Please help me understand the notion that one should not purchase life insurance to care for your familiy in the event you are in an accident which may or may not be caused by someone else?
There are valid reasons why the Law Firm would seek on order such as this.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If the SOL is one year to bring a suit, and the results are announced 13 months later, finding that the State had notice that a dangerous collapse was likely yet did nothing, shouldn't the injured have recourse against the State?
The statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment is at least three years from the date of the discovery of the fraud.
AFAIK, this law firm does not even have a client yet. They are looking for liabilty and when they find it they will go fishing for clients.
Most likely to those who do not get a lawyer, the property liability carrier for whoever is the owner of the bridge (the state or federal government) will offer a fair settlement offer regardless of any finding of negligence.
I just can't stand these ambulance chasing law firms.
I could go one, but it would be pointless.
Then don't.
Let me get this straight: If you have a 10 year old child playing in your front yard, and a three time convicted drunk driver, again driving drunk, runs over your kid and turns him into a vegetable for life, it is YOUR responsibility to have insured against that risk? You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.