Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

Destacado
Kosher Salt dijo:
You make a fair point. Ron is a nobody, so it's not like anyone would care if he left them zero stars, but Monica is enough of a public figure that someone could theoretically want to sue her for saying something negative about them. It would make sense for her to have such an insurance policy. Still, I think those policies would cover defending against frivolous suits; I doubt they would pay if the defamation claim succeeded.

And Nick doesn't have to dox himself by putting his address on the corporate registration, like certain other dumbasses have done.

(Although Nick has a P.O. box, so he could've also used that... but it makes sense for him to just put BHBC's address on there because he'd be having them handle any issues anyway.)
Presiona para expandir...
Pretty sure the secondary reason was to get KV and the law twits riled up, given nicks sense of humor.
 
RodgerDodger dijo:
How or why would Ron have an Insurance plan that would even begin to cover this? Most Business Liability Plans do not cover Libel or Defamation,
Presiona para expandir...
Maybe Ron is claiming that the Kamehacon sponsorship nonsense was art of his work duties.

Call 555-HYPE dijo:
Rekieta Media, LLC, was incorporated about 3 months ago and shares a mailing address with BHBC. Any significance to this?


Presiona para expandir...
Why did BHBH change to BHBC? Is Hughes no longer a partner?
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Kosher Salt dijo:
And Nick doesn't have to dox himself by putting his address on the corporate registration, like certain other dumbasses have done.

(Although Nick has a P.O. box, so he could've also used that... but it makes sense for him to just put BHBC's address on there because he'd be having them handle any issues anyway.)
Presiona para expandir...

For a Registered Agent, it has to be the physical address/location of an actual person, can't be a P.O. box. You can have one as your shipping address, but the Agent is supposed to be a publicly reachable person who can further reach the officials/owners of a company. They are expected to pass on any legal communication (like lawsuit process notices).

As a small business, you usually register yourself at your home address, or at the address of the office where you work every day. You can also pay a small fee to someone to act as your Agent, who will keep your real contact info secret and pass along any legal docs that come their way. That's a service most lawyers offer, if you're already doing business with them.
 

This page has a brief overview of the liability protection that an umbrella policy from AllState can give in the case of a lawsuit for libel and slander. I imagine it's going to be pretty standard for the industry.

Important to note:

"WHAT TYPE OF DEFAMATION IS NOT COVERED BY A PERSONAL UMBRELLA POLICY?
While an umbrella policy may help prevent you from paying out of pocket if you face a legal judgment for defamation, not every scenario is covered by a personal umbrella policy. Here are a few typical exclusions:
  • Your alleged libelous or slanderous statement is related to a business you own
  • Your policy wasn't in force at the time the comment was said or written
  • You intentionally make a false comment or statement that defames someone else"
 
MCG_Raven dijo:
I don't know why Hughes left. None of us do. All i said was that Lawtwats claimed it supposedly was because Ty fucked this up
Presiona para expandir...
That would be slightly funny though if that was the case.
"Ty, what did you do? I keep having my inbox flooded with shit from people with those Japanese cartoon pictures and these 3 attorneys keep talking about this firm, Ty, WHAT DID YOU DO!!!!?"
 
ShinyStar dijo:

This page has a brief overview of the liability protection that an umbrella policy from AllState can give in the case of a lawsuit for libel and slander. I imagine it's going to be pretty standard for the industry.

Important to note:

"WHAT TYPE OF DEFAMATION IS NOT COVERED BY A PERSONAL UMBRELLA POLICY?
While an umbrella policy may help prevent you from paying out of pocket if you face a legal judgment for defamation, not every scenario is covered by a personal umbrella policy. Here are a few typical exclusions:
  • Your alleged libelous or slanderous statement is related to a business you own
  • Your policy wasn't in force at the time the comment was said or written
  • You intentionally make a false comment or statement that defames someone else"
Presiona para expandir...

Allstate is notorious for shafting people by refusing coverage, but this also isn't really relevant to the current situation. That language is related to indemnification/insurance for libel judgments. What Toye would have wanted in this situation is coverage for the costs of defense, i.e. a duty to defend. While these often come together, they don't always and when they do, different rules apply as to what the company is obligated to do.

Insurance companies generally want their exclusions interpreted broadly, while the insured wants them interpreted narrowly, but as contracts of adhesion (i.e. one party dictates take-it-or-leave-it terms to the other and drafted the contract), they're interpreted, when ambiguous, in favor of the non-drafting party.

So the exact language of any such policy would be what's relevant to whether Toye/Rial would be covered for their defense, indemnified for any judgment, both, or neither.

There's also a difference between an obligation to pay the costs of defense and an obligation actually to provide counsel and do the defense. Usually in the latter case, they're going to want greater control over the defense, but in the former case, they're not obligated to cover every single thing a defendant chooses to do, like engage in frivolous motion practice prior to filing a motion to dismiss.
 
AnOminous dijo:
Allstate is notorious for shafting people by refusing coverage, but this also isn't really relevant to the current situation. That language is related to indemnification/insurance for libel judgments. What Toye would have wanted in this situation is coverage for the costs of defense, i.e. a duty to defend. While these often come together, they don't always and when they do, different rules apply as to what the company is obligated to do.

Insurance companies generally want their exclusions interpreted broadly, while the insured wants them interpreted narrowly, but as contracts of adhesion (i.e. one party dictates take-it-or-leave-it terms to the other and drafted the contract), they're interpreted, when ambiguous, in favor of the non-drafting party.

So the exact language of any such policy would be what's relevant to whether Toye/Rial would be covered for their defense, indemnified for any judgment, both, or neither.

There's also a difference between an obligation to pay the costs of defense and an obligation actually to provide counsel and do the defense. Usually in the latter case, they're going to want greater control over the defense, but in the former case, they're not obligated to cover every single thing a defendant chooses to do, like engage in frivolous motion practice prior to filing a motion to dismiss.
Presiona para expandir...

Additionally, assuming it operates in the usual manner of insurance companies, they look at the bills submitted to them, decide what you deserve to have paid, then make you fight if you want them to give one penny more than that. And lord knows they aren't going to accept some huge block bill of hours without question. Assuming, obviously, some sort of insurance coverage for their legal bills even exists.
 
I can't imagine dijo:
Additionally, assuming it operates in the usual manner of insurance companies, they look at the bills submitted to them, decide what you deserve to have paid, then make you fight if you want them to give one penny more than that. And lord knows they aren't going to accept some huge block bill of hours without question. Assuming, obviously, some sort of insurance coverage for their legal bills even exists.
Presiona para expandir...
Hell they may just assume the matter is settled since the plaintiff is paying for reasonable fees so the insurance company shouldn't have to pay anything.
 
New document
2019-12-03 Supplemental Designation of Clerk's Record

Looks like it just wants the various filing related to fees and sanctions to be officially entered into the clerk's record.
 

Archivos adjuntos

Última edición:
Crabbo dijo:
In all honesty, this is probably the slowest the entire case has been. I tentatively state that there is no way more autism can happen until office hours resume in the new year.
Presiona para expandir...

"Autism will not be contained. Autism breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but... I'm simply saying that autism, uh, finds a way." - Jeff Goldblum, from some movie no one remembers
 
Urbanmech dijo:
Hell they may just assume the matter is settled since the plaintiff is paying for reasonable fees so the insurance company shouldn't have to pay anything.
Presiona para expandir...

That's exactly the kind of argument an insurance company would make. And exactly the kind of argument they win with all the time, because whatever court looks at it is likely to be persuaded by the fact that the policy language says something like reasonable fees, and the statutory language says reasonable fees, and a court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that explained why they were reasonable fees and. . .oh wait, the court didn't do that yet, but Lemoine nicely asked for it. So it's going to do that. Great jerb Lemoine!
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo