Nouvelles
Hulk lutte contre ses avocats
L'équipe Droit-inc
2009-09-16 11:38:00
Vous vous souvenez de Hulk Hogan? Et bien cet ex-super vedette de la lutte professionnelle a décidé de s’en prendre à deux de ses anciens avocats.
Il poursuit Morris "Sandy" Weinberg Jr. et Lee Fugate, du cabinet Zuckerman Spaeder, qui lui ont facturé plus d’un million de dollars pour le défendre dans une cause civile, rapporte Lords of Pain.
Il prétend que ses assureurs l’auraient représenté gratuitement, mais qu’il n’aurait jamais reçu les lettres l’en informant.
Est-ce que ses ex-avocats étaient au courant? Chose certaine, ils devraient peut-être considérer l’embauche de gardes du corps…
Il prétend que ses assureurs l’auraient représenté gratuitement, mais qu’il n’aurait jamais reçu les lettres l’en informant.
Est-ce que ses ex-avocats étaient au courant? Chose certaine, ils devraient peut-être considérer l’embauche de gardes du corps…
9852
13 commentaires
Me
il y a 14 ansIntéressant...
:)
Je me demande si une telle cause marcherait au Québec. Probablement pas. Si le client ignore que l'assureur doit prendre fait et cause pour lui, gratuitement, sommes-nous dans l'obligation de l'informer même si nous sommes en possession d'une copie de la police? :) Après tout, donner un mandat à des avocats même en présence d'une assurance qui prend fait et cause est tout à fait valable.
Insurer
il y a 14 ansIt is the responsibility of the policy holder (in this case Mr. Hogan) to inform his insurer or insurance broker of a claim. An insurance company cannot provide coverage and defence when they are not aware of a claim. This burden rests with the policy holder as per the terms of his insurance policy and not with lawyers he has instructed to defend him.
Me
il y a 14 ans> It is the responsibility of the policy holder (in this case Mr. Hogan) to inform his insurer or insurance broker of a claim. An insurance company cannot provide coverage and defence when they are not aware of a claim. This burden rests with the policy holder as per the terms of his insurance policy and not with lawyers he has instructed to defend him.
Yeah, that's well known. You're paraphrasing C.c.Q. My question was more of a deontological one:
• client hires us (as def.)
• client has an insurance package
• we know about the package
• are we liable if we don't inform the client that he may use that package instead of hiring us?
Anonyme
il y a 14 ans> Yeah, that's well known. You're paraphrasing C.c.Q. My question was more of a deontological one:
>
> • client hires us (as def.)
> • client has an insurance package
> • we know about the package
> • are we liable if we don't inform the client that he may use that package instead of hiring us?
Of course you are liable. You must be a rookie lawyer even to ask such a question. Perhaps a return to Bar School would be a good idea for you...
Me
il y a 14 ans>>>> Of course you are liable. You must be a rookie lawyer even to ask such a question. Perhaps a return to Bar School would be a good idea for you...
Obviously, you're unable to explain why. In absence of explanations, I maintain we're not liable. The client has a insurance contract. If explaining it in laymans terms isn't part of our mandate, I don't see why we should bring it up.
Me
il y a 14 ansMe a rookie ???
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollll
that guy is a heavyweight litigator
Mary
il y a 14 ans> Of course you are liable.
wow.
très convaincant
:P
Anonyme
il y a 14 ansWhile I must admit that his comments are typically interesting, Me is out to lunch on this one because it is fundamentally the responsibility of a lawyer to properly defend the interests of his client. When a lawyer is aware that a claim is covered by an insurance policy, the lawyer should inform his client without delay. Doing otherwise is acting in bad faith, working against the interests of your own client, and opening yourself up to legal action. For what reason: "because I don't want to lose the file to insurance appointed lawyers and miss my 1800 billing target". Fantastic.
anonyme
il y a 14 ansYou're probably the designer-shoes asshole. This is law, not mathematics. Me cannot be wrong or right. He's expressed his analysis of the problem and, more importantly, he detailed it more than your sad little: «Of course you are liable.». If you find a strong case law current pointing towards that, I'd agree. Until then, Me is neither wrong nor right. He's debating and that's cool.
Mary
il y a 14 ansC'est bizarre que quelq'un puisse affirmer avec une telle certitude que Me a tort... peut etre que cette personne ne pratique pas le droit. Le sujet me semble intéressant et pas tout à fait clair.
Anonyme
il y a 14 ansWake up. The anonymous commentator did not even use the words "wrong" or "right" but also expressed an opinion. Now go back to blindly billing.
Aran
il y a 14 anslooool
An answer with absolute certainty. Lol, that shoe guy is a real idiot.
Mary
il y a 14 ans>>>> Wake up.
There are 10 messages before yours. Who the f* are you talking to?