text:
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #10 (September 23, 2010). © 2010
[Editor's Note: John V. Garaffa is a Partner and Jason M. Seitz is an associate with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Tampa, Florida. Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions of Butler or Mealey's Publications. Copyright © 2010 by Jason M. Seitz and John V. Garaffa. Responses are welcome.]
The critical fact that seems to have been glossed over by all of the courts considering this question is the fact that once a final judgment has been entered by a Florida trial court, the court loses jurisdiction to do anything further.
In the January 26, 2015 edition of this publication, I shared a collection of excerpts from documents authored by attorneys. Given the sheer volume of paper which crosses my desk in reviewing claims for coverage and bad faith, I inevitably come across some very humorous (though not intentionally so) mistakes in the various documents reviewed. This month, I share some of the funniest entries I've seen in deposition transcripts and medical records.
As an attorney for more than sixteen years, and a practitioner of insurance bad faith for nearly eleven years, I have seen virtually every kind of bad faith set-up one could imagine. I have shared my observations through various articles published in this fine periodical as well as other publications. The law of insurer bad faith is obviously one which is constantly in flux. Therefore, it would be a simple matter to wax eloquent upon the latest pronouncement from the high court of one of our many state and federal courts. However, I feel compelled to digress from the usual stately discussion of the intricacies of bad-faith law and share some of the more amusing things I have come across during my review of tens of thousands of documents contained in claim files, medical records and correspondence, done in connection with representing insurers in this field.
Generally, if an insurance company refuses to defend its insured against a claim, the insured may protect himself by entering into a stipulated agreement with the claimant and holding the insurance company responsible for paying the claimant the agreed-to amount.
Florida state and federal courts struggle with excess damage verdicts in first-party bad-faith actions arising out of uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. Recent case decisions produce mixed results for insurers. But mention UM coverage, bad faith, and total damages, and Florida Statute Section 627.727(10) immediately comes to mind. Comments by two judges framed the Section 10 debate.
This article examines the third party beneficiary doctrine in conjunction with the approaches courts follow with regard to the collection of an excess judgment from a liability insurer.
Liability policies typically require the insured to provide prompt notice of a claim or suit. Notice is regarded as a condition precedent to the insurer's duty to defend or indemnify. The notice provisions in a typical liability policy seem straightforward. However, issues surrounding notice become complicated when an additional insured, who is typically not a party to the insurance contract and sometimes unnamed in a policy, is involved. Under those situations, courts have had to address, among other issues, the sophistication and resources of the additional insured, whether the additional insured is aware that coverage potentially exists or even that policies potentially exist, whether the jurisdiction requires the additional insured to actually tender the claim or suit or whether another insured's tender of the claim or suit is sufficient and whether there was late notice or no notice at all by the additional insured. Different jurisdictions have reached different results.
On July 20, 2012, a three-judge panel of Florida's Second District Court of Appeal released what, on its face, appeared to be a relatively innocuous opinion in Geico General Insurance Company v. Bottini . The Bottini appeal arose as a result of Geico's appeal of a jury verdict in the amount of $30,872,266 rendered against it in an uninsured/underinsured motorist (''UIM'') case. Consistent with precedent, the trial court entered a judgment against Geico in the amount of the policy's limit of liability, $50,000. Because the huge verdict had the effect of fixing the plaintiff's damages in a subsequent bad faith case, Geico naturally sought review of that verdict. The panel opinion concluded simply, ''Based on the evidence presented, we are satisfied that even if Geico were correct that errors may have affected the jury's computation of damages, in the context of this case and the amount of the judgment, any such errors were harmless.''
First-party bad-faith claims arising from uninsured motorist (UM) coverage are separate and independent actions, too. If the uninsured motorist coverage action is truly separate and distinct from bad faith, one naturally expects a separate trial on bad-faith liability and extracontractual damages. However, there is a unique problem confronting first-party bad-faith claims arising from uninsured motorist coverage under Florida Statute Section 627.727(10). One decision characterizes the problem as a ''conundrum'' created by Florida law.
When a carrier refuses to defend its insured, the insured may consent to entry of a stipulated judgment. 1 In most jurisdictions the insured (or claimant) bears the burden of proof to show coverage exists as a prerequisite to recovery of an excess judgment. 2 The burden of proving coverage for a consent judgment can sometimes create problems. Consent judgments raise many other issues beyond the scope of this article. 3
Generally, liability insurers must secure a release of all of their insureds when settling claims against their insureds. However, some courts have recognized circumstances where an insurer may settle for an insured at the exclusion of another while still maintaining its good faith duties toward all of its insureds. Other courts have seemingly rejected the notion that an insurer can ever settle for one of its insureds at the exclusion of others. These release issues occur most prevalently in automobile accidents involving insured owners and additional insured drivers.
A common scenario: claimant's counsel issues a time limit demand for policy limits and the insurer decides to accept the demand and tender the limits. Once the decision is made to accept the demand, the insurer should go through its checklist of concerns to make sure that each element of the time demand is met, while ensuring that the insured is adequately protected.
Bad faith and ordinary negligence typically involve two very different standards of care. In most jurisdictions, courts agree that proof of bad faith requires a showing of insurer culpability greater than ordinary negligence.
The gravamen of a third-party claim of bad faith is that the insurer failed to settle a claim against an insured when it had the opportunity to do so. The essence of the claim is that the insurer acted solely on the basis of its own interests, failed to properly and promptly defend the claim, and thereby exposed the insured to an excess judgment. However, a claim based on insurer negligence is insufficient to establish bad faith
Mediation is an effective dispute resolution tool because it allows participants to openly discuss all aspects of a dispute without the fear of recourse or retribution. Confidentiality is a critical component of this process. Litigants and insurers participating in mediation often proceed under the assumption that all communications and conduct occurring during mediation will be cloaked with protection. However, exceptions to confidentiality are slowly eroding what is commonly referred to as the absolute ''mediation privilege.''
Few legal maneuvers generate greater skepticism – among courts and insurers – than the excess consent judgment, an increasingly common settlement device used In liability cases.
Liability insurance carriers should be prompt and proactive when they receive a time-limit demand from a claimant. Time is usually not on the carrier's side when it comes to these settlement communications.
Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good, as the insurers in the following cases learned. These cases demonstrate that, even where the facts indicate that the insurer acted in bad faith, it is still possible for the insurer to escape extra-contractual exposure. In the absence of a causal link between the excess judgment and the insurer's actions, bad faith liability cannot exist as a matter of law.
Over forty states have hospital lien laws. Those laws typically allow hospitals to recover against parties, including insurers, who impair their liens. In many states, the hospital lien laws do not clearly identify the type and extent of damages a hospital can recover against a party who impairs a hospital lien. The damages a hospital can recover from a party who impairs a lien depends upon the language of the applicable hospital lien law and the courts' interpretations of that law. Results vary from state to state.
Bad faith aside, insurers often assume a claim's ''total" exposure under the insurance contract is the policy's limit. Courts traditionally allow insureds to recover contractual damages based on the limit, plus legal interest. However, a new trend is emerging in some jurisdictions.
In an effort to create yet another way to present a claim for bad faith against an insurance company, plaintiff attorneys have been submitting ''package deal'' demands on behalf of multiple claimants who have all incurred damages as a result of the same occurrence.
Over the last 25 years, courts have wrestled with the issue of whether to apply an absolute privilege to preclude bad-faith lawsuits based on an insurance company's conduct during the litigation of an underlying first-party or third-party claim. Some courts still refuse to recognize a bad-faith claim against an insurance company based upon its post-litigation conduct. However, the prevailing trend seems to suggest that courts will find that some of the insurer's conduct remains relevant and admissible, while the conduct of the insurer's attorneys in defending the claim remains privileged.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "attorney-client privilege" as "one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications," the purpose of which is to encourage "full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice."
In the Southeast, catastrophic natural disasters have become all too common, and the physical and financial consequences are borne by the entire region. Five of the top ten costliest hurricanes to hit the United States have impacted North Carolina, and with approximately $159.6 billion in insured coastal assets, North Carolina continues to have significant loss exposure.
A recent discovery order in the federal court case of Signature Development, LLC v. Mid-Continental Casualty Company is illustrative of our liberal discovery. Note, this liability insurer has yet to be found liable or guilty of any wrongdoing. Signature alleges, however, that the corporate defendant insurer breached the contract of insurance, committed ''bad-faith,'' breached its fiduciary duty to its insured, committed unfair trade practices, intentionally inflicted emotional distress and vexatiously refused to pay. Based upon these allegations alone, the court addressed the scope and burden of discovery.
By definition, mediation begins with ''me.'' Once conflicting parties have resorted to litigation, they naturally act purely in their own respective self-interest. When a mediation involves allegations of insurer ''bad faith,'' this is especially so. The parties are initially polarized.
If given the chance, most property adjusters would skip the aspect of their job involving litigation. Avoiding lawyers, depositions, and, of course, trials would alleviate much stress. Unfortunately, dealing with lawyers and litigation is an unavoidable job hazard for most adjusters.
How can a first-party insurer be legally liable for insurance ''bad faith'' if it has already been found not to be liable for breach of the insurance contract? According to at least one Florida appellate court, by paying an Appraisal Award timely.
Are all attorney-client communications contained in such claim files that were thought to be confidential now discoverable because the insurer lost the underlying first-party claim, litigation, or appeal
On April 25, 2012, the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Florida issued its opinion in Moultrop v. GEICO General Ins. Co., remanding a bad faith claim to state court pursuant to the one-year ''repose'' provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The Moultrop decision is one more in a growing line of cases which refuse insurers access to a federal forum based on the repose provision, under the anomalous reasoning that the right to removal expired before the cause of action for bad faith accrued. Unfortunately for the insurers, 28 U.S.C. section 1447(d) precludes appellate review of an order granting a motion to remand.
Discovery of the insurance company's entire claim file—including confidential communications between the insurer and its attorney—is often the first target on the insured's agenda in a first-party bad-faith lawsuit. In any other context, a party's request for discovery of the opposing party's confidential attorney-client communications would be viewed by courts as a brazen and inappropriate attempt to obtain information obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege; however, in the context of bad-faith litigation, this type of request has been dignified by courts who often look for ways to permit discovery of the insurer's attorney-client communications.
In the past decade, the bad-faith environment has rapidly shifted from a useful tool used by consumers to protect themselves from arguably egregious actions to an elaborate trap set by personal injury plaintiff attorneys to reap outrageous awards from seemingly innocent conduct by claims professionals. Insurance companies now fear multi-million dollar verdicts based on policies written for insureds who did not want more than the absolute minimum coverage allowed. Based on technicalities, clever plaintiff attorneys attempt to convince courts to rewrite insurance policies, allowing for unlimited recoveries.
Many cases hold that a liability insurer can settle a claim against its insured without the insured's consent because the policy language gives an insurer the right to settle even when an insured may not want to settle.1 For the most part, courts in California, Florida, and Louisiana allow insurers to settle claims without the insured's consent where the policy gives the insurer the right to settle as it deems expedient. However, courts may nonetheless consider whether a settlement may have adversely impacted the insured to determine whether an insurer acted in good faith.
On November 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court exercised its discretion and let stand a $13.8 million punitive damage award that was more than 16 times the compensatory damages awarded by the jury. The case, Bullock v. Philip Morris, 1 (Bullock) involved a smoker diagnosed with lung cancer who filed suit against the cigarette manufacturer, seeking damages based on products liability, fraud, and other theories.
In every state in the union an insured can seek some form of compensation for an insurer's ''bad faith'' in adjusting a claim.Yet only one state, Tennessee, currently allows an insurance company to recover damages caused by the insured's bad faith.This imbalance has allowed ''bad faith'' litigation to become big business.The tendency of courts to treat insureds like a disadvantaged class has created an uneven playing field for insurance companies in claims adjustment.
[ Editors note: Alan J. Nisberg, Esq., is a partner with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which has offices in Tampa, Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. He is an experienced trial and appellate attorney, specializing in extra-contractual, class action and complex coverage litigation. This commentary, other than the quoted material, expresses the authors opinions - not the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright © 2011 by the author. Responses are welcome. ]
Proximate causation is an element of a claim for bad faith. An often-overlooked element, but an element nonetheless. Even claims with grievous claim-handling errors and high excess judgments can still be very defensible if there is no proximate causation between the two. This article examines the element of the bad-faith cause of action that is most often glossed over.
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 25, #10 (September, 2011). © 2011
[ Julie A. Simonson is an associate with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which has offices in Tampa, Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. She is active in the firm's Extra-Contractual and Liability Departments. Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright © 2011 by Julie A. Simonson. Responses are welcome. ]
[BrianD.Webb,Esq.,is a partner with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which has offices in Tampa, Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. He is an experienced trial and appellate attorney specializing in extra-contractual and complex coverage litigation. This commentary expresses the author's opinions–not the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright#2011 by Brian D. Webb. Responses are welcome.]
[Editor's Note: Alan J. Nisberg is a partner in the Tampa office of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which also has offices in Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. He is an experienced trial attorney and appellate lawyer, specializing in extra-contractual, class action, and complex coverage litigation. This commentary, other than the quoted material, expresses the author's opinions - not the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright#2011 by the author. Responses are welcome.]
[R. Steven Rawls is a partner and Ryan K. Hilton is a senior associate with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which has offices in Tampa, Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. This commentary expresses the author's opinions–not the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright © 2011 by R. Steven Rawls and Ryan K. Hilton. Responses are welcome.]
In some jurisdictions, including Florida, the courts recognize a duty in some circumstances for a liability insurer to initiate settlement negotiations with a third-party claimant before the claimant has ever made a demand. This duty is a relatively recent invention in the common law and has yet to be fully defined. While most articles on the subject tend to focus on whether or not this duty should exist in the first place, this article skips that threshold question and delves into the particulars that apply in the jurisdictions that recognize it. What triggers the duty? What is required of the insurer to discharge it? What are the defenses to a claim for bad-faith failure to initiate settlement negotiations? This article tackles these emerging questions and more in attempt to define this nascent duty.
[Editor's Note: Laura A. Turbe-Capaz is a senior associate in the Tampa office of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which also has offices in Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee, and Miami. She is an experienced trial attorney in the firm's Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage, and Liability Departments. Copyright#2011 by Laura A. Turbe-Capaz. Responses are welcome.]
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #15 (December 9, 2010). © 2010
[Editor's Note: Fay E. Ryan is a partner the Tampa office of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, which also has offices in Chicago, Charlotte, Mobile, Tallahassee and Miami. She is an experienced trial attorney in the firm's Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage, and Liability Departments. Kimberly N. Gorak is a senior associate in the Tampa office of Butler , also practicing in the firm's Extra-Contractual, Third-Party Coverage, and Liability Departments. Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions of Butler or Mealey's. Copyright © 2010 by Fay E. Ryan and Kimberly N. Gorak. Responses are welcome .]
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #14 (November 24, 2010). © 2010
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #8 (August 26, 2010). © 2010
[Editor's Note: Steve Rawls is a partner and Ryan K. Hilton is a senior associate with the law firm of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP in Tampa, Florida. Any commentary or opinions do not reflect the opinions of Butler or Mealey's Publications. Copyright © 2010 by R. Steve Rawls and Ryan K. Hilton. Responses are welcome.]
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #6 (July 29, 2010). © 2010
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 24, #2 (May 27, 2010). © 2010
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal's 1991 decision in Powell v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. recognized a duty, in some circumstances, for a liability insurer to initiate settlement discussions with a third-party claimant who has not made a demand. The case proved to have a strong ripple effect, bringing about a sea change in bad-faith jurisprudence for the next twenty years. This article examines the expansion of Powell from a unique facts-driven anomaly to an entire branch of bad-faith jurisprudence and discusses early indications that the courts may be retreating again to applications more in line with the original case.
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 23, #22 (March 25, 2010). © 2010
Insurance intermediaries (insurance agents and insurance brokers) are especially vulnerable to claims by insureds. While bad-faith actions continue to be the favored method of pursuing recovery beyond a policy limit, some litigants turn to claims against insurance intermediaries (and the insurers they represent) for extracontractual recovery. In addition to bad-faith law, insurers need to know what kinds of claims can be brought in relation to the procurement of the insurance policy itself and what defenses can be raised. This article delves into this often-misunderstood area of the law and illuminates some legal issues with which every insurer should be familiar.
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 23, #18 (January 28, 2010). © 2010
Many businesses are increasingly utilizing insurance policies with large self-insured retention endorsements in order to exercise better control over the defense of claims. In these circumstances, an issue may arise regarding whether an insured who is responsible for defense costs under a self-insured retention ("SIR") owes a duty of good faith to its insurer.
On August 5, 2009, the South Dakota supreme court joined an exceedingly small minority of courts in the United States that have imposed a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into first-party claims in order to avoid "bad-faith" liability.2 As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This decision certainly affirms the truth of that old saw
On March 31, 2009, the United States Supreme Court dismissed, as improvidently granted, a writ of certiorari in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams. While the reason for the court's action remains a mystery, it seemed to signal an end to the court's interest in the central constitutional issue in the case: punitive damages. Unfortunately, the court's decision to abandon the issue leaves both the litigants and observers wondering what, if anything, had been gained by years of decisions, reversals and remands.
In Grilletta v. Lexington Insurance Company,8 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the insurer's handling of a Hurricane Katrina property claim.9 Mr. Xavier Grilletta and Mr. Randy Lauman owned a vacation lakehouse on the southeastern shore of Lake Pontchartrain, a lake bordering New Orleans to the north.
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 22, #22 (March 26, 2009).
This is one of a series of articles originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 22, #20 (February 26, 2009).
The scene is all too familiar: an insured, disenchanted with its insurer's refusal to defend an action the insured believes is within coverage, decides to enter into a "consent judgment" with the plaintiff, in return for which, the plaintiff agrees only to pursue satisfaction of the "judgment" against the insurer.
The responsibility of caring for a child is not one to be taken lightly. Our society demands vigilance from those who bring new life into rld, and rightly so. We are held to a higher standard in dealing with our offspring than with others. The special relationship between a parent and a child is built upon trust and an expectation that one (the parent) will give security tothe other (the child). So too is the bond between insurer and insured.
On June 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. The Supreme Court reduced the punitive damage award from $2.5 billion dollars to $507 million dollars, an amount approximately equal to the jury's award of compensatory damages. While the decision certainly warmed the hearts of Exxon's previously discomfitted stockholders, the Court's opinion provides only limited encouragement to defendants involved in the current punitive damage lottery.
The ability of an insured to recover consequential damages under an insurance contract allegedly caused by failure or delays in the insurer making payments has traditionally been controversial. Jurisdictions have been divided in their approach as noted in the following annotation cited by the district court in Indiana
In many jurisdictions, jurors can award punitive damages to punish or penalize an insurer for improper claims handling, in addition to any compensatory damages caused by an insurer's bad faith. Such jury awards of punitive damages now are subject to scrutiny under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell.1 As a result of Campbell, insurers have one final check against excessive punitive damages awards by juries.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, courts have struggled to define when the Campbell court's presumptive limit of 9 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is appropriate. The Supreme Court stated that the "most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award" was the highly subjective measure of the "degree of reprehensibility." Wrestling with such an amorphous concept trial courts and appellate courts have sought to justify various punitive damage awards on the basis of a sliding scale, doing little more than subjectively comparing the "reprehensibility" in the case being reviewed, to other recent cases decided before it. The result is a marked disparity from one court to the next as to what constitutes behavior falling within the five (5) factors of reprehensibility discussed in Campbell.
This is one of a series of articles under the by line "Butler on Bad Faith" originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 21, #6, p. 32 (July 24, 2007).
On February 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated second opinion in the negligence and fraud suit brought by the widow of Jesse Williams against Philip Morris. Mrs. Williams had asserted that the company had purposefully taken actions to obscure the dangers of smoking and, as a result, her husband was deceived into believing smoking was not harmful, a 47 year delusion that ultimately led to his illness and death.
On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court released its opinion in Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.[FN1] In Dadeland, a bare majority of the high Court, led by Justice Lewis, held that an obligee under a performance bond qualifies as an "insured" within the meaning of section 624.155, Florida Statutes (1999). The Court's decision resulted from the following question certified to it by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals:
On May 30, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court again granted a petition for writ of certiorari in the ongoing dispute between Philip Morris and the widow of Jesse Williams, an Oregon resident who died of lung cancer after smoking cigarettes for about 47 years.
Insurance "bad-faith" is recognized throughout the United States. In the setting of first-party property insurance, the relationship between the insured and insurer commences contractually. However, that contractual relationship can also provide exposure for tort damages in a first-party "bad-faith" action. Indeed, the threat of facing a first-party property "bad-faith" tort action commonly influences insurers to resolve litigation out of fear, rather than for substantive purposes based on the merits. One of the "Achilles' Heels" of such causes of action is the inability of the insured to prove any measurable "bad-faith" damages. The identification and measurement of "damages" in first-party property "bad-faith" actions varies greatly depending on the jurisdiction. This commentary will discuss certain jurisdictional differences relating to damages in first-party "bad-faith" actions, exclusive of punitive damages.[FN1]
Until the 20th Century, insurance contracts were treated the same as any other contract, with recovery generally limited to the damages contemplated by the parties when they entered into the contract. Insurance contracts, like any other, were enforced by their explicit terms, and courts were reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the terms upon which the parties agreed absent some independent tort or injustice. By the end of the 19th Century, however, the judiciary in the United States began to recognize a general obligation of good faith performance implied in every contract. By the 1930s, the implied covenant of good faith became a standard doctrine. This duty of good faith and fair dealing originated to resolve disputes over agreements that were not explicit on pivotal contract terms, or left discretionary power in the hands of one of the contracting parties.
Ging v. American Liberty Insurance Company, 423 F.2d 115 (5th Cir. 1970) is a case often cited for the proposition that third party insurers who act in bad faith could be held liable for punitive damages awarded against their insureds. However, the strength of this proposition appears to depend upon the extent to which a jurisdiction would permit the insurability of punitive damages. Those jurisdictions that permit coverage for punitive damages would also likely permit recovery of those damages later as a result of the carrier's bad faith. Jurisdictions whose public policy precludes insuring against punitive damage awards, may be more reluctant to permit recovery in a later bad faith action, depending upon the nature of the liability giving rise to the punitive damage award.
Dealing with punitive damage claims is like driving down a road that is constantly under repair. The road is dangerous, uncomfortable, and full of detours. Although the United States Supreme Court has issued a rather clear and accurate map to help us through this rocky road, in some respects the map is already outdated, just as the road darkens and your interior auto light dims.
Imagine your insured is at fault in an accident that kills her and causes devastating injury to another individual. You (the insurer) fail to meet a settlement demand within policy limits. Liability is clear and excess exposure is inevitable. The claimant files a civil lawsuit naming the "estate" of the insured as the defendant. However, the estate of the insured is not set up yet. Having no entity to actually serve with the complaint, the claimant petitions the probate court for administration of the decedent's estate, has a personal representative appointed, and immediately serves legal process on that representative. A multi-million dollar excess judgment is obtained in the civil action.
Given that the Utah Supreme Court ("Utah") previously reinstated a $145 million punitive damages award in favor of the Campbells, it is not surprising that on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, this same state high court goes to great lengths to justify the largest punitive damages award it believes could possibly survive further constitutional review.
Many jurisdictions have hospital lien laws. These laws ensure payment to hospitals for the beneficial services they provide. Some jurisdictions liberally interpret these laws so that technical deficiencies in establishing or seeking enforcement do not defeat payment to the hospitals. Other jurisdictions are less likely to ignore such deficiencies.
In Liggett Group Inc. v. Engle, the Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the largest punitive damage award in history. The circumstances of the award indicate it would have bankrupted the defendants and was, in essence, a civil death sentence. If that were the only error, Engle would merely mark another notch in the continued upward spiral of American jury awards. However, the compounded procedural and constitutional errors in Engle make it particularly useful for those who wish to examine the pros and cons of the current system of punitive damages.
A liability insurer has a duty to handle and settle claims made against its insured in good faith. Courts have grappled with whether this duty requires an insurer to make a settlement offer when there is no claim against the insured.
Everyone knows that an insurer has to act in good faith to its insured when settling claims with third parties. However, when an insurer is faced with multiple claims exceeding the limits of coverage, the insurer is faced with tough choices. Insurers are frequently called upon to defend these choices in "bad-faith" actions. Can an insurer get summary judgment on the issue of "bad-faith" in multiple claimant/inadequate limits cases? Will the insurer be forced to litigate the "bad-faith" issue through a trial? This article attempts to answer these questions and provide guidance to insurers on meeting their duty of good faith when met with multiple claims, the sum total of which exceed policy limits.
It has long been accepted that parties to an insurance contract have an obligation to deal with each other fairly and in good faith. As early as 1914, this obligation was found to be grounded within an implied covenant within the contract between the insurer and its insured. If a denial of benefits under the policy was ultimately resolved by a suit on the contract of insurance, a policyholder who prevailed would receive the amount due plus interest. The recognition of a cause of action for the tortious breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the context of the first-party contract of insurance is relatively recent.
Sometimes several people sustain injuries in an accident. This article addresses a recent decision of Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, that discusses what liability insurers should do when several people sustain injuries in an accident caused by the insured and the value of most, if not all, of each individual claim exceeds policy limits. This article discusses the basis for the Farinas holding and identifies some questions raised by Farinas.
Once again the annual "hold-your-breath" season is upon us. In Hartford, New York, and London weather channels are beating "sitcoms" on the "Nielson" ratings. Internet strikes on weather.com are out-numbering those for kournikova.com – well, maybe this is a slight exaggeration. But the point remains; that is, CAT losses, especially windstorm, commonly called Hurricanes, make or break a property insurer's profitability, not just in the year of the occurrence, but typically with a two to three year tail.
In most every jurisdiction, the basis for a claim of insurer bad faith is the recognition of a duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in any contract of insurance. See, e.g., Boston Old Colony v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980). The focus in such cases is usually the question of whether or not the insurer has violated that duty. Inevitably, the question arises as to whether or not the actions of the insured can be considered bad faith and, if so, whether such actions can be raised as an affirmative defense to a claim of insurer bad faith.
The involvement of legal counsel to provide advice concerning the settlement of property and liability claims has become increasingly commonplace. This is primarily due to the general proliferation of litigation and specifically "bad-faith" claims. As the involvement of legal counsel becomes more prevalent, so does the "defense" of "advice of counsel." This commentary will address this so-called "defense" in the context of "bad-faith" cases.
In 1844, Alexandre Dumas, one of the most famous French writers of the nineteenth century, shared his vision of comradery and unified ambition. In his classic, The Three Musketeers, set under the seventeenth century rule of Louis XIII, a small association of elite combatants swore their allegiance to a common purpose . . . and to each other: All for one, and one for all! Is this sense of nobility and uniformity present in the battle cry of plaintiff lawyers brandishing their swords in modern day litigation against the insurance industry?
Horace once wrote: "Anger is a brief madness." Such human condition apparently has not changed in over 2000 years.
USA Today's January 9, 2003 editorial page began with the topic sentence: "Horror stories abound about huge damage awards turning courts into lotteries, transforming plaintiffs and their lawyers into instant winners." In addressing a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, the editorial stated
In recent months, insurance company clients of the author have faced allegations that the filing of a declaratory action, by an insurer, to determine or cut off coverage, is bad faith. This is a somewhat novel and, as it turns out, disfavored cause of action. To begin with, a "declaratory judgment action is the preferred manner of deciding a dispute between an insured and insurer over the construction and effect of the terms of the insurance contract."
Insurers find nothing more frustrating than paying for unearned indemnification dollars. In a first-party context this may result from unreported values causing a deflated premium. In other words, the insurer's actual exposures require more premium than charged -- usually over many policy years. In a third-party context this unearned protection is the result of an excess judgment that the liability carrier is required to pay. In most jurisdictions this is the consequence of the liability insurer's failure to settle within policy limits when it had the opportunity to do so.
What happens when an insurer's employee, insured, adjuster or attorney alters or destroys critical evidence? Can spoliation of evidence also constitute bad faith? Although there is no published decision directly on point, it appears that some courts may be willing to extend an insurer's exposure to include extra-contractual damages for such conduct
The Seventh Circuit recently addressed the question of whether an independent insurance broker, who provided clients to the insured, was their intermediary, thus barring coverage and bad faith claims. (First Insurance Funding Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 01-2855 (7th Cir. March 28, 2002)).
"The insurer does not . . . insure the entire range of an insured's wellbeing outside the scope of and unrelated to the insurance policy, with respect to paying third party claims. It is an insurer, not a guardian angel."
"The insurer does not . . . insure the entire range of an insured's wellbeing outside the scope of and unrelated to the insurance policy, with respect to paying third party claims. It is an insurer, not a guardian angel."
Two recent state court decisions jeopardize the right of insurers to consult legal counsel when considering whether to pay or deny the claim of a policyholder. The Arizona and Ohio state supreme courts have issued opinions eroding, even abrogating, the attorney client and work product privileges. In one of these decisions, Boone v. Vanliner, 744 N.E.2d 154 (Ohio 2001), the insurer has petitioned the United States Supreme Court to issue the writ of certiorari, hear the case and reverse the Ohio Supreme Court. The undersigned urges the United States Supreme Court to take the Vanliner case for the reasons stated below.
Coverage determinations regarding the nature of policy duties that liability insurers owe to additional insureds may create bad faith exposure for the unwary insurer. Bad faith liability frequently arises when an insurer fails to recognize the scope of defense and indemnification obligations it owes to an additional insured. Issues also arise when additional insureds compete with named insureds for limited policy proceeds which cannot adequately protect the interests of both. This article highlights the source of the dilemma – the scope of the coverage afforded to an additional insured – and provides illustrations of bad faith exposure in the wake of claims asserted against additional insureds.
In every jurisdiction that has considered the issue, a claim for bad faith does not accrue until there has been a final determination of the underlying claim for insurance benefits or third party damages. Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 913 P.2d 1092 (Ariz. 1996); Blanchard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1991). Thus, before a plaintiff can sue an insurance company for bad faith, he must first finally resolve the claim which he contends the insurance company failed to settle in good faith. What constitutes a resolution of that claim varies with the type of claim asserted and the jurisdiction in which it is brought, but it can generally be broken down into three categories: excess judgment, settlement of the underlying claim, and judgment below policy limits.
We have seen, in recent years, a spate of actions for bad faith, and class actions, on the issue of so-called diminished value. These suits claim payment by the insurance company of the actual cash value of a property loss - or the cost to repair a loss - does not make the insured whole. This is because of some intangible quality in the property that cannot be restored by repair. Before the loss it was pristine or original. Afterward it is corrupted or compromised. It is worth less in the market.
An insured causes damage or injury that results in a third party claim for continuous loss spanning three years. The third party makes a claim under the policy in effect at the time of the loss. The policy covers the same three years as the loss and provides $300,000.00 for each year. In other words, the policy provides a total of $900,000.00 aggregate coverage over three years. We will assume the claim is settled for $300,000.00.
In representing insurers in bad faith litigation, from time to time one will find a coverage issue that was not raised in the underlying litigation. The question to be addressed in this article is whether the coverage issue may be raised for the first time as a defense to the bad faith litigation.
It is beyond dispute that the duty to defend, under liability insurance, is contractual, and is broader than the duty to indemnify. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., 650 F. Supp. 1404 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Even if some allegations of the complaint clearly are outside the scope of coverage, the insurance company is obligated to defend the entire suit. Id. See also, Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 948 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1997).
Before resolution of a first-party action for coverage or a third-party action to establish an insured's liability, a plaintiff will often initiate an action for bad faith. By doing so, the plaintiff attempts to gain an unfair advantage in discovery and at trial. This article outlines some of the reasons why the bad faith action should be abated in its entirety or, at the very least, stayed pending resolution of the underlying claim.
Mr. Lesser is a prominent public adjuster. His business office is located in Miami Beach, Florida. The views and opinions stated by Mr. Lesser in this interview are his own. Neither Mr. Craig, nor Butler , necessarily approve or agree with any of them.
A contractor's performance and payment bond creates rights and obligations among three parties the principal, the obligee and the surety. The principal may be the general contractor or a subcontractor. The obligee (under a performance bond) usually is the owner of the project or (under a payment bond) the subcontractors, materialmen and equipment suppliers. The surety most often is an insurance company or financial institution engaged, among other things, in the business of issuing performance and payment bonds.
In the trial of a bad faith case, plaintiff often tries to put into evidence the reserves the insurance company set for the claim. This article contends that evidence ought not be admissible. It will outline three reasons why not.
In this journal, in May 2000, the author discussed the then recent decision in Ginn Construction Co. v. Reliance Insurance Co., 51 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1999). He argued that, contrary to a suggestion in Ginn, an obligee under a general contractor's performance bond ought not be allowed to sue the surety for bad faith. This article will look at some decisions handed down since. The trend is toward no bad faith liability by a surety to either an obligee or a principal under a surety bond.
per-func-to-ry per-fúngk'tere adj. Done or acting routinely andwith little interest or care. The American Heritage Dictionary, NewSecond College Edition (1983).
per-func-to-ry per-fúngk'tere adj. Done or acting routinely andwith little interest or care. The American Heritage Dictionary, NewSecond College Edition (1983).
Consider a common scenario. An insurance company issues a liability policy. The policyholder does something, or fails to do something, as a result of which a partyis injured. The injured party becomes the plaintiff, and the policyholder the defendant,in a tort action. The insurance company reviews the tort action and sees right awaythat probably it is not covered. It retains a defense attorney to handle the tort action butsends a reservation of rights letter to the policyholder and files a separate declaratoryaction to determine coverage. So far so good. See, e.g., Insurance Co. of the West v.Haralambos Beverage Co., 195 Cal. App. 3d 1308, 1319 (1987).
This is one of a series of articles under the by line "Butler on Bad Faith" originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Insurance Bad Faith, Vol. 13, #16, p. 25 (December 21, 1999). © Copyright Butler 1999.
Courts, commentators, lawyers and others have applied the word "fiduciary" to insurance companies and insurance claims in a loose manner. The result has been bad law and confusion over if and when an insurer is a fiduciary. This article will argue that an insurer does not, and ought not, owe a fiduciary duty to an insured who has presented a first party claim.
First-party bad faith cases are typically based on conduct or events (e.g., settlement offers, investigations and evaluations) occurring during the time period after a claim is made but before any litigation is commenced. Once a breach of contract or declaratory action is filed, it is generally understood that the insured and insurer stand in an adversarial relationship which presumably entitles each party to zealously pursue its litigation tactics and strategy. Thus, courts generally will not permit an insurer's litigation conduct to be admitted as evidence of bad faith. Over the years, however, a significant number of courts have held an insurer owes a continuing duty of good faith to an insured throughout the litigation process and, therefore, an insurer's post-filing conduct may be admitted as evidence of bad faith. This article is a brief review of some of the leading cases addressing the continuing duty of good faith and its ramifications affecting insurance companies and defense counsel.
Insurers and insureds alike may find themselves in the dark when claims against multiple insureds exceed policy limits. Only a few jurisdictions explicitly have addressed how policy proceeds should be allocated in this situation. The jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have split into two general camps. Some hold that carriers must allocate proceeds proportionately among all insureds. Other jurisdictions hold that a carrier need only act in "good faith" and may settle on behalf of fewer than all insureds. The manner of proportional allocation and the characteristics of a "good faith" settlement under such circumstances are not well described in the case law.
When courts and state legislatures expand the duties owed by liability insurers to insureds there is a commensurate expansion of the grounds for extracontractual claims. One area of expansion has been in cases involving multiple third-party claimants - with liability clear and damages exceeding the policy limits. These cases make difficult issues for claims professionals.
The dynamic nature of bad faith law throughout the country practically mandates that insurers have ongoing legal advice to protect the interests of the company, the shareholders and all insureds. Such advice can prevent unwitting misconduct by the insurer. The "advice of counsel defense" in the context of insurance bad faith litigation issimply an insurer asserting, as proof that it did not act in bad faith, that it reasonably relied on the advice given by its legal advisors.
Since the early 1970s, when first-party bad faith actions came into being, a considerable body of law has developed on the standard of care for insurers to avoid liability. In creating and defining such standards, courts have struggled to balance the interests of insureds and insurers. This article is a general review of those decisions and standards.
Determining which statute of limitations governs a cause of action against an insurer for bad faith is complicated. It depends on whether the action is a first or third party action. It depends also on whether the controlling jurisdiction deems the action to be one sounding in tort or contract.
During the past year, numerous areas in the United States have experienced severe and, at times, unprecedented flooding. Whether the flooding occurred as a result of the active Atlantic hurricane season or the effect of "El Nino" on national weather patterns, the result for insurers is the same: an increase in the number of claims under flood insurance policies. With this comes a corresponding increase in the likelihood of extracontractual or bad faith claims.
This is a supplement to the December 1998 article published in Mealey's Litigation Reports: Bad Faith on "Federal Preemption of Extracontractual Claims Under Flood Insurance Policies" following the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversal of its decision on rehearing in Van Holt v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. This supplement was originally published in Mealey's Litigation Report: Bad Faith, Vol. 12, #18, p. 27 (Jan. 19, 1999). Copyright Butler 1999.
Bad faith litigation is complex and the stakes are high. In such cases, the discovery process has become critical as litigants struggle for advantage. The litigation often raises issues outside the facts of the particular case or claim. The conduct of the insurance company as a whole sometimes is placed on trial.
Liability insurance policies typically provide the insurer with complete control over the defense and settlement of third-party claims against the insured. This control imposes upon the insurer a duty to exercise good faith in settling claims. When the claimant makes a reasonably prudent offer to settle within the policy limits, courts generally agree the good-faith duty owed an insurer will require the insurer to settle the case.
The substantive law of bad faith is not uniform from state to state. Some states treat bad faith as a breach of contract; some as a tort. In some states, punitive damages are available. In others, they are not. Some allow claims for emotional distress, while others reject them.
Emotional distress damages may be the most significant aspect of any bad faith action in jurisdictions that allow them. This article outlines the several theories that justify the recovery of such damages. It discusses also the impact of a recent Florida Supreme Court decision which authorized recovery for emotional distress under that state's bad faith statute.


text:
ES Home | Forum | Photo Gallery | Chat | Calendar
Welcome to the Everlasting Sea Donovan forum!
Show: Today's Messages :: Unanswered Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
Current Time: Thu Sep 24 06:10:18 EDT 2020
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00497 seconds
ES Home | Home | Photo Gallery | Chat | Contact
All material on this and other Standing Stone Designs Web pages copyright © Standing Stone Designs 2020 unless otherwise noted.
Send comments and suggestions to email@example.com
Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.3.
Copyright ©2001-2004 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If you have any question, please, contact us via email
Copyright © Any content, trademarks or other materials that can be found on this website are the property of their respective owners. In no way does this website claim ownership or responsibility for such items, and you should seek legal consent for any use of such materials from its owner. 2015-2019


text:
I don't drink coffee.
I know, I know. Take a minute to digest that fact. It is a bit strange.
But I grew up in a household where there was always a pot of tea sitting around. And it was always Earl Grey. And it still is.
I'm sure it's partly that because I grew up with it, but it's still my favourite flavour of tea. But I also love the taste of perfume-y Bergamot — an essence from the skin of a sour fruit. While my family likes Twinings for it's faint Bergamot taste, I prefer Tazo, which has a bit more of the essence in its mix. Even better? Stash Tea's Double Bergamot.
And, full disclosure, I like the smell of Earl Grey tea so much, I even bought the Demeter fragrance of it.
While here at home I drink it with milk, at my parents' house I always have my Earl Grey tea with lemon and sugar. So when I came across a recipe for Earl Grey Cupcakes with Lemon Buttercream Icing, I immediately bookmarked it. And then, like about a thousand other recipes, I forgot about it for some indeterminate amount of time until I got bored and began going through the aforementioned bookmarks looking for something to surf to.
I had some extra lemons lying around after making Whiskey Sours on the weekend, was bored and basically wanted to hang out in my kitchen baking and listening to good music. So, I whipped up these babies, ate two and then realized I was going to have to take the rest to work the next day lest I eat them all.
These will be made again. I might add more tea next time. Also, it was a particularly juicy lemon I used in the buttercream and, in hindsight, I should have measured instead of squeezing through a sieve and right into the bowl. So, it wasn't all that surprising the icing was quite sloppy. Another cup or so of icing sugar did the trick, but next time I'll be more careful.
Then again, when I took some into work (I think my colleagues were more excited about me launching a food blog for the inevitable leftovers), almost every comment revolved around the icing. It seems I'm not the only one that loves a lemon dessert.
This recipe originally comes from Desert Candy. Here is her post on it.
She made 24 cupcakes, but I halved it to make 12. This is the version I used. Double if you wish. Also, the original recipe called for self-rising flour. I didn't have any, wasn't going to go out and get some (is it even available in Canada?), so some googling led me to several versions of how to make "self-rising" flour (which basically just has leaveners and salt added already). The recipe below uses all-purpose flour.
I also "lemoned up" the icing by using the zest of an entire lemon and more than the required amount of lemon juice. Feel free to tone it down, if you wish.
Earl Grey Cupcakes with Lemon Buttercream
- 1/2 cup unsalted butter, softened
- 1 cup sugar
- 2 egg
- 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
- 2 1/4 tsp. baking powder
- 3/4 tsp. salt
- 1/2 cup milk
- 1 tbsp. Earl Grey tea (I used 1 bag and didn't measure. I might add more next time.)
Preheat the oven to 350. Beat the butter and sugar together until it is light and fluffy. Add eggs one at a time, making sure they are thoroughly combined before adding the next one. Mix together the dry ingredients, including the tea. Beat in half of the dry mixture with the wet, then add the milk and the rest of the dry mixture, stirring until just combined. Line the cupcake pan with 12 cups and fill them about two-thirds full. Bake 20 to 25 minutes. Cool thoroughly before frosting.
Lemon Buttercream
- 1/2 cup unsalted butter, softened
- 2 cups icing sugar
- zest of one lemon
- 2 tbsp. lemon juice
Cream butter, then add the icing sugar and beat until fluffy. Add the lemon zest, juice and beat until smooth. Spread over cooled cupcakes.


text:
You may not have heard of it, but near field communication (NFC) is the technology that major companies are betting will become a central part of every mobile phone user's life.
Interested in digital wallets, gaming, or social media? You'll soon be acquainted with NFC — which could transform the way we shop, pay, save, and interact with other mobile device users and even with physical objects.
NFC is the technology that enables smartphones and other devices to establish a radio connection by touching them together or coming within close proximity.
NFC technology has not been heavily adopted in the U.S. yet, but according to some analysts' estimates there will be a greater push for mobile users to adopt the technology in the next few years. John Devlin, a NFC analyst at ABI Research, said that he expects the number of NFC handsets to increase from about 34 million this year to about 80 million next year. Mark Hung, an analyst for Gartner, sees the growth in handsets exceeding 100 million in 2012.
There are many ways NFC technology can be put to use, but according to those who work in the industry and industry analysts, there are a few specific ways they expect the technology to be most widely adopted.
Here's a look at how NFC is catching on and some of the companies expected to be major players in the space.
Mobile Wallets
Using NFC technology to pay for goods is one of the ways companies are experimenting. The technology works by allowing consumers to use their NFC-enabled phone to pay for goods by tapping their phone at the point of checkout.
Currently, Google is one of the major players in this field with its Android mobile application Google Wallet, which the company launched earlier this year.
Google partnered with Citibank, Mastercard, First Data, VeriFone , Samsung and Sprint among other companies, to make the wallet possible. Currently, though, consumers can only pay with Citi Mastercards and the app is only compatible with the Nexus S 4G by Google, available on Sprint. But Google intends to support more cards and phones eventually.


text:
I've mentioned my love for the delightful How They Got Game, which catalogues some of the neat holdings of the Stanford Stephen M. Cabrinety Collection (among other things); now, they're getting some love from the Stanford alumni magazine, which highlights the Library of Congress 'Preserving Virtual Worlds' project (including, naturally, the Stanford initiative). Curator Henry Lowood discusses what Stanford is doing, and how, while Beth Dulabahn of the Library of Congress talks about why the LOC is behind all of this:
One of Lowood's recent additions to the virtual worlds archive is a short compilation of screenshots and video on the evolution of games from text adventures, in which game action was typed out descriptively, to graphically sophisticated titles. Perhaps the most compelling footage shows an attack from Eve Online, a science fiction game. An array of small spaceships serving the "Goonswarm" alliance assaults a much larger ship from another group, while the audio track follows the frenzied barking of commands to keep up the pressure. When the large ship is destroyed, there is a cacophony of online voices shrieking in triumph. How do events like that fit into the larger culture? "The Library of Congress has always collected across a broad spectrum of content types and subjects, ranging from works of serious scholarship to icons of pop culture," says Beth Dulabahn, director of integration management for the Library of Congress. "Video games fit right in with that tradition. Besides showing us how society has entertained itself, they also provide a graphic picture of how technology itself has evolved over the decades."
Nice short piece on a subject near and dear to my heart. Even though the initial grant runs out next year, I hope this is just the beginning for some really fantastic collections of gaming history. Saving Worlds: Preserving the Digital and Virtual [STANFORD Magazine via How They Got Game]


text:
When will wind priest be in a shop?
When will wind priest be in a shop?
each server is different
Middle line hero who can invisible and stun enemies.
Ultimatelife or money)
Anastasia chooses weakest enemy and throw her sword to him if any enemy's was in front of this enemy will damaged and stun if target which Anastasia chooses dead she will be speedy.
Green: invisible
Anastasia when enters the battle and during the battle she can invisible and imuune to anything for a while
Bluestun spell)
Anastasia throw spell in an area and all the enemys on that area will stun and damaged and when spell disappear Anastasia appears on thar area.
Purpleturn off)
Anastasia make a shield to protect her to physical damage and if an enemy touch her shield that enemy can't do anything for a while .
Thanks please please please add this hero and I sent a picture for her art please add this hero to game pleaseeee
Why do I have to compete against 106 and 107 in Boss War when I am 105 it's not fair.
Can't get good reward in Boss War if 105 is against 106 and 107. WHY
Please see my threads it's name is new heroes make your hero and your own events to make them in game
the recent updates seems to mess up everything since i could not even play smoothly not like before. it always lags & once system is up again my hero is dead!!!
I think the skin is too much powerful, expecially the machinest. It almost change a game, a hero should not strong like that, winning a game is not just a hero. It should be teamwork. the machinest should be nerf, expecially when he flying, the damage of the bombs he made is way too high.
if the skin is too strong, many people would probally leave, because a hero skin change a game. since middle spender and non-vip person leave the game, the game does not have enough people to compete. I think VIP person may leave the game without competition. Winning a game is not just by a hero skin, that is 5 heroes working together. I have 2 VIP 13 account here, that is what I think about, try to attract more people by adverting on YOUTUBE chanel will be much better on TV or others, much more people watch YOUTUBE CHANEL when they using computer than the people watch tv.
I went to feedback on my Hero Arena
This is probably pointless but i really would like to know why i cant train with one of the newer heroes, Bloodweaver Hella. Please any feedback would be helpful


text:
The USDA updated the U.S. and World balance sheet estimates for major agricultural commodities in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report today. WASDE reports in the summer are a barometer of overall world demand, forecasted production, and inventory adjustments. In August, U.S. ending stocks for 2011/12 were revised lower for corn and soybeans, but increased for wheat.
The majority of news for the U.S. corn market can be seen as bullish, as the 2011/12 U.S. projections for harvested acres, yield, and ending stocks were all decreased from their July estimates.
After the surprising June 30th Acreage report, the USDA resurveyed producers in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota and confirmed previous estimates for planted acres but decreased estimates for harvested acres. The USDA reduced harvested acres to 84.4 million, a reduction of 0.5 million acres. Reductions were based on flooding damage caused in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins.
The national average yield was revised to 153.0 bushels per acre, down 5.7 bushels from July's projection as unusually high temperatures and below average precipitation during July across much of the Corn Belt sharply reduced yield prospects. Harvested acreage and yield reductions resulted in the USDA lowering production estimates for 2011/12 to 12,914 million bushels, a reduction of 556 million bushels, or 4%.
The USDA raised 2011/12 beginning stocks 60 million bushels to 940 million bushels, reflecting lower estimated demand for the remainder of the 2010/11 year. The USDA lowered domestic consumption during 2011/12 by 240 million bushels. Projections for ethanol usage and food consumption were lowered by 50 and 190 million bushels, respectively. Exports were also reduced by 150 million bushels or 7.9%.
Compared to the July, ending stocks for 2011/12 corn crop are now projected to be 156 million bushels lower at 714 million bushels, a 24% decline from last year's estimated ending stocks (940 million bushels). Consensus estimates for ending stocks were 735 million bushels.
The forecasted stocks-to-use ratio is projected at 5.4%, compared with last month's projection of 6.4% and a five-year average of 11.6%. Season-average farm price estimates were increased on each end of the range by $0.70 per bushel, to $6.20-$7.20 per bushel.
Estimates for world corn ending stocks were lowered to 114.53 million metric tons, or 1.13 million metric tons lower than the July estimate. This is a result of beginning stocks being increased by 2.05 million metric tons, production and imports being decreased by 12.92 million metric tons, and usage being lowered by 17.86 million metric tons. Supply constraints can be mainly charged to the United States. However, slight revisions were made in the following countries; South Africa, Mexico, Argentina, and Southeast Asia, Egypt, the EU-27, Brazil, Canada, and the Ukraine. Usage adjusts can also be attributed to changes in the U.S. market, while minor revisions were made in the EU-27, South Korea, Canada, and Egypt.
Following corn, the soybean market also received bullish news from the USDA. Planted and harvested acres, yield estimates, and ending stocks were reduced in today's WASDE report. Unlike corn, estimates for planted acres of soybeans were reduced from findings in the USDA's previously mentioned resurvey of selected states.
USDA alterations for 2010/11 included a reduction in soybean crush and exports and an increase in ending stocks. Crush was reduced by 5 million bushels to 1,645 million reflecting reduced soybean meal exports. Soybean exports were reduced 25 million bushels to 1,495 million reflecting lower-than-expected shipments in recent weeks. Ending stocks for 2010/11 are now projected at 230 million bushels, up 30 million from last month.
Soybean production for 2011/12 is estimated at 3.056 billion bushels, a reduction of 169 million bushels or 5.2% from July estimates. Planted and harvested acres were reduced by 0.2 and 0.5 million acres, to 75.0 and 73.8 million acres, respectively. This is mainly reflecting reductions in South Dakota. Yield estimates were also reduced to 41.4 bushels per acre, or 2.0 bushels less than July's estimate and 2.1 bushels less than the previous year.
The USDA lowered export estimates by 95 million bushels to 1,400 million bushels, due to increases in projected supplies in South America this fall. Soybean crush was also reduced 20 million bushels to 1,635 million bushels because of lower domestic soybean meal usage. U.S. soybean ending stocks for 2011/12 are now projected at 155 million bushels, 20 million bushels lower than the July report, and 19 million bushels below consensus estimates of 174 million.
The U.S. season-average soybean price for 2011/12 is projected at $12.50 to $14.50 per bushel, up $0.50 on both ends of the range.
Global soybean beginning stocks were increased, while production reductions outpaced usage decline compared to the July report, while estimates for ending stocks were decreased by 1.02 million metric tons. Offsetting lower U.S. and Chinese production estimates were increases in production estimates from Brazil and the EU-27. Along with lower than expected usage in the U.S., reductions were also applied to the EU-27. The USDA also reduced export estimates for the U.S. and China while increasing estimates for Argentina and Brazil.
The USDA decreased production estimates for 2011/12 by 29 million bushels to 2,077 million bushels. This is reflective of the USDA lowering estimates for planted and harvested acres by 1.2 and 1.3 million acres, to 55.2 and 45.9 million acres, respectively. Unlike corn and soybeans, yield estimates were increased for wheat to 45.2 bushels per acre from 44.6 bushels in their July report.
There was no change to 2011/12 beginning stocks, but revisions were made in 2011/12 feed usage and exports. Feed usage was increased by 20 million bushels to 240 million bushels, while exports were reduced by 50 million bushels to 1,100 million bushels. Compared to the July report, projected ending stocks are estimated to be 1 million bushels higher at 671 million bushels, and above consensus estimates of 668 million bushels.
The 2011/12 season-average farm price for all wheat is projected at $7.00 to $8.20 per bushel, up from last month's range of $6.60 to $8.00 per bushel supported by higher projected prices for corn.
Estimated global wheat supply for the 2011/12 year was increased by 14.47 million metric tons to 993.21 million metric tons. Increases in supply are attributed to increased production in; the EU-27, China, India, the FSU-12, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine. Compared to July, global wheat usage was raised by 10.99 million metric tons to 934.19 million metric tons. These adjustments resulted in increasing ending stocks by 6.68 million metric tons to 188.87 million metric tons.
Even though the USDA lowered its 2011/12 ending stock levels for corn and soybeans, we are closely monitoring demand levels for both commodities. Recent escalations in commodity prices have caused some demand softening and end-users will look towards alternatives if margins cannot be sustained. If end-users begin to transition to alternatives or go out of business due to higher commodity costs, the entire demand picture may shift drastically and force stocks to increase resulting in lower prices.
We also need to be cognizant of the ever changing political picture in the United States and Europe. Fiscal uncertainty and a strengthening dollar may have a negative impact on foreign commodity buyers causing prices to also decline. Furthermore, with 35-40% of the domestic corn crop used for ethanol, attention has to be paid to the blenders' credit and ethanol mandates. If this legislation is reversed and oil prices decline, prices for ethanol and gas may converge, reducing the demand for corn as an energy source.
However, given our country's current political/economic makeup and end-users profit margins, we are still bullish grain prices and farmland values. Pay attention to weather patterns across the major soybean production areas for the next 3-4 weeks, as any period of long, hot, dry weather may cause supply constraints.


text:
Privacy policy
Services on the Dating Website (www.1st-attractive.com) (the "Website") are provided by "Ikkonen Nadejda" I.E. ("Us" or We") We have created this privacy policy in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to privacy. This Privacy Policy is designed to answer your questions regarding our privacy policies and principles.
Age of Users
We recognize the need to provide additional protections for children under the age of eighteen who visit our Website. To further protect children, We do not conduct business with children under the age of eighteen. We do not knowingly collect any personal information from children under the age of 18 on Our Website. If you do not agree to (or cannot comply with) any of Our Terms of Use, do not use the Website.
Acceptance of Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
This privacy policy incorporates by reference the Terms of Use of the Website and is incorporated into and is subject to the Terms of Use. Your use of the Website and any personal information you provide through the Website are subject at all times to this Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use. By using the site, you are accepting the privacy policy and the Terms of Use.
Information Collection and Use
When you browse the Website We do not require any personal information from you except that we use your IP address to help diagnose problems with our server, to administer the Website and collect regional demographic information, or to perform other technical maintenance. Our Website also utilizes cookies to keep track of your orders and to personalize your experience on the Website. We use cookies to deliver content specific to your interests and to track your order history.
When you submit your profile on our site, participate in a forum, or process an order, you consent to the collection, transfer and storage of the following personally identifiable information to our servers located in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany:
- email address, physical contact information, and (depending on the services used) sometimes financial information, such as credit card or bank account numbers;
- your personal information that you choose to disclose on your profile;
- transactional information based on your activities on the Website (such as a list of members you contact);
- billing and other information you provide to receive information and messages from Us;
- community discussions, chats, correspondence through the Website, and correspondence sent to Us;
- computer sign-on data, statistics on page views, traffic to and from the Website, and advertisement data; and
- other information, including IP address and standard web log information.
International Users
If you have provided information to the Website from a country other than the United States, your information may be transferred to, and processed by Us in the United States or other countries other than your own. If you provided information from a country that grants specific additional privacy rights, contact Us at the address below to exercise your rights.
Order Information
We DO NOT sell or rent any personally identifiable information about you to any third party without your permission. We request information from the user on our order form. Here a user should provide contact information (like name and e-mail) and financial information (like credit card number, expiration date etc.). This information is collected by a payment processing company, which provides highly secure payment processing for Us. Credit card information is encrypted using the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) protocol and other standard industry practices. We do NOT keep your credit card information on our servers; once it is securely transmitted to the bank – it is deleted securely.
The Website has security measures in place to prevent the loss, misuse and alteration of the information under our control. We have a secure ordering process.
When our order form asks users to enter sensitive information (such as credit card number), that information is encrypted and is protected with the best encryption software available in the industry – SSL. While on a secure page, such as our order and order confirmation forms, the lock icon on the bottom of Web browsers such as Microsoft Internet Explorer becomes locked, as opposed to un-locked, or open, when you are just 'surfing' (in non-secure mode).
The security and confidentiality of your personally identifiable information is extremely important to Us. Technical, administrative, and physical security measures are used to protect customer information from unauthorized access and improper use. From time to time, We review security procedures to consider appropriate new technology and methods. Please be aware that, despite best efforts, no security measures are perfect or completely impenetrable.
If you wish to subscribe to Our newsletter, We ask for contact information such as email address. We will send you Our newsletters on a regular basis to the email address you provide. You can unsubscribe at any time. E-mail address will be kept strictly confidential and not given or sold to anyone except as required by law.
Third Parties
We do not sell, rent, share, or otherwise give your personally identifiable information to third parties for marketing purposes. Often, companies receive extra income by providing customer contact information to marketing companies. We do not provide customer contact information to marketing companies. For example, We will not give your address to junk mail ("direct marketing") companies or email marketers (including "spammers"). We may provide certain non-identifiable information to third parties for advertisement and marketing purposes regarding the Website. Such information will be groups of data, such as geographical location, time of day, or other demographic information of users but not any information that identifies you individually.
We do not provide your personally identifiable information to anyone, without your permission, unless compelled by law, in order to collect unpaid debts, to protect your security and safety, enforce the Terms of Use of the Website, or to protect the security and safety of the Website, third party websites, and Our employees.
Except as otherwise expressly included in this Privacy Policy, this document addresses only the use and disclosure of information We collect from you. If you disclose your information to others, whether they are our members or forum participants or other sites throughout the Internet, different rules may apply to their use or disclosure of the information you disclose to them.
Affiliated Websites
We may share information about you with our parent, subsidiary, and other affiliated companies. Your profile on our website may also be posted on other websites affiliated with our company to enhance your networking efforts. The affiliated websites will respect your privacy and not maintain privacy policies or practices that are less protective than our privacy policy.
Prior Use
This Privacy Policy applies to any use and sharing of personally identifiable information collected on or after the date that this Privacy Policy is posted. However, for users that used the Website and/or services before the date that this Privacy Policy was posted, We will apply this Privacy Policy to personally identifiable information associated with the users only if the users accepts the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy. Once the user has accepted the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy, this Privacy Policy will also apply to personally identifiable information collected from the users before the date that this Privacy Policy is posted.
The Website enables you to exchange messages and share personal information in order to communicate with other members. We cannot guarantee the privacy or security of your information which you voluntarily disclose to other members. To help protect your privacy, we do not allow other users to access your personal contact information. To prevent unsolicited messages, illegal schemes such as soliciting money, and message content violating our policies, we reserve the right to monitor the correspondence that is going through our servers, and prevent certain messages from reaching their recipients as well as edit message content. We also reserve the right to monitor and review your personal profile and suspend or remove profiles which violate our policies. Profiles submitted in a language other than English may be translated into English by us. If you choose to correspond with us through email, we may retain the content of your email messages together with your email address and our responses.
We may amend this Privacy Policy at any time. If any material changes are made in the way that personally identifiable information is collected, used and/or shared, you will be notified by sending you an email at the last email address that you provided to Us, and/or by prominently posting notice of the changes on the Website. Any material changes to this Privacy Policy will be effective upon the earlier of thirty (30) calendar days following the dispatch of an email notice to you or thirty (30) calendar days following the posting of notice of the changes on the web sites covered by this Privacy Policy. Please note that at all times you are responsible for updating your personal information to provide Us with your current email address. If your last email address provided is not valid, or for any other reason is not capable of delivering to you the above described notice, dispatch of the email containing such notice will nevertheless constitute effective notice of the changes described in the notice. Changes to this Privacy Policy may affect the use, by Us, of personally identifiable information provided by you before being notified of the changes. If you do not wish to allow changes in the use of your information, you must notify Us before the effective date of the changes that you wish to deactivate your account with Us.
If you have any questions about this privacy policy and the practices of its usage, please contact:
Russian dating women. World Dating
London W1A 6US, United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0) 2030261229
Toll free phone:1-866-Y-SINGLE(1-866-974-6453)
Outside UK call: +1 (312) 252-0005
Fax: +1 (360) 525-0025
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Please be assured that any personal information that you provide in communications to the above mailing address or telephone numbers will not be used to send you promotional materials, unless you so request.
no comments | last comment


text:
I have some positions open for Haunting USA if anyone wants to join up and help people. I'm located in Zebulon, GA and if u want to reach me here or email at email@example.com. So if your interested or have friends that wants to join up let them know i'm always looking for new people to meet and join up the Haunting USA family. Don't be afraid and shy you can ask questions about us or however makes you feel good. We work as a real family and treat people the same as our family.
Looking for new members for Haunting USA
Started by ghost3012 , Oct 18 2012 05:37 PMhaunting usaghost group
No replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


text:
|View Poll Results: Vote for your favorite Steins;Gate character(s)
|Lab Member 001 Hououin Kyouma / Okabe "Okarin" Rintarou
|Lab Member 002 Mayushii / Shiina Mayuri
|Lab Member 003 Super Hacker / Hashida "Daru" Itaru
|Lab Member 004 Christina / Makise Kurisu
|Lab Member 005 Shining Finger / Kiryuu Moeka
|Lab Member 006 Lukako / Urushibara Luka
|Lab Member 007 Feyris Nyannyan / Rumio Akiha
|Lab Member 008 Part Time Warrior / Amane Suzuha
|Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 232. You may not vote on this poll
|Thread Tools
|2011-09-20, 11:35
|Link #1
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv175
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 34
Steins;Gate - Favourite Character(s) Poll
Welcome to the Steins;Gate - Favourite Character(s) Poll, the place when you can adorn you favourite characters and support them expressing all of your love!
You can vote for multiple characters all at once in this poll. Your vote is final once you click on the "vote now" tab. You won't be able to comeback and vote a second time for another character. Choose wisely!
If you are selecting "Other" among your choices, please don't forget to name the character(s) you are referring to.
The poll is public which means the votes will be visible to everyone!
Thread Rules
|2011-09-20, 12:57
|Link #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 32
Voted for Okabe, Kurisu and Suzuha
Okabe was one of the most interesting main characters I've seen. A really arrogant, proud and stubborn man, but he's really nice, selfless and helpful as well.
During the first few episodes I found him a but strange, especially his often 'fake paranoid' personality, but he really grew on me as the episodes went by. He really cares for his friends and would do anything to help them. Especially his relationships with Kurisu and Mayuri felt heartwarming.
It was interesting to see how he was able to switch between his serious and mad scientist personalities as well.
Kurisu really feels like the 'main girl' for the anime (and visual novel) to me. Fairly proud, arrogant and stubborn like Okabe, but just as helpful and selfless as seen when she constantly helps Okabe and especially when she is willing to sacrifice her own life to save Mayuri's. She has the tendency to act like a tsundere.
She puts a barrier around herself, which can only be broken by the people close to her. I think she was really lonely before meeting Okabe and co, probably because of the bad relationship with her father. She was really withdrawn at first because of this, but the real Kurisu came out eventually.
I think Okabe and Kurisu helped each other grow during the show and complete each other when they are together. I guess they seem more 'alive' when the other is around.
A tough girl, who had gone through hell, but managed to stay cheerful while trying to carry out her mission. Somehow she appealed to me right away and I hoped she'd play a big part in the story. Happy that she was indeed one of the 'keys' to victory.
I think she grew a lot during her time with Okabe and co as well in the social department. She wasn't used to a peaceful time and you could notice that she acted like a kid at times, because she didn't have a chance to grow up like normal kids. Although at the same time she was more serious and mature than the rest.
|2011-09-20, 14:43
|Link #5
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv175
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 34
Adding some flavor isn't bad at times, good that it pleases some of you
|2011-09-20, 21:24
|Link #6
Monarch of Rughzenhaide
Although Kurisu is a good tsundere and Daru is pretty funny with his otaku antics, Okabe takes the cake as the best character in S;G by a big margin for me. Both his "mad scientist" persona and "serious business" personas give depth to his character and are a blast to watch. The male character of 2011 for me so far.
|2011-09-20, 23:07
|Link #7
Test Drive
Threw in my vote for Okabe, Kurisu, Suzuha, and Moeka. I can't even really justify why I like Moeka as much as I do. She just appealed to me right from the start and held my attention until the very end. I was happy to see her get her happy ending along with everyone else.
|2011-09-20, 23:19
|Link #8
I love them all, but Okabe's simply amazing with his style.
I'll also throw in a vote for Suzuha for generally kicking ass and being voiced by my favorite VA, and Kurisu because she plays a great role in Okabe being funny.
|2011-09-21, 01:14
|Link #10
Let's Puppystyle!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Best Place In The WORLD
Age: 28
I love how we're tied (32 to 32) for Okabe and Kurisu. I voted for both of them as I really did love not only their relationship with one another but them as individuals as well. Happy to see that many others feel the same way!
|2011-09-21, 08:20
|Link #11
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 58
If this poll had been taken just after the first half, I would have voted solely for Okarin and Mayuri. But Christina came into my favorites list during the second half. So for the series as a whole, all three get my vote. Not that it matters much, but of the three, Okarin is tops for me by a wide margin.
|2011-09-21, 19:14
|Link #12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
I just finished the series and my votes go to Okarin, Mayuri and Feyris... unexpected list, ain't it?
Okarin - at first I wan't really interested in him, he was way too weird. But eventually I started to warm up to him... his character started to change too what I found very plausible. With less crazyness he started to remind me of myself, I also love to say random things from time to time.
Mayuri - usually I hate clueless characters, they make me facepalm all the time. But Mayri happened to be different... Despite being totally clueless in all those scientifi things and being an airhead for most of the time... she actually happened to be very wise. The fact that she had discovered who is Suzuha's father says a lot. And she could see that Okarin is suffering and always tried her best. She never really forced herself on anyone. She also made the plot moving and is basicly the main reason why all lab members had met and stuck together. And I felt bad for all the times she had to die... especially when she was talking about them on the grave yard.
Feyris is on my list mostly because of her self centred episode... I found it very admiring of her to give up on her own happiness (and it was a seriouse case!) in order to save Mayuri.
Everyone else were fine too but they didn't stand out for me much. Am bit confused as to why Makise is so popular... she is not a bad character and she did HELP A LOT in this whole case but her over all personality didn't stand out much to me... besides her constant denying of everything she said was getting tiresome after some time. I would expect her to get used by now...
|2011-09-21, 21:24
|Link #13
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Moe Land
Age: 39
Seems I haven't voted yet...
Ok voted the ff:
Lab Member 001 Hououin Kyouma / Okabe "Okarin" Rintarou - obvious reasons being the main character he's character development through out the series is great he handled alot of emotional things after the time travel and he's a mad scientist it's so cool sunuvabitch.
Lab Member 002 Mayushii / Shiina Mayuri - just MOE! Too cute to resist. TuTuRuuu~~~! And she's got a good backstory as well also she has a deep bond with the main character that goes probably beyond the onii-chan type, friends or even lovers, she's like a soulmate to Okabe.
Lab Member 004 Christina / Makise Kurisu - Tsundere powwa, American Virgin lol Her development in the series is great as Okabe, through out the time travel escapade. Till those few romantic moments, ahh touching.
Lab Member 006 Rukako / Urushibara Ruka - one of the many traps that I wish remained as a girl. Too beautiful imho.
Lab Member 007 Feyris Nyannyan / Rumio Akiha - 100% MOE! Her backstory is great as well as her character, though I wish she needs or had more air time, but alas she's a side character.
Lab Member 008 Part Time Warrior / Amane Suzuha - I pretty much like the sporty girls. Who would have thought she was a really a warrior from the future.
|2011-09-22, 14:33
|Link #15
Yuri µ'serator
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: FL, USA
Age: 32
Of the more main characters definitely Okabe, Kurisu, and Mayushii all three were excellent and deep characters. Other characters Rukako and Feyris, I really liked both of them, they had great interactions with Okabe, and their self-sacrifices for Mayuri's sake really showed great character on their parts .
All the other characters were still good, but didn't feel they earned a being a favorite from me.
|2011-09-22, 14:54
|Link #16
Join Date: Jun 2011
I had to vote for Okabe but it wasn't really that fair of a question because he, Kurisu and Mayushii were the ones that got more screentime than the other characters even though every character was developed in a great detail. But overall, I just got into liking Okabe's character So silly but so great
|Thread Tools


text:
Brandon Maxwell's mom joins him for his NY Fashion Week bow
NEW YORK (AP) — Tears flowed at the New York Fashion Week show of Brandon Maxwell when his mom accompanied him on the runway for his bow.
Pam Woolley has had a rough go of it lately. She was diagnosed with breast cancer after her son's show last season. This time around, he dedicated the show to her and strong women everywhere.
"It really is sort of the physical manifestation of, I think, the strength that I saw her display over the past few months," Maxwell told The Associated Press, alluding to her health struggles.
The clothes also embodied the polished elegance he is known for, and a simplicity he needed in his life.
Maxwell is coming out of an especially busy time. He's a judge on the revived "Project Runway" in addition to a busy designer who has dressed Lady Gaga and Meghan Markle. His desire now is to "strip everything back."
His collection ranged from pantsuits with plunging necklines and caped sleeves to full-bodied skirts that sweep to the ground and cinch at the waist. He designed in black and white and monochrome for some looks.
A black sports bra with a keyhole was worn under a sleek black blazer trimmed with satin. There were cinched white coats worn over white skirts barely visible from underneath. Maxwell also showed black-and-white leopard print dresses with a subtle "B'' hidden in the pattern.
Bella Hadid walked in a satin white dress that zipped in the front to reveal a white turtleneck. Of the 35 looks, only six were in color.
Though Maxwell is relatively new to orchestrating fashion shows, having launched his ready-to-wear line in 2015, he says he's still come a long way.
"My very first show, I was hidden behind the door crying and I think I, at this time, I'd already had like six glasses of wine," said Maxwell. "Today I'm just here sipping a water and I was just eating a chicken wing, so I'm feeling good."
Karlie Kloss (a co-judge on "Project Runway"), Nicki Hilton Rothschild and Ashley Graham sat front row, and they're not his only famous fans.
Maxwell told the AP it's been an "unbelievable joy" to see other strong women, such as Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle and First Lady Michelle Obama, wear his clothing, along with Lady Gaga.
"When I see those women. ... they're wearing the clothes to do good things for others," he said. "Any time I'm able to dress a woman like that and be part of her day, it's a blessed day for me."
As a long-time friend and past fashion director for Lady Gaga, Maxwell said he's enjoyed watching her during this awards season.
Lady Gaga won a Grammy Award on Sunday for best song written for visual media for "Shallow" from the movie "A Star is Born." She shares the award with Mark Ronson, Anthony Rossomando and Andrew Wyatt.
She is also nominated for the Oscars' best actress for her role in "A Star Is Born" and best original song for "Shallow."
"You wouldn't be standing here interviewing me tonight if it weren't for that friendship and someone who has so selflessly given me so much and rooted for me so much in my life and wanted the best for me," said the designer. "It's just a great joy. And she deserves it all."


text:
A utility worker responding to reports of a gas leak in western Massachusetts punctured a pipe that led to a massive explosion that injured 18 people and damaged more than 40 buildings, the state fire marshal announced Sunday.
"It was like 'boom', and then everything stopped. Everything was shaking in front of me," said Alexis Elkins, who witnessed the explosion from blocks away.
Firefighters responded to the scene at 4:20 p.m. and were investigating a gas leak when the blast happened shortly after 5 p.m.
U.S. & World
The day's top national and international news.
The Scores Gentlemen's Club on Worthington St is gone. The blast was so powerful, it leveled one building and damaged about two dozen others.
Police Sgt. John Delaney said it looked as though there was a missile strike where the explosion leveled the multistory building at its epicenter.
It's unclear how many residents in the area were displaced, but aid is being offered those affected.
Mayor Domenic Sarno said a shelter was opened at Central High School for those who could not return to their homes Friday night.
Eighteen people, including nine firefighters, two police officers, utility workers and civilians were injured. None of them are in critical condition.
That's good news, considering firefighters and gas workers were at or near the site minutes before the explosion, checking out a gas odor complaint.
"Through God's mercy, we are not aware of any fatalities," said Mayor Sarno.
Columbia Gas Company is investigating the location of the gas leak. For now, a perimeter has been set up and the area has been closed off, as the gas company continues to monitor gas levels.
Until more is known, Mayor Sarno warned people to stay away from the area.
"The entertainment district is closed down. We have an anti-looting unit," said Sarno.
For residents like Elkins, who's still shaken up by what she saw this afternoon, it may be a while before things seemingly return to normal.
"What's going to happen next? Will there be another explosion?"
Leaders will be inspecting some buildings in the area to make sure the structures are intact. It's unknown how long this area will be shut off to the public.