Was the lawsuit really a motive for allegedly framing Avery?

[captnchuck67]

The reason SA was going to get the money was not for him getting arrested per say it was for what Colburn and the others did after he was convicted. When they had proof he was not the perpetrator. The insurance would pay for the city and county but the individuals would probably not be picked up do to criminal malfeasance. Those people would lose everything including pensions

 

[proudfootz]

In a thread on another forum an analysis of the insurance situation has been posted. I can't vouch for everything in it but it seems to jibe with my perception that the county would be covered for any and all damages no matter what law enforcement employees did.

Insurance polices have exclusions for things like "deliberate acts" or "punitive and exemplary damages" (My own policy included). It appears in no way a fact, as some would like to purport, that the state would have been covered.

Putting an end to the recent argument that the state WAS going to be covered by their insurance policy and had no reason to frame Avery. : TickTockManitowoc

The post draws a lot of information from this article on the Claims and Litigation Management website:

Making a Murderer’s Policy Problems

 

[missy1974]

In a thread on another forum an analysis of the insurance situation has been posted. I can't vouch for everything in it but it seems to jibe with my perception that the county would be covered for any and all damages no matter what law enforcement employees did.

Insurance polices have exclusions for things like "deliberate acts" or "punitive and exemplary damages" (My own policy included). It appears in no way a fact, as some would like to purport, that the state would have been covered.

Putting an end to the recent argument that the state WAS going to be covered by their insurance policy and had no reason to frame Avery. : TickTockManitowoc

The post draws a lot of information from this article on the Claims and Litigation Management website:

Making a Murderer’s Policy Problems

Here is a letter from State Farm that was filed with the courts Feb 15/06.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/52-Intervenor-Complaint-State-Farm.pdf

It's pretty clear in that letter that if it was proven to be true, they weren't going to cover Tom Kocourek.

 

[YIPSISTHEMAN]

It was the County that was being sued, not the State. And that article if full of a lot of "IFs." Whoever wrote that doesn't have any idea what Manitowoc's insurance policy looks like.

There's also something you may not realize. Whenever there's a lawsuit settlement, the defendants always insert language like "The defendants do not admit any wrong doing." You will not find a settlement without that sort of language. And that language is key. One of the reasons language like that is in settlements is because of something just like this - insurance. You can bet this settlement had all the language to protect the County. That would include language that would not trigger an exclusion in their insurance policy. And of course Avery's side would sign off on it. They couldn't care less where the money comes from. It means nothing to them.

And we know that's what happened. Because once they settled, Manitowoc County's insurance company did in fact pay the settlement.

 

[proudfootz]

That would seem to explain why it would be very important for the county to force a settlement instead of proceeding into the courtroom.

 

[YIPSISTHEMAN]

Exactly. These sorts of cases virtually never go to trial. It's too costly for both sides (attorney fees and such). They settle. Payment is made. And life goes on.

 

[lonewanderer]

So in the "he was framed" theory, this is the specific outcome the framers were aiming for? That he would settle for a lesser sum?

Maybe not....he could be being framed by Theresa's suspicious ex-boyfriend, his nephew Bobby, Scott Tadych, or a combination of two of them, or all three.

 

[scipio_usmc]

The reason SA was going to get the money was not for him getting arrested per say it was for what Colburn and the others did after he was convicted. When they had proof he was not the perpetrator. The insurance would pay for the city and county but the individuals would probably not be picked up do to criminal malfeasance. Those people would lose everything including pensions

There was no criminal malfeasance. Moreover the people being sued no longer worked for the government so were not involved in the Halbach investigation.

 

[scipio_usmc]

The reason SA was going to get the money was not for him getting arrested per say it was for what Colburn and the others did after he was convicted. When they had proof he was not the perpetrator. The insurance would pay for the city and county but the individuals would probably not be picked up do to criminal malfeasance. Those people would lose everything including pensions

Totally false. The lawsuit involved his conviction not what Colborn or other police who had nothing to do with his conviction did after. You obviously never read the lawsuit.