Politicspoliticsshadilaykekkekistanredpilldanklordfroggod

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 05:46 PM

EXCLUSIVE: Oberlin College insurer likely to reject coverage for Gibson Bakery $11 million verdict

Oh, my. This could put Oberlin under.

"A jury has awarded Gibson’s Bakery and its owners $11 million in compensatory damages against Oberlin College, for libel, intentional interference with business, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The punitive damage hearing next week could add another $22 million, bringing the total to $33 million.

There will be post-trial motions to set aside the jury verdict and/or reduce the dollar amounts, and then appeals. So while the Gibson family won a major victory, it is not over.










An obvious question, and one a lot of people have been asking, is whether the college has liability insurance to cover the verdict.

Based on court filings obtained by Legal Insurrection Foundation, it appears that the insurer, Lexington Insurance Company, is likely to disclaim coverage for the intentional torts which gave rise to the verdict.

The likelihood of refusal to cover the verdict was revealed in a May 1, 2019, Motion to Intervene (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) filed by Lexington Insurance Company.

The purpose of the motion, according to Lexington, was “for the limited purpose of submitting interrogatories to the jury in order to determine facts at issue in this action that would impact coverage under its policy.”

Here is an excerpt from Lexington’s motion setting forth the nature of the insurance coverage (emphasis added):


Lexington issued a Commercial Umbrella Liability policy that potentially provides coverage to defendants Oberlin College aka Oberlin College and Conservatory (“Oberlin”) and Meredith Raimondo for certain damages in this action. Lexington seeks intervention in this action for the limited purpose of submitting interrogatories to the jury in order to determine facts at issue in this action that would impact coverage under its policy.

The Lexington policy does not provide coverage for “bodily injury” or “property damage” intentionally caused by defendants. While the Lexington policy potentially provides coverage in relation to “personal and advertising injury,” defined to include defamation and/or disparagement in certain circumstances, the Lexington policy excludes any such coverage if “personal and advertising injury” is caused “with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another … ,” or if the insured published material it knew to be false. Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages insurable by law, but only where the corresponding award of compensatory damages is also covered by the Lexington policy. In this action, plaintiffs Gibson Bros., Inc., Allyn Gibson, and David Gibson allege that defendants Oberlin and Ms. Raimondo published material that falsely characterized the bakery owned by plaintiffs (“Gibson’s”) as being a racist establishment. While such allegations potentially implicate “personal and advertising injury,” plaintiffs also alleged that the statements were published with malice, were intended to injure plaintiffs’ business reputation, and were part of a purported campaign to harm plaintiffs. If it is established that the defendants knew the alleged statements were false, or if the defendants knew their alleged acts would violate plaintiffs’ rights, the Lexington policy would exclude coverage for any resultant damage. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories to determine the extent of the defendants’ knowledge in relation to the alleged publications.

Further, the Lexington policy provides coverage for punitive damages only when the punitive damages are assessed relative to covered compensatory damages. Here, plaintiffs seek punitive damages for the claims of libel, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. Only the libel claim is potentially embraced by the Lexington policy. Thus, Lexington seeks to intervene in order to submit jury interrogatories and instructions to determine what punitive damages, if any, correspond to each cause of action."

Balance of article at the link: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/06/exclusive-oberlin-college-insurer-likely-to-reject-coverage-for-gibson-bakery-11-million-verdict/

7 replies, 397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply EXCLUSIVE: Oberlin College insurer likely to reject coverage for Gibson Bakery $11 million verdict (Original post)
Muddling Through Jun 2019 OP
Banshee 3 Actual Jun 2019 #1
imwithfred Jun 2019 #2
Gunslinger201 Jun 2019 #3
RCW2014 Jun 2019 #4
Oldgeezer Jun 2019 #5
RCW2014 Jun 2019 #6
Cold Warrior Jun 2019 #7

Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 05:48 PM

1. Serves Oberlin right, they villified an innocent business

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 05:49 PM

2. In any case, apparently the bitch responsible for all this

won't have to pay anything to anybody.

One thinks she needs to be unemployed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 05:50 PM

3. Get Woke, Go Broke



They Shoplifted (Plead Guilty) so Nobody was Profiled....


The Oberlin student Senate passed a resolution charging Gibson’s with “a long history of racial profiling,” and the Oberlin dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, endorsed and distributed the flyer. The college also discontinued purchasing baked goods from Gibsons, because you just can’t take the chance that you’ll cause literal pain or mental anguish to Oberlin students by procuring a bag of racist bear claws for the faculty lounge.

At Minimum Ms Raimondo should be shown the way to the Unemployment Office, Tuition-paying parents might want to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 06:15 PM

4. Then there is this...

There will be post-trial motions to set aside the jury verdict and/or reduce the dollar amounts, and then appeals.

So while the Gibson family won a major victory, it is not over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 06:32 PM

5. You'd like that wouldn't you....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oldgeezer (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 06:46 PM

6. I really don't give a fuck one way or the other... Just enjoying the "show"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 8, 2019, 07:59 PM

7. And it is a show

I noticed that when a Russian journalist was arrested (not dismembered), our Saudi loving friends became concerned about foreign journalists, of a sudden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsshadilaykekkekistanredpilldanklordfroggod