To: fgoodwin
Is this yet another case of insurance companies determining what is good for the rest of us? Has DOT been given the hard word due to potential “liability”?
GO BOY SCOUTS!
5 posted on
07/29/2008 1:13:16 PM PDT by
DieHard the Hunter
(Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fà g am bealach.)
To: DieHard the Hunter
More likely someone in authority has an interest in using the weigh station area in the evenings for some non-truck related entertainment.
6 posted on
07/29/2008 1:14:56 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
To: DieHard the Hunter
Is this yet another case of insurance companies determining what is good for the rest of us...driven by fear of possible litigation by aggressive trial lawyers ?
15 posted on
07/29/2008 1:34:25 PM PDT by
yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")
To: DieHard the Hunter
Blame not the insurance companies, but the parasite lawyers that sue insurance companies.
17 posted on
07/29/2008 1:38:04 PM PDT by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: DieHard the Hunter
perhaps the person who has the vending machine consession license is objecting to the copetition.
I could understand if the person is having their profits cut and yet they pay for the license to have the vending machines there.
24 posted on
07/29/2008 2:06:01 PM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: DieHard the Hunter
To be fair to insurance companies, they have to watch out for the litigious attorneys. They hate (trial) lawyers more than just about anyone, and that’s saying something...
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson