Posted on 08/02/2013 7:42:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
ST. LOUIS (AP) — An Illinois businessman outraged by a court order that he return more than $500,000 in insurance money related to a 2001 wreck that killed his teenage son wanted to pay the money back in pennies in protest, only to recognize that was unfeasible.
So, Roger Herrin settled on quarters — four tons of them.
Packed in 150 transparent sacks each weighing about 50 pounds, the $150,000 in coins were nearly one-third of the money an appellate court required Herrin to pay back to resolve years-long legal feuding among the crash's survivors over how $800,000 in insurance proceeds were apportioned.
Obtained from the Federal Reserve in St. Louis, the backbreaking load of change was brought in Wednesday by an armored vehicle and delivered on a flatbed truck to two law firms that represented other victims of the wreck.
"There was no satisfaction from doing that," Herrin, who also serves on the Southern Illinois University system's governing board, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "The loss of a child is the loss of a child, and all the money doesn't replace that.
"I just wanted to draw attention to what went on here," the 76-year-old man added before mustering a laugh. "I really wanted to do it in pennies."
It ended the legal wrangling that's happened since Herrin's 15-year-old son, Michael, was killed in June 2001. He was a passenger in a Jeep Cherokee that was broadsided by a truck that blew through a stop sign near Raleigh in southern Illinois' Saline County. Three other occupants of the Jeep were injured.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
“...the Mount Vernon, Ill.-based 5th District Appellate Court ruled against Roger Herrin, a retired foot surgeon whose business holdings include three southern Illinois nursing homes. Herrin has owned seven community banks, but he’s sold those off in recent years.”
Wonder why the article’s author thought this part was relevant.
That was from his own insurance (possibly a life insurance policy on his son). I don't really see that being relevant without taking a socialist viewpoint that "he's already got money, so he doesn't deserve it".
It’s not my decision who deserves anything. The legal process was followed, and he got less than HE thinks he deserved. Now he’s making a Statement with quarters ... but he’s still complying with the court, so whatever.
He wasn’t the one who dragged them into court to dispute the original settlement.
I also applaude his actions. quite original....
I wonder if any old silver quarters were in those bags..
I had to do some digging but the article is a little fuzzy on a few details. The at-fault driver only had the bare minimum coverage and his insurance company only contributed $100k. The other victim, Duncan, also had uninsured-underinsured coverage and it was her policy that kicked in the additional $800k. Herrin also had at least one uninsured-underinsured policy which covered his son.
He collected $1.6 mil from his insurance company (perfectly fine since it was his and he paid for it) and a majority of the $100k from the at-fault guy's insurance (again, not a problem since he suffered the greatest loss). The problem was that he was also given a huge portion (over $677k of the $900k total pot) that included a huge amount the other victim's insurance policy.
It is my understanding that the whole purpose of uninsured-underinsured policies is to cover those who aren't insured. Since the at-fault driver's insurance didn't cover expenses for all the victims, it fell to each individual's insurance policies to make up the difference. It seems odd that he would be able to claim a portion of the other victim's policy in the first place.
Why would he? Per post 27, he got nearly everything insurance provided for the entire incident.
Impossible to tell from the details provided, but I suspect the portion of the uninsured-underinsured he collected was from the driver's insurance policy. His son was a passenger in the vehicle that was struck, and the driver's insurance would cover the driver and passengers.
Yeah, I can easily understand why he would collect a majority of the money from the at-fault guy - and even a portion of the victim driver’s payout.
If I read the ruling (http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/5thDistrict/5100037.pdf)* correctly, there were five total victims in the accident - Herrin’s son who died; the victim driver, Duncan; two of Duncan’s sons; and another teen friend.
Herrin somehow ended up with more than $677k while the rest was split between the remaining four (one of whom has had at least two surgeries.) It doesn’t seem fair that a lady who wasn’t at fault and paid the premiums for the extra coverage would be left with such a small portion to cover what I would imagine are some rather hefty expenses. The accident wasn’t her fault yet she was treated almost as if it were.
*Per the ruling, Bramlet (at-fault driver) had a standard policy which paid $100k. Duncan (victim driver) had a policy with added uninsured-underinsured coverage which paid $800k. And Herrin (dead victim’s father) also had uninsured-underinsured coverage which covered his son and paid out $1.6 mil even though the son wasn’t driving or a passenger in a family vehicle. (Though I’ve never heard of such coverage, the way the ruling reads, this was separate from life insurance.)
The court’s line of thought seems to have been:
~The $1.6 mil was Herrin’s alone, no split nor should there have been.
~The $100k was split with the lion’s share going to Herrin whose loss was the greatest, no problem there either.
~The $800k was also split which would have been fair if Herrin hadn’t received such a disproportionate (key word) share of that payout. Herrin collecting such a large portion from the other victim’s policy in effect punished her for his son’s death which was completely outside of her control.
Maybe the logic was that the uninsured-underinsured policy is meant to cover what the at-fault driver’s policy (or lack of) doesn’t. IOW, the total 900K was apportioned as it would have been if the at-fault driver was insured for that much.
Agreed.... And after reading 27 I think he’s looking bad in this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.