Pelican Parts Forums - Real Bad Situation With One of My Tool Vendors

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Real Bad Situation With One of My Tool Vendors (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/631182-real-bad-situation-one-my-tool-vendors.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by McLovin (Post 6271522)

There's lots of obligations that aren't wiped out in a bky.

Student loans aren't.

Nor are debts obtained by fraud. For example, if you defraud a bank into loaning you money (false financials, etc.), and they get a judgment against you, that is not going to be wiped out.

Wilfull and malicious acts. The civil judgment against OJ Simpson is a good example of that. He filed bky, but the Goldmans' civil judgment against him was not discharged and still can be enforced.

Claims based on injuries caused while driving intoxicated is another.

And others as set forth in the Bky Code.

If that is the case I stand corrected. SmileWavy

I do know his business is set up as LLC

Quote:

Originally Posted by McLovin (Post 6271532)

That's not true.

If he was driving the boat, he is going to be liable, not matter who owns the boat.

(If someone else, or a business owns the boat, that person or business could also be liable, along with him).

And, again, his wife is not liable for his actions simply because she is his wife.

But this is all moot (or, in PPOT parlance, "mute"), since apparently the judgment was entered against him personally, and not his wife.

Well it's necessarily "moot" or "mute". Again, we are assuming the missed insurance payment was for the boats policy. That being said if the boat was registered owned by the business his homeowners liability may kicking.

Example: I own the boat I do not have insurance. I allow you to drive the boat and we have the accident and the accident is your fault. Where does your liability come from? Your homeowners as liability under an HO 3 follows you world wide and kicks in.

Heres where I think it becomes moot/mute it seems to indicate the boat was owned personally and his homeowners denied coverage under 2 areas. Failure to maintain proper coverage (a boat owners policy) and the boat exceed the maximum 25HP and or exceed maximum length under a homeowners policy.

We also don't know for sure at least two other facts. Was the wife a named owner, was he convicted of the DUI?

Don't know of he was convicted - prolly so - you would need to establish liability

Quote:

Originally Posted by McLovin (Post 6271532)

If he was driving the boat, he is going to be liable, not matter who owns the boat.

That wasn't the case with the guy who backed into my 993 in his buddy's uninsured truck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asphaltgambler (Post 6271593)

Don't know of he was convicted - prolly so - you would need to establish liability

If convicted due to the fact there was bodily injury and property damage criminal charges could apply. But also, (in NJ at least) liability could transfer. You stated he was drinking through the day but stopped someplace I believe you said a watering hole? That being the case liability could have transfered to the establishment or partial as McLovin stated. Contributory negligence. It seems that didn't occur as your buddy has the judgment. Unless there is another judgment?

That we don't know.

How reliable is the eye witness testimony of a drunk person? Back in the day, I've heard (and said) some wild things while under the influence. How do we know the other boat had no lights? Would the impaired driver have been able to avoid the accident if he was sober? A court is going to accept the testimony of a sober victum over an impaired defendant.

To put it briefly, tough s**t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6271599)

That wasn't the case with the guy who backed into my 993 in his buddy's uninsured truck.

Because it was a trivial fender bender handled by insurance adjusters.

If he'd killed you, and actual lawyers and courts had gotten involved, he would have been liable as the driver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6271599)

That wasn't the case with the guy who backed into my 993 in his buddy's uninsured truck.

Sure it was.

You could have successfully sued the guy who was driving, if you wanted to/had to.

If you proved he was driving, and he was at fault, you could have gotten a judgment against him.

Judgments against judgment-proof people mean nothing. If they can't pay, you won't collect.

And my cat's breath smells like cat food.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 6272313)

Judgments against judgment-proof people mean nothing. If they can't pay, you won't collect.

Just b/c they can't pay now, doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future... If you have the judgement.....