Sometimes different legal areas cut, making it a costly, complicated and very involved trial. This was the case in a recent decision by the Courts of Appeal of Massachusetts, which dealt with many civil and civil matters and even bankruptcy proceedings.
Cruickshank v. Mapfre U.S.A. the court considered the theory of "virtual representation" which, within the framework of bankruptcy law, deals with the administrator of the bankruptcy estate, which represents the property of the debtor subject to bankruptcy. The case concerned the claim of the applicant's personal injury after the defendant had come across and was injured. The defendant was found to be responsible for 65% of the accident and the applicant's judgment of $ 414 500. The defendant's insurance company paid the applicant a premium of up to $ 100,000 and the remainder of the extra costs incurred in enforcing the judgment against the defendant.
Following that judgment, the applicant again brought an action against the insurance company claiming that the company was acting in bad faith during conciliation proceedings. The insurance company had initially offered to pay the claimant's claim of $ 5,000. During that second trial, the applicant claimed that the failure to provide the whole of the USD 100 000 was in bad faith. The plaintiff lost the case and the judge came to the insurance company. The plaintiff complained and lost again.
The plaintiff went back to court. He proposed a new additional action against the original defendant, the driver of the vehicle. The defendant, on the other hand, went bankrupt. At the second stage of the procedure, the designated trustee introduced a special adviser who made another claim against the insurance company for the infringement because he did not initially provide the victim of the accident with a request for an operating restriction. The insurance company filed a rejection claim claiming that the insurance company had already decided on liability and could no longer be challenged
As the Court stated, the prohibition of prohibition "prevents the transmission of the problem identified in the earlier action when the same thing arises in a subsequent claim, on the basis of the same parties or their rights." In legal matters, the question arose: whether a bankruptcy guardian is a privacy – close relationship or permanent – with the victim of an accident. The appellate court found that the claim of the bankruptcy lawyers was unfair in the claim of the victim of the accident which had already been decided. As a result, the trustee could not put forward another claim because it refused.
”[T] even though the trustee nominally represents the debtor's property… he represents this representative capacity for the creditors of the debtor's debtor assets, of which [the accident victim] is the most significant,” the right of appeal was taken into account. "In so far as the trustee's claim for a breach of contract requires sums to be recovered that go beyond the operating constraint, based on the requirement that the claim has been caused by the fact that the claim has not been settled on more favorable terms than a subsequent judgment, the benefit of recovery would lead to a practical question [the plaintiff.]"
Cases of this kind, with many procedural changes and issues of law, can quickly become complex. If you have any questions about the right to compensation or personal injury, you can arrange a free consultation with experienced lawyers. Call (866) 995-6663 during normal business hours or fill in the online contact form and we will answer the call or send without delay.
Virtual Presentation: New Massachusetts Case Law first appeared Boston Personal Injury Lawyer, Massachusetts Car Accident Attorney .