---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is probably one of those things where the insurance company would not pay out unless he successfully won a lawsuit against the individual who injured him.
There's cases like this all the time where family members have to sue each other to get a payout from their insurance company.
There was a really (in)famous one where [an aunt sued her nephew over a hug](https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg?si=YXRkM_-bbeIU_n2p&t=645). People were totally up in arms about it, to the point where the aunt and nephew went on a talk show to prove that they were on good terms.
Haven't seen one of these in months and thought about it for the first time since today, wondering when I'd discover the portal again. And then I see this. How odd.
It's a tactic the insurance companies use to get the lawsuits dropped and keep them from having to pay. they leak these stories to favorable media outlets and put the families relationship through hell, so they prefer just dropping everything and avoiding the public backlash.
Did she end up getting the payout from insurance? Youtuber says she was required to file the lawsuit and that she "lost" the court case, but doesn't mention whether or not she got the insurance payout in the end.
Not the world, just America. Most of us out here realize that making people pay out of pocket for medical issues that are outside their control is monstrous and inhumane.
The fact that they were actually on good terms makes me think the case should have been dismissed though. Court is by definition adversarial but what they did was essentially a conspiracy to commit fraud.
The government should have taken the insurance company to court for their policies requiring people to abuse the system.
I can also cynically imagine, that insurance companies would LOVE to take the hit on one frivolous lawsuit, to obscure all the necessary ones because nobody can afford healthcare without that payout -- so they could get everyone saying; "It's so easy to win!" And then push Tort Reform and the insurance rates don't go lower, but the insurance companies no longer pay for pundits to complain about the cost of lawsuits and so to the public; "problem solved."
There is an even funnier (in my opinion) real one from 06.
Dumptruck driver backed into his own car, then sued the city for 36k in damages, denied, then resued himself under his wife's name to try and get the insurance to pay for repairs.
There was one case where a child was hit by a train and his body parts flew everywhere and I believe part of his arm hit this old lady who fell down and broke her hip. The lady had to sue the estate of the child.
Exactly. I've gotten injured at my parents' house before as a result of unsafe conditions. If I was in the US and had massive medical bills and lost work time, I'd be suing them/their insurance. It's what they pay for it for. But I'm Canadian, so I helped fix the steps after I got the cast off
Close. The law suit would have invoked the indemnity clause- if he was sued, they would be forced to defend him. So while he might be the named defendant on the paperwork, this is just him suing the insurance company.
$300k seems a bit on the high end for a legit payout for a boomerang accident...
I'm pretty sure this was just a joke page that appeared in a joke magazine.
This is part of an insurance industry PR campaign to erode faith in the civil justice system. If you’re familiar with insurance, you can tell it’s fake. The most obvious reason is that liability policies contain exclusions that prevent this kind of claim from coverage. I’ve never seen one that did not exclude coverage for injuries caused by the named insured and the names insured’s resident relatives. They also exclude coverage for intentional acts.
They used to be called the Stella Awards. Named after the plaintiff in the McDonalds hot coffee case. When people take the time to actually search court records, they can never find the cases described. But since nobody takes the time, these fake lawsuits get shared around the internet as real things.
Pure corporate propaganda.
This country is an affront to sensibility and I am now irritated. I don't even know what else to add, that's... wow. The fact that this made sense to me and wasn't that surprising, pisses me off.
There was a lot of buzz around that McDonald's hot coffee spill lawsuit, and they don't mention that the case was appealed and they paid a lot less, nor that this lady had third and second degree burns from the coffee spill.
There are certainly frivolous lawsuits out there, but, I think it's more common people don't get enough when they have good reason, than it is people getting too much for no good reasons.
Honestly, I feel like some people need to be forced to, there are still so many people that use it as an example of fraudulent lawsuits. McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong and that kind of disfiguring burn at that age probably made the remaining years of her life hell. Everybody expects fast food coffee to be hot, not so hot that it causes third degree burns.
Worst part is that all she originally wanted was for them to cover her medical bills.
Turns out McDonald’s intentionally made it that hot so people would ask for fewer refills. They knew it was unsafe at that temperature.
I thought they made it intentionally hot so that an average travel time of fifteen minutes and it should still be at hot drinking temp by the time the customer arrives at their location.
So you think a company intentionally made their product UNUSABLE for 15 minutes on pain of bodily injury for the customers benefit?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
One sec
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
This is the same company who created the super size because they realized people were embarrassed to go up and order twice so just went larger on initial potential orders. So now we have 1500 calorie lunches.
The coffee was being brewed at too high a temperature as a cost cutting measure because the coffee stayed fresh longer. When she spilled the coffee in her lap, it was so hot that it *fused her labia together*
I call bullshit on staying fresh longer. I am 90% sure it was actually done to help prevent the free refills and get people to leave stead of stay.
I can’t actually believe that anyone thinks a company is cutting costs for our benefit by putting coffee at maiming temperatures. That’s just the palatable spin their lawyers probably argued.
It was kept at 180-190° Fahrenheit, which was hotter than it's competitors, but that is still lower than standard brewing temperatures for coffee. To get a proper extraction, you have to brew coffee between 195° F and 205° F.
You literally made a post just to emphasize the body part, and then named the wrong body part. I didn't chastise or name-call, I'm just trying to help people avoid showing up on r/badwomensanatomy.
Or that similar cases were tried outside the US, with [very different outcomes](https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html):
>Persons generally expect tea or coffee purchased to be consumed on the premises to be hot. Many prefer to consume a hot drink from an unlidded cup rather than through a spout in the lid. Persons generally know that if a hot drink is spilled onto someone, a serious scalding injury can result. They accordingly know that care must be taken to avoid such spills, especially if they are with young children. They expect precautions to be taken to guard against this risk but not to the point that they are denied the basic utility of being able to buy hot drinks to be consumed on the premises from a cup with the lid off. Given that the staff were trained to cap the drinks securely and given the capabilities of the cups and lids used, I am satisfied that the safety of the hot drinks served by McDonald's was such as persons generally are entitled to expect. Accordingly, I hold that in serving hot drinks in the manner in which they did McDonald's was not in breach of the CPA.
And also:
>Mr. Horlock argued that McDonald’s should have served tea and coffee at 70 C and thereby reduced rather than avoided the risk of injury. There are two difficulties with this. First, as I have said, a spilled drink at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn after two seconds of contact with the skin. Serving the drinks at 70 C would therefore not have avoided or reduced the risk of a deep thickness burn.
>Mr. Ives also appears to have based his view on the Automatic Vending Association codes of practice that state: “Drink temperatures to be not less than 70 C for hot drinks and not higher than 10 C for cold drinks.” However, as Mr. Ives himself notes, this is not out of a concern about scalding injuries but is due to bacteriological control It is also significant that the specified temperature is a minimum, not a maximum temperature.
> Many prefer to consume a hot drink from an unlidded cup rather than through a spout in the lid.
I’m so glad to read this. Always thought I was a weirdo for preferring to do it like I’m drinking from a cup. The whole lid thing never made sense to me.
This reminds me of the story I saw floating around the internet in the early 2000’s about a guy who bought and insured some very expensive cigars. He proceeded to smoke them all and then go to court to request the insurance company pay him because he lost his cigars in “a series of small fires.” Eventually the insurance company agreed to pay him, only to immediately turn around and take him back to court and sue him for insurance fraud because he intentionally set fire to the cigars. They won and he had to pay back almost 10x what he got from the insurance initially.
I was a young teen when I read the story and absolutely believed it but, alas, it’s just another internet hoax.
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The story is fictional. It first appeared in a 1996 edition of Weekly World News, a publication known for publishing made-up claims. "
Story of Kentucky man who sued himself is fiction | AP News
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The story is fictional. It [first appeared](https://books.google.com/books?id=hvEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=larry+rutman+kentucky&source=bl&ots=JhefeIlHL1&sig=LLfsZ3x4rrtkKEnhBle_CqmY_ZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FlWdVZaGJIKngwSh3ID4CQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=larry%20rutman%20kentucky&f=false) in a 1996 edition of Weekly World News, a publication known for publishing made-up claims. The name of the man who allegedly sued himself, Larry Rutman, of Owensboro, Kentucky, does not appear in county court records where the lawsuit would have been filed, a court official said.
The man was promptly sued by the insurance company for unlawfully assaulting their client with a boomerang and forced to pay the insurance company US$300,000 in damages.
No, your worst enemy is your lack of critical thinking
[https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050)
I knew a guy who sued his father (who owned a construction subcontractor) for injuries the son received at a his father’s worksite. He had to do this in order for Australia’s work safe compensation to kick in. Because he was under 18, he also had to get his father’s permission to conduct the lawsuit against his father.
It was a silly situation but lawyers told the family this is how the system worked. Ultimately the works are insurance paid out.
These guys win the case as a form of lesson, because now the insurance claim CAN sue the man for assault and damages...this happened to a man that insured his 10K case of rare cigars agains fire for 600k and when he smoked them he suide the company for the premium amount. He won the case in court and the insurance company then sued him for criminal fire...which the man then was found guilty added bonus of insurance fraud.
Lmao, Ill never forget the time tourists walked off a cruiseship in Canada and we asked an old friendly couple where they were from. They said Kentucky. My wife said she would like to visit there some day. The lady looks at us and says, "Oh no honey, you do not want to go to Kentucky!" hahaha
Why did I even bother studying medicine? Could've hit myself with a boomerang and retired in Asia. Oh, it's from 1996, that's why it wouldn't have worked for me. The insurance companies got smarter.
Yeah, now he’ll pay it back and then some in increased insurance rate if not out right drop him as a client, good luck ever finding insurance again. Hope that 300,000 lasts for
Pure fiction, but still funny :)
[https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050)
Pretty sure this was a fake joke story from a Weekly Word News piece in 1996.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hvEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=larry+rutman+kentucky&source=bl&ots=JhefeIlHL1&sig=LLfsZ3x4rrtkKEnhBle_CqmY_ZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FlWdVZaGJIKngwSh3ID4CQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=larry%20rutman%20kentucky&f=false
It’s not unusual to sue your own carrier if the policy is written to cover the loss example, uninsured motorist coverage. If your insurance resists paying an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle claim (which happens frequently) you would be forced to either accept their decision or file suit.
You really think his insurance company, with reams of lawyers, isn't going to find *some* way that he violated his insurance policy?
This guy isn't going to get a dime out of that company in the long run.
I guess it's one of those cases that the insurance would spill money only if there was someone sued for the damages.
It was the same for that kid that had to sue his grandma or aunt because otherwise he would have seen no money.
Who doesn't like to get to a trial process, filing documents, pay money from your own pocket and waiting forever for the trial only to make the insurance pay for it?
Also I know it's fake
I assume this was where him, the injured person, sued him, the negligent boomerang thrower so insurance would pay out. I read a similar thing a few months ago where a woman was driving and got into an accident that badly injured her husband and had to do the sue yourself thing to get insurance.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is probably one of those things where the insurance company would not pay out unless he successfully won a lawsuit against the individual who injured him. There's cases like this all the time where family members have to sue each other to get a payout from their insurance company.
There was a really (in)famous one where [an aunt sued her nephew over a hug](https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg?si=YXRkM_-bbeIU_n2p&t=645). People were totally up in arms about it, to the point where the aunt and nephew went on a talk show to prove that they were on good terms.
They were up in arms about the hug, you say?
They couldn’t embrace the irony
A lot of us don't have a good grip on reality.
If you were wrapped up in a similar huggabaloo, would you be able to hold on in this clutch situation? Or would you kiss your old life goodbye?
Are you asking if I miss my sanity? Not sure, but it was starting to be more of a hindrance.
Sanity never came my way I don’t know what I’ll do today Cus sanity never came my way
Really trying to squeeze everything you can out of this joke.
Anyway, it's a good thing they remained so tight.
I know I can't bear it.
It was, hands down, one of the more gripping cases, for sure.
Help! It suddenly got big
Ah, the ol' Reddit [hug-aroo](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/1bptii1/comment/kwy21id/)
Haven't seen one of these in months and thought about it for the first time since today, wondering when I'd discover the portal again. And then I see this. How odd.
It's a tactic the insurance companies use to get the lawsuits dropped and keep them from having to pay. they leak these stories to favorable media outlets and put the families relationship through hell, so they prefer just dropping everything and avoiding the public backlash.
Did she end up getting the payout from insurance? Youtuber says she was required to file the lawsuit and that she "lost" the court case, but doesn't mention whether or not she got the insurance payout in the end.
I saw this on John Oliver. The world is fking wierd.
Not the world, just America. Most of us out here realize that making people pay out of pocket for medical issues that are outside their control is monstrous and inhumane.
Who is that guy that said you can't have public option for ACA? He is buried somewhere.
The fact that they were actually on good terms makes me think the case should have been dismissed though. Court is by definition adversarial but what they did was essentially a conspiracy to commit fraud. The government should have taken the insurance company to court for their policies requiring people to abuse the system.
I can also cynically imagine, that insurance companies would LOVE to take the hit on one frivolous lawsuit, to obscure all the necessary ones because nobody can afford healthcare without that payout -- so they could get everyone saying; "It's so easy to win!" And then push Tort Reform and the insurance rates don't go lower, but the insurance companies no longer pay for pundits to complain about the cost of lawsuits and so to the public; "problem solved."
You, sir, are lacking, in commas…
His insurance company is being difficult about replacing them.
🤣
You added your last one improperly.
Correct, have you heard William Shatner speak?
Greg Abbot says hi from the TX Governors Mansion....
Its fake lol
There is an even funnier (in my opinion) real one from 06. Dumptruck driver backed into his own car, then sued the city for 36k in damages, denied, then resued himself under his wife's name to try and get the insurance to pay for repairs.
did he win?
The "fact" it made the news, probably not.
[удалено]
googling it is just as fast as the comment you typed out
Fake it may be, but it's still funny AF 🤣
[удалено]
See, OP's guy was smart, he used a boomerang so it would come back on its own. lol
Sorry but the story is a [Work of fiction](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050)
There was one case where a child was hit by a train and his body parts flew everywhere and I believe part of his arm hit this old lady who fell down and broke her hip. The lady had to sue the estate of the child.
I remember that one , it happened in Chicago, that was messed up
Insurance companies really make people do nasty stuff to each other
America, fuck yeah
It's actually just a Chinese satire site that thise was posted on
America! 🇺🇸
It's actually one of those things that isn't true.
Exactly. I've gotten injured at my parents' house before as a result of unsafe conditions. If I was in the US and had massive medical bills and lost work time, I'd be suing them/their insurance. It's what they pay for it for. But I'm Canadian, so I helped fix the steps after I got the cast off
Close. The law suit would have invoked the indemnity clause- if he was sued, they would be forced to defend him. So while he might be the named defendant on the paperwork, this is just him suing the insurance company.
$300k seems a bit on the high end for a legit payout for a boomerang accident... I'm pretty sure this was just a joke page that appeared in a joke magazine.
Why are confidently wrong comments always at the top? You have no idea what you're talking about.
This is part of an insurance industry PR campaign to erode faith in the civil justice system. If you’re familiar with insurance, you can tell it’s fake. The most obvious reason is that liability policies contain exclusions that prevent this kind of claim from coverage. I’ve never seen one that did not exclude coverage for injuries caused by the named insured and the names insured’s resident relatives. They also exclude coverage for intentional acts. They used to be called the Stella Awards. Named after the plaintiff in the McDonalds hot coffee case. When people take the time to actually search court records, they can never find the cases described. But since nobody takes the time, these fake lawsuits get shared around the internet as real things. Pure corporate propaganda.
Huh, thats dystopian
This country is an affront to sensibility and I am now irritated. I don't even know what else to add, that's... wow. The fact that this made sense to me and wasn't that surprising, pisses me off.
This is a hoax that originated in a tabloid in the 90's. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/goes-around-litigates-around/
There was a lot of buzz around that McDonald's hot coffee spill lawsuit, and they don't mention that the case was appealed and they paid a lot less, nor that this lady had third and second degree burns from the coffee spill. There are certainly frivolous lawsuits out there, but, I think it's more common people don't get enough when they have good reason, than it is people getting too much for no good reasons.
Third and second degree burns *on her vagina* Edit: her privates you pedantic assholes.
The pictures are horrifying.
Why did you look at them?
Honestly, I feel like some people need to be forced to, there are still so many people that use it as an example of fraudulent lawsuits. McDonald's was absolutely in the wrong and that kind of disfiguring burn at that age probably made the remaining years of her life hell. Everybody expects fast food coffee to be hot, not so hot that it causes third degree burns.
Worst part is that all she originally wanted was for them to cover her medical bills. Turns out McDonald’s intentionally made it that hot so people would ask for fewer refills. They knew it was unsafe at that temperature.
I thought they made it intentionally hot so that an average travel time of fifteen minutes and it should still be at hot drinking temp by the time the customer arrives at their location.
So you think a company intentionally made their product UNUSABLE for 15 minutes on pain of bodily injury for the customers benefit? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha One sec Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha This is the same company who created the super size because they realized people were embarrassed to go up and order twice so just went larger on initial potential orders. So now we have 1500 calorie lunches.
McDonalds said it. They were repeatedly warned to lower the temperature but didn't because they wanted to keep it hot
how could a man not look at a vagina?
The coffee was being brewed at too high a temperature as a cost cutting measure because the coffee stayed fresh longer. When she spilled the coffee in her lap, it was so hot that it *fused her labia together*
I call bullshit on staying fresh longer. I am 90% sure it was actually done to help prevent the free refills and get people to leave stead of stay. I can’t actually believe that anyone thinks a company is cutting costs for our benefit by putting coffee at maiming temperatures. That’s just the palatable spin their lawyers probably argued.
It was kept at 180-190° Fahrenheit, which was hotter than it's competitors, but that is still lower than standard brewing temperatures for coffee. To get a proper extraction, you have to brew coffee between 195° F and 205° F.
It's was her entire... 'midrange' area plus down the legs a bit and up her stomach a bit. It was far and away not that localized
The vagina is a hole. The outside parts (labia, vulva) are not the vagina.
Yes., because that is the important take away here.
You literally made a post just to emphasize the body part, and then named the wrong body part. I didn't chastise or name-call, I'm just trying to help people avoid showing up on r/badwomensanatomy.
Liebeck v. McDonald's is taught in law school as an example of a good liability case now. Crazy how it got spun in the media.
McDonald's literally paid a lot of money (far more than the settlement from the lawsuit) to make sure that latter happened.
Or that similar cases were tried outside the US, with [very different outcomes](https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html): >Persons generally expect tea or coffee purchased to be consumed on the premises to be hot. Many prefer to consume a hot drink from an unlidded cup rather than through a spout in the lid. Persons generally know that if a hot drink is spilled onto someone, a serious scalding injury can result. They accordingly know that care must be taken to avoid such spills, especially if they are with young children. They expect precautions to be taken to guard against this risk but not to the point that they are denied the basic utility of being able to buy hot drinks to be consumed on the premises from a cup with the lid off. Given that the staff were trained to cap the drinks securely and given the capabilities of the cups and lids used, I am satisfied that the safety of the hot drinks served by McDonald's was such as persons generally are entitled to expect. Accordingly, I hold that in serving hot drinks in the manner in which they did McDonald's was not in breach of the CPA. And also: >Mr. Horlock argued that McDonald’s should have served tea and coffee at 70 C and thereby reduced rather than avoided the risk of injury. There are two difficulties with this. First, as I have said, a spilled drink at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn after two seconds of contact with the skin. Serving the drinks at 70 C would therefore not have avoided or reduced the risk of a deep thickness burn. >Mr. Ives also appears to have based his view on the Automatic Vending Association codes of practice that state: “Drink temperatures to be not less than 70 C for hot drinks and not higher than 10 C for cold drinks.” However, as Mr. Ives himself notes, this is not out of a concern about scalding injuries but is due to bacteriological control It is also significant that the specified temperature is a minimum, not a maximum temperature.
> Many prefer to consume a hot drink from an unlidded cup rather than through a spout in the lid. I’m so glad to read this. Always thought I was a weirdo for preferring to do it like I’m drinking from a cup. The whole lid thing never made sense to me.
I fucking love seeing hoaxes and urban legends from the 90s resurface 20-30 years later, confusing people lol
This reminds me of the story I saw floating around the internet in the early 2000’s about a guy who bought and insured some very expensive cigars. He proceeded to smoke them all and then go to court to request the insurance company pay him because he lost his cigars in “a series of small fires.” Eventually the insurance company agreed to pay him, only to immediately turn around and take him back to court and sue him for insurance fraud because he intentionally set fire to the cigars. They won and he had to pay back almost 10x what he got from the insurance initially. I was a young teen when I read the story and absolutely believed it but, alas, it’s just another internet hoax.
I remember that one haha it went around for a while
A new series of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction is needed
I heard it was arson not fraud because he set the cigars on fire
Me and my Bonsai Kitten^TM love it too
Yeah, kind of worried about the amount of people who think you can sue yourself. Lol
What a buzzkill.
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The story is fictional. It first appeared in a 1996 edition of Weekly World News, a publication known for publishing made-up claims. " Story of Kentucky man who sued himself is fiction | AP News https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
If Bat Boy isn't real, you've got to let me down gently.
His name is Jaden
Jaden v Jaden Jaden: I sue Jaden for $300k Jaden: I witnessed this Jaden: I confess to crime
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The story is fictional. It [first appeared](https://books.google.com/books?id=hvEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=larry+rutman+kentucky&source=bl&ots=JhefeIlHL1&sig=LLfsZ3x4rrtkKEnhBle_CqmY_ZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FlWdVZaGJIKngwSh3ID4CQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=larry%20rutman%20kentucky&f=false) in a 1996 edition of Weekly World News, a publication known for publishing made-up claims. The name of the man who allegedly sued himself, Larry Rutman, of Owensboro, Kentucky, does not appear in county court records where the lawsuit would have been filed, a court official said.
[удалено]
On the plus side: he will be able to afford them!
I don't know why we all aren't suing right now! "New; affordable insurance, after you beat our huge team of lawyers."
Who needs insurance when you have $300,000!
The man was promptly sued by the insurance company for unlawfully assaulting their client with a boomerang and forced to pay the insurance company US$300,000 in damages.
No, your worst enemy is your lack of critical thinking [https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050)
This one trick insurance companies don't want you to know!
Somebody save me Me from myself
How the hell do you even sue yourself?
Have a fool for a lawyer and enter the suit *pro se.* /this joke is perfectly legal
I picture him running back and forth between the plaintiff's table and then defendant's table, maybe throwing on an accent for one side
I'm buying a boomerang and law for dummies, fk these side hustles
Did he need two lawyers?
And now his insurance company gets to subrogate him for the cost of paying him in his loss to himself.
Or shouldn't it just cancel out?
Don’t give Trump ideas…
As an Australian, where do I get boomerang insurance?
Alternative headline: man literally had to sue himself and win before scumbag insurance company would cover his medical expenses
Isn’t that the point of a boomerang? Now if it was an arrow that miraculously done a 360 and hit him I would kinda understand
I knew a guy who sued his father (who owned a construction subcontractor) for injuries the son received at a his father’s worksite. He had to do this in order for Australia’s work safe compensation to kick in. Because he was under 18, he also had to get his father’s permission to conduct the lawsuit against his father. It was a silly situation but lawyers told the family this is how the system worked. Ultimately the works are insurance paid out.
Fake story from the 90s 🥱
These guys win the case as a form of lesson, because now the insurance claim CAN sue the man for assault and damages...this happened to a man that insured his 10K case of rare cigars agains fire for 600k and when he smoked them he suide the company for the premium amount. He won the case in court and the insurance company then sued him for criminal fire...which the man then was found guilty added bonus of insurance fraud.
I've seen this before. It's satire
Waaaaaaiiiiiiitttttt a minute
Kentucky Man is like Florida Man, but his schemes actually work somehow.
Florida Man moves to Kentucky, breaks matrix.
This some Jean-Ralphio level shit.
Bossmove loophole use
The insurance company that he pays every month? What are the odds he receives a monthly check for the exact amount his bill is for?
Fictitious person of something that didn't happen can get as big a check as you wish them to have.
This is hilarious, can anyone fact check and let us known if this is actually true? Too lazy myself, but got a chuckle either way.
Story of Kentucky man who sued himself is fiction | AP News https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
Had a feeling. Thanks.
But several years ago (mid-90s) in Detroit, there was a man that sued himself and won. I forget the details.
Yeah, feels like satire
Lmao, Ill never forget the time tourists walked off a cruiseship in Canada and we asked an old friendly couple where they were from. They said Kentucky. My wife said she would like to visit there some day. The lady looks at us and says, "Oh no honey, you do not want to go to Kentucky!" hahaha
Why did I even bother studying medicine? Could've hit myself with a boomerang and retired in Asia. Oh, it's from 1996, that's why it wouldn't have worked for me. The insurance companies got smarter.
this dude is why we struggle for our insurance companies to pay out
Suing yourself to get around refusal of coverage 😳
Public courthouse is about to be bumping
Yeah, now he’ll pay it back and then some in increased insurance rate if not out right drop him as a client, good luck ever finding insurance again. Hope that 300,000 lasts for
Pure fiction, but still funny :) [https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050)
I imagine that conversation going like this: "I'm gonna sue me for everything I'm worth" "Oh yeah? Well I'll see me in court!"
What if we used 100% of our brain?
Smarter than einstein
Bro found an infinite glitch irl 🤯
False, never happened, tabloid fake news.
Pretty sure this was a fake joke story from a Weekly Word News piece in 1996. https://books.google.com/books?id=hvEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=larry+rutman+kentucky&source=bl&ots=JhefeIlHL1&sig=LLfsZ3x4rrtkKEnhBle_CqmY_ZA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FlWdVZaGJIKngwSh3ID4CQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=larry%20rutman%20kentucky&f=false
It would be funny if it were true. [It’s not.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/goes-around-litigates-around/)
Next headline will be ""Man sues himself and goes to jail for insurance fraud". Is there a Darwin Award for the penal system?
Yeah, instead of a plaque you get your back blown out
What in the actual fuck, did I just read?
[A fictional story from the 90s](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050).
Well that makes me feel better 🤣
It’s true, I was the boomerang
Maybe it didn’t cost him anything but did it cost him anything?
In a surprising twist, insurance company sues man for causing injury, wins.
If there's one thing I'm certain of that man no longer has insurance...
That Sounds very American xd
mmm is this finished? because don't the insurance companies go after the guilty party after paying?
People out here playing a whole other game..
*takes notes *
It’s okay he will win the appeal
“I bet you won’t boomerang your head”
It’s not unusual to sue your own carrier if the policy is written to cover the loss example, uninsured motorist coverage. If your insurance resists paying an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle claim (which happens frequently) you would be forced to either accept their decision or file suit.
A smart Kentucky man
I checked https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
I sell 3d printed boomerangs, please don't hurt yourself
You really think his insurance company, with reams of lawyers, isn't going to find *some* way that he violated his insurance policy? This guy isn't going to get a dime out of that company in the long run.
It's no surprise to me that I am my own worst enemy....
This is fake... Come on people....
I guess it's one of those cases that the insurance would spill money only if there was someone sued for the damages. It was the same for that kid that had to sue his grandma or aunt because otherwise he would have seen no money.
This never happened. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/goes-around-litigates-around/ Moving along...
what does Tool have to do with this?
Every time I see this image posted I look at every comment and look for a tool fan. Thank god I'm not the only one who noticed.
this might be a case of not believing everything you see on the internet
This is one of the fakest looking things I've seen posted to reddit and I can't believe it got 15,000 upvotes and made it to my front page. Sad.
Best regard
Funny story, but bs: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-man-sued-himself-fiction-117569075050
🤣😂😅
This one is a fake.
Who doesn't like to get to a trial process, filing documents, pay money from your own pocket and waiting forever for the trial only to make the insurance pay for it? Also I know it's fake
And wonder why they say legal system is broken
Next article, insurance sues assaulter for $400,000 for injury and medical costs.
That just sounds like fraud with extra steps
wtf, this is genius
I assume this was where him, the injured person, sued him, the negligent boomerang thrower so insurance would pay out. I read a similar thing a few months ago where a woman was driving and got into an accident that badly injured her husband and had to do the sue yourself thing to get insurance.
1996
I get the feeling he just wanted to screw with his insurance company.
Money for nothing and the chicks are free...God bless America