Patterico's Pontifications

9/21/2007

Patterico’s Take on the Tennie Pierce Settlement

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:43 pm



Oy vey, I’m rich!

oy-vey.JPG

This is completely outrageous. I’m not waiting until Monday to start the blowback. Look at how it’s spun by Eric Garcetti:

I’m pleased that this case has been resolved, that we can get back focused on the hard work of improving the fire department and restoring its reputation. I’m also pleased that we were able to save taxpayer money in what promises to be a very difficult budget year.

This puts me in mind of my wife telling me about the incredible savings our family benefits from when she buys things at sales.

Villaraigosa is similarly nauseating, calling this settlement

the best possible outcome for taxpayers. . . . It reduces the original settlement by nearly half while protecting Angelenos from further liability.

The best possible outcome for taxpayers would be for this guy not to collect one red cent.

Too bad we don’t have a City Attorney, City Council, or Mayor courageous enough to ensure this outcome.

Thanks to Justin Levine for breaking the news on this blog earlier.

21 Responses to “Patterico’s Take on the Tennie Pierce Settlement”

  1. I just about blew a gasket (albeit civilly) on one of Villaraigoso’s aides.
    They are spineless, gutless, good-for-nothing panderers to the lowest common denominator. My husband makes the argument that the precedent had already been set for this to happen, I think this settlement sets an incredibly dangerous one (litigiously). I’ve watched L.A. degenerate from San Diego since I moved here 17 years ago. Now I’ll watch the rest of the demise from a better distance – I’m moving to Texas.
    Somewhere, there still exists common sense.

    X_LA_Native (740ee9)

  2. “I’m pleased that this case has been resolved, that we can get back focused on the hard work of improving the fire department and restoring its reputation.”

    Yes, but when, if ever, will Los Angeles begin the hard work of restoring dignity, backbone, and ethics in their City council, City Attorney, and Mayor’s office? Because right now, there is none. Absolutely none. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves but unfortunately the emperor has no clothes.

    Dana (be6f53)

  3. Whoa! You better worry about blow-back from Mrs. Patterico, lumping her shopping habits in on this! 😉

    Beldar (2a3e92)

  4. I love the comment by Villagarosa (h/t to KFI for the sp.):

    It reduces the original settlement by nearly half while protecting Angelenos from further liability

    Had the City Attorney, City Council, and Mayor possessed a spine – in part or in toto – Angelenos would have had no liability.

    Again underscoring why I have absolutely no interest in ever living in LA.

    Socrates Abroad (9f9e1a)

  5. Real dedicated and brave legal civil servants all around on this one, and well deserved rewards to the fireman hero…uhhh…ummm…well I’m pretty sure of this…oh dang it, just forget it….

    Andrew (f367d8)

  6. There are some items that by law cannot be settled at a single council meeting, but must be on the agenda at two meetings. It might be worth while to see if this settlement is one of those types of items.

    Ken (245846)

  7. On the plus side, Big Dog has lots of cash and the people he hazed can sue him.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  8. Angelenos are fearless except when it comes to facing a courtroom
    open the flood gates

    atmama (ac283d)

  9. Agree, #7. But shouldn’t it be the city that has to pay. After all, hazing is hazing.

    PatAZ (56a0a8)

  10. I wonder what the City’s insurance deductible is and whether their carrier was directing the defense of the claim. With all the information out there about Pierce’s prior conduct, it’s tough to imagine an insurance carrier voluntarily eating a piece of this one. I would guess that the settlement is within the City’s deductible, but you never know.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  11. A city the size of LA is most likely self insured.

    Retired vice cop (2a4d4b)

  12. I think this settlement reflects a total lack of confidence in the LA City Attorney’s office.

    Jim (d56ccd)

  13. Retired Vice Cop – Their insurance program, self insured, high deductible, however you want to describe it, probably has limits before the external insurance kicks in and starts paying. That was the concept I was trying to get across. The city eats the first $xxxx of each claim before the insurer begins paying. If I were the insurer, I would have argued against a settlement which required me to shell out any bucks to Pierce based on the information about his conduct that has been made public. That was my point.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  14. Self-insured, daleyrocks — that means an insurance company is not involved. There is no deductible because an insurance company isn’t paying. The city is paying.

    lc (1401be)

  15. IIRC from the controversy blaming Daryl Gates for the high payouts during his stay in the Chief’s office, the City of Los Angeles is self-insured. All of this comes out of the General Fund, and the taxpayer’s pocket.

    It is so nice when people ask me if I’m from California, I can truthfully say that I’m from L.A.; then I can explain that I don’t live there anymore, and neither should anyone with a functioning head on their shoulders.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  16. Haa! This is nothing compared to New York. The gates have now been opened and I hope everyone in LA enjoys the millions you will lose. This is just the start of it. What a joke.

    John (208b86)

  17. Just to play devil’s advocate to an extent, this case was venued in Los Angeles Central (or Civil Central West, I’m not 100% certain which). Central and CCW are commonly known by the Plaintiff bar as “the bank”. When a jury pool has a reputation of being so pro plaintiff attorneys refer to it as “the bank” you have to up your settlement value of any case by a substantial number.

    Sean P (e57269)

  18. lc – Municipalities usually have limits above which they don’t self insure or aggregates to cover multiple large verdicts or settlements. That’s my point. Try again.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  19. daleyrocks – As I handle litigated public sector claims for a large insurer, I can assure you that anything above a nominal figure would have been too much for us to consider, even given the jurisdiction.

    JD (c3bb88)

  20. JD – No 50xs50 mil layer or sublayer spread between a bunch of carriers for the right price? Has that market disappeared or is it only there for corporations?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  21. It may exist, but not at the big carriers. Regardless, we would have never agreed to these figures, and the only way the plaintiff would have ever seen them was for the defendant to have voluntarily paid it on their own. If it even involved $1 of any carrier’s money, it would have been their decision to make.

    JD (c3bb88)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0667 secs.