with the intent that they be opened, and a powder dropped on the tongue or under it dissolves fast (or is sometimes used if the drug is to be taken with food-especially for children or animals-in that case, the drug is mixed with spoonful of something that the patient will readily eat). 

[RealReality]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

I don't think Jimmy intended to stiff the food delivery guy, he just ran out of money.  Jimmy is clearly living off his D&M bonus.  He's not getting back the money he spent on the commercials, he can't find people interested in making more than one commercial, and even most of those are at a discount.  I don't really understand why someone would agree to do a commercial, then balk when Jimmy gets there.  And all of the places that Jimmy filmed/tried to film seemed to have no customers at all,  How do they make a living?  Jimmy would be better off trying to find places that already have some traffic, but just want a little more.

Seriously, the first thing Jimmy needs to do is spend $1,000 to get a better used car.

 

1

I don't get why the TV station doesn't buy the time back from him at a discount.  Surely someone wants the Murder She Wrote timeslot.  Come on, consumer cellular, jitterbug phones, depends, medicare funded penis pumps, metamuecil?  I watch Golden Girls and these commercials are real!

I'd miss the Esteem, although there has to be a story on how Saul ends up with the Caddy.

[LotusFlower]

@RealReality - All I'm saying is that Anita expressed a desire to know what happened to her missing husband, as opposed to the false notion that she no longer cares because she's moved on.  I'm sure the degree of relief varies for everyone.  Glad you caught the scene.  That's all.

[Ottis]

4 hours ago, RealReality said:

Yes, but we've never seen that internal code include widows he just met whose husband may or may not have been killed by the drug cartel.  We've seen him go balls to the wall when an innocent has been harmed and he thinks its his fault.  Or for his family.  Anita doesn't fit into either of those categories.  And Mike, the vigilante for a woman he doesn't know makes the character more two dimensional for me, it almost cheapens him and it doesn't really fit with his personality.  So, while they may go there, it won't make any sense to me.

Mike seems to react to situations that are similar to what he has experienced. Someone threatens his family, he draws the line. Someone who is innocent is hurt, he draws the line. He has a sense of justice, but it is linked to what he knows. I doubt he would have, for instance, any sense of justice over a white collar stock trading scheme. So now he meets Anita, whose husband wore a uniform (not police, but still symbolic) and who went mysteriously missing while supposedly innocently hiking/camping in an area that almost surely is involved in drug trafficking. So now Mike is curious. Was Anita's husband innocent? Did he stand up to bad guys, like Mike's son, Matt, did (and was killed for it)? Or maybe he wasn't innocent, and Anita doesn't know it. I can see Mike's sense of justice perking up at that. Plus, I'm not entirely sure he's done with Hector. Mike cannot let go. So Mike is back in the game.

[Bryce Lynch]

All this scintillating insurance talk has me thinking that Gilligan and Gould's next project should be "Risk Management", a hard hitting drama that goes deep into the inner workings of the ABQ insurance industry...NOT. :)

[Tatum]

23 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

It might help her, or it might not help her.  She thinks it will help her, and that's what matters, but it might in fact add a whole lot to her grief/agony.  It would be a lot cleaner for Mike to just let that lie.  He knows she's on a path forward right now; he doesn't know if he would derail that by getting involved.

 

I completely agree with this. I've heard from parents of missing children that the worst part is just not knowing what happened- they've accepted that their children are likely no longer alive, so they have grief for that, but that the unknown adds another layer of frustration and trauma. That said, if they end up finding out their child's final hours were full of more agony than what they had imagined in their heads, would they really feel better?

If Mike could somehow find out that the guy died in a camping accident, fine, that would probably help the lady. But any information leading to a potential violent end would likely not give her the peace she is seeking. I see no reason for him to investigate, even without the potential threat of alarming the cartel.

[dmmetler]

11 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I don't get why the TV station doesn't buy the time back from him at a discount.  Surely someone wants the Murder She Wrote timeslot.  Come on, consumer cellular, jitterbug phones, depends, medicare funded penis pumps, metamuecil?  I watch Golden Girls and these commercials are real!

I'd miss the Esteem, although there has to be a story on how Saul ends up with the Caddy.

You mean the folks who advertise on AMC (at least on demand). Seriously, I think they're advertising to Jimmy McGill's Elder law demographic. 

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, RealReality said:

You're saying that an insurer would simply deny the claim.  What I'm saying is that that certainly wouldn't be the end of the story....for either party.  HHM would sue the insurer, and MV could potentially sue them as well as a third party beneficiary in the case of malpractice.  

In which case, the breach would be simple.  HHM and insurer contract for malpractice insurance to cover Chuck.  MV files a claim against Chuck.  Insurer refuses to consider claim.  That is a pretty simple breach of the contract, and it would be up to the insurer to prove any defense it would claim excuses it from performance under the contract.

Would people care more if the lawyer was poor?  Just curious.

I'm sorry for writing unclearly. I did not mean to put forth a specific hypothetical claim. My point was that, in dealing with a lot of insurance claims, health, property and casualty, mostly, insurance contracts typically are vague enough to not terribly infrequently give incentive to the insurer to either deny a claim, or more typically, pay out a claim on a reduced basis, putting the insured in the situation where he has to decide whether to fight, against an entity which is much better prepared for fighting.. In property and casualty claims what I have seem most frequently, for instance, is an insurance company contention that a piece of personal property isn't actually destroyed, but is salvageable, thus 10K in new carpet need not be covered. 

Yes, poor people in a dispute with an insurance company are more sympathetic figures in the popular media. A family being evicted from their apartment because an insurance company didn't pay a claim is a story. An old rich guy who might end leaving a smaller estate is not going to attract as much attention.

[Dev F]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

I don't think Jimmy intended to stiff the food delivery guy, he just ran out of money.  Jimmy is clearly living off his D&M bonus.  He's not getting back the money he spent on the commercials, he can't find people interested in making more than one commercial, and even most of those are at a discount. 

True, but I do think it's significant that he responds to the delivery guy's anger by quoting the community service guy who stiffed him earlier in the episode: "We can make it zero." It's a pretty big break with Jimmy's previous behavior, which has tended to be fairly empathetic: Life has fucked me over pretty badly, so I'd hate for anyone else to get fucked on my account. The attitude displayed here is pretty much exactly the opposite: I have to deal with this shit, so this random delivery guy should have to deal with it too.

Which leads pretty directly into Jimmy's gambit at the end of the episode, when he decides that if he's gonna get stiffed by his insurance company, then dammit, he'll make sure Chuck gets stiffed too.

23 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I believe the writers just threw the part about the uniform in, to get Mike's ears to perk up, thinking her husband might have been a fellow cop. They didn't want him to be a cop, so they made him a Navy vet.   If not for the mention of the uniform, Mike probably doesn't approach Anita to ask her about her husband.  

Yep. He's dealing with his own shit; Anita's story is just the trigger.

That's why I tend to think that the whole incident will end up being associative -- that it's not about Mike deciding to solve an eight-year-old missing persons case for someone he just met, but about Anita's story forcing Mike to rethink whether he's really moved past the murder of the Good Samaritan. I agree with whoever it was upthread who suggested that the "one more thing" he demands from Nacho will end up being the location where they buried the Good Samaritan's body in the desert, so his family will have the closure Anita never got.

Which, interestingly, would make Mike's story here almost the polar opposite of Jimmy's -- if he decides, Life fucked over this poor woman really badly, but I'll be damned if some other family gets fucked over the same way on my account.

[Tatum]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

All this scintillating insurance talk has me thinking that Gilligan and Gould's next project should be "Risk Management", a hard hitting drama that goes deep into the inner workings of the ABQ insurance industry...NOT. :)

I sadly would watch this. I remember an episode of House that focused on Cuddy's role as a hospital administrator and had no medical drama the entire hour. Everyone thought it was so boring. I thought it was the best episode I'd watched.

[Hanahope]

4 minutes ago, Dev F said:

I agree with whoever it was upthread who suggested that the "one more thing" he demands from Nacho will end up being the location where they buried the Good Samaritan's body in the desert, so his family will have the closure Anita never got.

That would make more sense then asking Nacho to track down some guy that might not even had run into drug runners.  He's asking Nacho about someone Nacho can actually get information about.

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

All this scintillating insurance talk has me thinking that Gilligan and Gould's next project should be "Risk Management", a hard hitting drama that goes deep into the inner workings of the ABQ insurance industry...NOT. :)

Oh, those actuary conventions are going to get a NC-17 rating!

[PeterPirate]

2 minutes ago, Dev F said:

That's why I tend to think that the whole incident will end up being associative -- that it's not about Mike deciding to solve an eight-year-old missing persons case for someone he just met, but about Anita's story forcing Mike to rethink whether he's really moved past the murder of the Good Samaritan. I agree with whoever it was upthread who suggested that the "one more thing" he demands from Nacho will end up being the location where they buried the Good Samaritan's body in the desert, so his family will have the closure Anita never got.

Which, interestingly, would make Mike's story here almost the polar opposite of Jimmy's -- if he decides, Life fucked over this poor woman really badly, but I'll be damned if some other family gets fucked over the same way on my account.

Now that makes perfect sense.  

[Tatum]

7 minutes ago, Dev F said:

 I agree with whoever it was upthread who suggested that the "one more thing" he demands from Nacho will end up being the location where they buried the Good Samaritan's body in the desert, so his family will have the closure Anita never got.

 

Ooh, good call!

[Bryce Lynch]

4 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Oh, those actuary conventions are going to get a NC-17 rating!

I guess it would be a project for HBO instead of AMC. :)

[Bannon]

Just now, Bryce Lynch said:

I guess it would be a project for HBO instead of AMC. :)

"Game of Loss Ratios".