Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

[justice be served]

Is it out of the realm of possibility that the Romano sisters may take a hike out of the country permanently as things close in on them? Just throwing this out there as there are no holds on them leaving to my knowledge. Just pondering scenarios.........

If that happened, what would be the insurance company's obligations to continue the defense?

All my opinion of course.

 

[screecher]

Is it out of the realm of possibility that the Romano sisters may take a hike out of the country permanently as things close in on them? Just throwing this out there as there are no holds on them leaving to my knowledge. Just pondering scenarios.........

If that happened, what would be the insurance company's obligations to continue the defense?

All my opinion of course.

A very plausible scenario, justice!

I absolutely think it is a scenario defendant dina is/has mulled over in that brain that is ruled by rage.

 

[CricketFern]

Perhaps she is taking a time out?

I would like to see her have a very long time out - JMO of course.

 

[AZlawyer]

Since this delay until the following Friday was by order of the court, does anyone have any idea why the judge would do that? Is it maybe as simple as the fact that they ran out of time to hear all of the motions or something?

It doesn't seem like anyone in particular made the request for the delay?

Illness? Car trouble? Judges are human.

That said, in this court it almost seems like inhuman efforts are made to avoid progress.

 

[kittychi]

Is it out of the realm of possibility that the Romano sisters may take a hike out of the country permanently as things close in on them? Just throwing this out there as there are no holds on them leaving to my knowledge. Just pondering scenarios.........

If that happened, what would be the insurance company's obligations to continue the defense?

All my opinion of course.

If I put myself in her shoes, I would definitely be thinking about that, the way things seems to be closing in, at least how I perceive it. She likely has also incurred considerable debt...another reason to vamoose.

 

[screecher]

It's my understanding her insurance co is paying all legal fees and when she is found culpable by the jury, her insurance will also pay.

But, IMO, defendant dina, for the rest of her days here on this earth, always will be fearful of criminal charges being brought for the murder of Rebecca.

Just because the current corrupt PTB in San Diego County have ruled this a suicide, does not mean the next new PTB won't reopen and take a closer and unfettered look at this case.

I really believe this will happen.

 

[justice be served]

Illness? Car trouble? Judges are human.

That said, in this court it almost seems like inhuman efforts are made to avoid progress.

As always, AZ Lawyer, thank you for your well-regarded perspective. I always marvel at your energy to weigh in on so many cases. I think of it as your pro bono contribution! You are the best.

 

[justice be served]

It's my understanding her insurance co is paying all legal fees and when she is found culpable by the jury, her insurance will also pay.

But, IMO, defendant dina, for the rest of her days here on this earth, always will be fearful of criminal charges being brought for the murder of Rebecca.

Just because the current corrupt PTB in San Diego County have ruled this a suicide, does not mean the next new PTB won't reopen and take a closer and unfettered look at this case.

I really believe this will happen.

Yes, I also agree that the insurance company will be required to pay (if that is the case, of course). However, there is typically a stipulation that insurance will not pay when a crime has been committed which is not the case so far.

I do wonder, though, if an insurance company has "claw back" rights to that potential settlement should the defendant be eventually convicted of murder. This is all in the hypothetical of course.

I am finding my mind wandering more and more as this case unwinds.

 

[Betty P]

Illness? Car trouble? Judges are human.

That said, in this court it almost seems like inhuman efforts are made to avoid progress.

Amazing how slow this case is proceeding. The trial should have begun by now. I can't believe it's going to drag on for another year! Stay strong, Zahau family.

 

[Waitaminute]

lol!!

Perhaps she is taking a time out?

 

[CricketFern]

It's my understanding her insurance co is paying all legal fees and when she is found culpable by the jury, her insurance will also pay.

Forgive me for being late to the party (though I have been reading threads - which equates to a few thousand posts!) Why is an insurance company involved?

 

[K_Z]

Forgive me for being late to the party (though I have been reading threads - which equates to a few thousand posts!) Why is an insurance company involved?

(Snipped.)

Dina won a substantial award in her divorce from Jonah-- in excess of $10 million dollars value, according to an appeal that is easily found on the internet.

http://law.justia.com/cases/arizona...ion-one-unpublished/2015/1-ca-cv-13-0555.html

Dina has listed Chubb and Sons on her court documents as her insurance company. Wealthy people often have "umbrella policies". Chubb and Sons specializes in "umbrella" policies. Umbrellas pay for defense of civil claims. It's a way for the super wealthy to handle frivolous lawsuits.

Nina has no insurance listed. Adam has Travelers listed, but has a more limited policy, from what is listed in records.

Info on umbrella policies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_insurance

http://www.chubb.com/businesses/cci/chubb1649.html

http://www.chubb.com/businesses/cci/chubb1095.pdf

http://www.chubb.com/businesses/cci/chubb1097.pdf

 

[CricketFern]

(Snipped.)

Dina won a substantial award in her divorce from Jonah-- in excess of $10 million dollars value, according to an appeal that is easily found on the internet.

Dina has listed Chubb and Sons on her court documents as her insurance company. Wealthy people often have "umbrella policies". Chubb and Sons specializes in "umbrella" policies. Umbrellas pay for defense of civil claims. It's a way for the super wealthy to handle frivolous lawsuits.


Guess I'm naive (or maybe it's just that I'm not wealthy by any standard!) I had no idea about umbrella insurance - thanks for explaining it. I will say the use of the term "frivolous" in this context just made me cringe. I understand the point but in this situation...

 

[K_Z]

New document #297 on SD ROA is up-- 11 page document for the ex-parte tomorrow, filed by the Zahaus. I haven't read the whole thing, but just skimming it I see that they want to push the demurrer hearing friday to March 11, when the 3rd demurrer was to be heard, because of some distance issues and scheduling overlaps. I'm guessing the court will grant this request, so we may not have the Friday hearing after the ex parte tomorrow.

Here is the document (Bessie will post if the link times out.)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Other_and_Supporting_Docume_1456350765629.pdf

 

[Inparadise]

If I put myself in her shoes, I would definitely be thinking about that, the way things seems to be closing in, at least how I perceive it. She likely has also incurred considerable debt...another reason to vamoose.

Perhaps they will go hang out with GS in Scotland, where she is attending college.

 

[CricketFern]

Can someone explain to me what a demurrer is in this case? From what I can gather from the online dictionaries the definition is that one party admits the facts are true but opposes they are cause for any action. Is that correct? Maybe I'm dense but what does it all mean in this instance? Sorry, I didn't go to law school.

 

[CricketFern]

sorry I repeated the message accidentally

 

[justice be served]

Can someone explain to me what a demurrer is in this case? From what I can gather from the online dictionaries the definition is that one party admits the facts are true but opposes they are cause for any action. Is that correct? Maybe I'm dense but what does it all mean in this instance? Sorry, I didn't go to law school.

Looks like California is in the minority in still upholding Demurrers.

My take on it - yes, it may be true that the defendants murdered Rebecca - but you can't prove it. LOL

 

[Waitaminute]

Don't feel dense, CF, some posters here know a lot about legalese, but I would say a lot of us here don't understand the terms, or had them explained to us, but then we forgot what they meant (myself). I've never had a problem with the law, nor gone to law school to keep me 'in the know', but I certainly appreciate everyone who does know any angle that relates here and posts their knowledge and viewpoints.

Can someone explain to me what a demurrer is in this case? From what I can gather from the online dictionaries the definition is that one party admits the facts are true but opposes they are cause for any action. Is that correct? Maybe I'm dense but what does it all mean in this instance? Sorry, I didn't go to law school.

 

[CricketFern]

Looks like California is in the minority in still upholding Demurrers.

My take on it - yes, it may be true that the defendants murdered Rebecca - but you can't prove it. LOL

To me that seems a ridiculous mindset. I think there is a ton of evidence given what I have read. And who knows what else is out there that we aren't privy to!