I spent 5 hours in a mock civil trial I volunteered for sponsored by some damn company. They made me sign a confidentiality agreement that said I can't tell anyone what went on inside, so naturally I'm posting it:
The trial was based on Armstrong v.s. Aeon. In 1969, Armstrong made some asbestos containing products and bought 30 million in insurance for potential future lawsuits. Aeon is a broker who brought them insurance companies willing to take part.
Armstrong was splitting into 2 companies, and wanted 30 million in coverage for each company, but did not want to pay a higher premium. Aeon went out and negotiated with insurance companies and brought home the deal. The Aeon broker promised everything was split and covered, explained the agreement, and they all signed.
In 1982, Armstrong hired an expert to look over the policies, who pointed out that there could be a potential problem in the language of the endorsements. They chose to do nothing about it.
In 1999, Armstrong was sued, and because of the problem in the legalese - the insurance companies did not pay. Armstrong sued Aeon for a faulty agreement.
I was in a jury and they were all saying "Well, they should have looked at the contract in 1969 and saw that it was faulty. Buyer beware. It's Armstrong's fault." When it was pointed out that they hired the broker to EXPLAIN the legalese and that the broker PROMISED them the deal and signed, they said "Well they should have known in 1982 when they reviewed the contracts."
Everyone agreed that it was buyer beward and they knew the deal was faulty in 1982. I was the only one who sided with the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff was a grimey asbestos corp who didn't want to pay up for putting out dangerous product - the fact remains that they were promised something, it was written down, and Aeon did not deliver. Even though they knew it was falling through in 1982 and didn't do anything about it doesn't change the fact that it's written in stone and the contract was renewed for more than 15 years afterwards.
Thoughts?
The trial was based on Armstrong v.s. Aeon. In 1969, Armstrong made some asbestos containing products and bought 30 million in insurance for potential future lawsuits. Aeon is a broker who brought them insurance companies willing to take part.
Armstrong was splitting into 2 companies, and wanted 30 million in coverage for each company, but did not want to pay a higher premium. Aeon went out and negotiated with insurance companies and brought home the deal. The Aeon broker promised everything was split and covered, explained the agreement, and they all signed.
In 1982, Armstrong hired an expert to look over the policies, who pointed out that there could be a potential problem in the language of the endorsements. They chose to do nothing about it.
In 1999, Armstrong was sued, and because of the problem in the legalese - the insurance companies did not pay. Armstrong sued Aeon for a faulty agreement.
I was in a jury and they were all saying "Well, they should have looked at the contract in 1969 and saw that it was faulty. Buyer beware. It's Armstrong's fault." When it was pointed out that they hired the broker to EXPLAIN the legalese and that the broker PROMISED them the deal and signed, they said "Well they should have known in 1982 when they reviewed the contracts."
Everyone agreed that it was buyer beward and they knew the deal was faulty in 1982. I was the only one who sided with the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff was a grimey asbestos corp who didn't want to pay up for putting out dangerous product - the fact remains that they were promised something, it was written down, and Aeon did not deliver. Even though they knew it was falling through in 1982 and didn't do anything about it doesn't change the fact that it's written in stone and the contract was renewed for more than 15 years afterwards.
Thoughts?
