Jump to content
Deac

Mike Isabella and Partners Sued for "Extraordinary'" Sexual Harrassment

Recommended Posts

On 5/8/2018 at 10:26 PM, Pool Boy said:

When you settle, it is pretty much admitting guilt. Pretty much.

I’m late to this, but what a silly, totally incorrect statement for any number of reasons. Pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RWBooneJr said:

This is almost always incorrect.  Your insurer generally has the right to settle whether you want to or not.  Liability obviously factors into the insurer's valuation of a case, but it is only one consideration.  Often, litigation costs factor in more.  Even at insurance defense rates, this type of litigation will cost the insurer anywhere between $200k to over seven figures to get to a defense verdict.  The insurer wants to discourage nuisance suits and plaintiffs always start out with an overly optimistic idea of what a case is worth, so most cases will get pretty far along before settlement is even a possibility.  But, after a point, if the insurer knows that the remainder of the litigation will cost more than the plaintiff wants to settle the case, it will settle.  And that settlement is nothing more than a business transaction.

So what the insurer is admitting to in forcing their insured party is that there is enough meat on the bone to make it go long and cost a lot. So there's something there. Maybe not absolute guilt but enough uncertainty that the insurance company doesn't want the exposure. The business transaction is on the part of the insurance company, not the insured that is being sued, at least in part.

Given the number of people that have come forward and the details the Washington Post was able to dig up, you have to admit there is a mess here and at the core is Isabella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Valid and legitimate points made on all sides, but to avoid drifting off-topic, I think it's best if we give this a rest, just for a little while.

(It's a delicate balance between free speech, censorship, and preventing everyone from killing each other!)]  😦

Cheer,
Sue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a rabble rouser, but it's *amazing* how much this storm seems to have been weathered - I mean, after the sharks were circling, they all just ... dispersed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 4:16 PM, DonRocks said:

I'm not trying to be a rabble rouser, but it's *amazing* how much this storm seems to have been weathered - I mean, after the sharks were circling, they all just ... dispersed.

Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pool Boy said:

Yawn.

Actually, I'll put my 2cents in and say that, although you are/were seem to be correct in this case, your generality doesn't really stand up for another reason (other than RWBooneJr's, which I also agree with).  That is, there are quite a # of folks who take pleas and/or settle even though they know they are not guilty simply because they don't believe that they have the resources to win.   Sometimes its "better" to not take a chance in our system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Chef Mike Isabella: 'I Probably Should Have Apologized Earlier'" by Neal Augenstein on wtop.com

Quote

“There’s nobody who’s untouchable. Even myself. Everyone has to be held accountable for their actions,” he said.

As he tries to win back public trust and popularity, after months of denying problems in his restaurants, Isabella said “I’ve definitely had time to think about everything — I’ve definitely grown a lot.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×