Top Law Schools

kellyfrost wrote:

RdnXP wrote: If a fired employee sues a company, what exactly in contention? Either the company can fire him or not, for a given reason? Or is that too simplistic?

RdnXP wrote:Hey guys,

Thank you in advance for indulging my question. I am curious about the nature of the practice of law. As a disclaimer, I'm not a law student, only a layman. I understand that our legal system is adversarial, and that a big part of a lawyer's job is to provide counsel to his or her clients as well as help them prepare their case before a court of law (if it goes to trial) or else to reach settlement. The court then passes judgment.

Here's my question: In the context of certain kinds of issues, such as personal injury law where a lawyer represents his or her clients against an insurance company (for example), what is the matter of contention? And why is it a matter of debate? Am I naive, or wouldn't the insurance policy/law/coverage agreement clearly specify when and in what way the insurer must cover the insured? It seems like the kind of thing that would not be a matter of debate or contention. If the provisions are clearly spelled out, then what does the personal injury lawyer do? Investigate/establish facts (i.e is it the facts around the incident that are unclear and arguable, or the contract between the company and the insured)?

I imagine that law, being a socially constructed institution, has a degree of flexibility, but also at some point words have plain meaning, so I don't understand where contention in the law comes from.

By contrast, I understand why criminal lawyers would need to make a case before a court of law, due to imperfect knowledge and the need to establish guilt and consequences. But when it comes to disputes involving insurance, etc. shouldn't it be clear-cut? And this similar question applies to other areas. If a fired employee sues a company, what exactly in contention? Either the company can fire him or not, for a given reason? Or is that too simplistic?

Sorry if the question is stupid. Thanks for your thoughts!

RdnXP wrote: Am I naive, or wouldn't the insurance policy/law/coverage agreement clearly specify when and in what way the insurer must cover the insured?

Npret wrote:You don't understand that insurance companies will argue about amounts owed under their policy?

I think I don't understand your question maybe someone else can help you.

RdnXP wrote:

Npret wrote:You don't understand that insurance companies will argue about amounts owed under their policy?

I think I don't understand your question maybe someone else can help you.

Yes, that definitely makes sense as one major area of contention, but how much of it is arguable vs how much is clearly spelled out in the policy?

I guess my question is, when two sides go to court, is it on the assumption that both may be "right" under the law, or is it usually to negotiate exact dollar amounts/sentences? If it's the former, then how much of a gray zone is there in the practice of law with regards to the content of the law?

cavalier1138 wrote:

RdnXP wrote:

Npret wrote:You don't understand that insurance companies will argue about amounts owed under their policy?

I think I don't understand your question maybe someone else can help you.

Yes, that definitely makes sense as one major area of contention, but how much of it is arguable vs how much is clearly spelled out in the policy?

I guess my question is, when two sides go to court, is it on the assumption that both may be "right" under the law, or is it usually to negotiate exact dollar amounts/sentences? If it's the former, then how much of a gray zone is there in the practice of law with regards to the content of the law?

There is no such thing as a "clearly spelled out" policy. There are interpretations that are more or less likely to succeed than others, but literally everything in a contract is up for debate, even if it seems completely unambiguous. People will go to court over both the interpretation of when the policy should be paying out and how much it should be paying out.

RdnXP wrote:Thank you for your thoughts!
So, what then distinguishes one personal injury lawyer from another, in terms of trial outcomes?
Is it a matter of "any case can be won with the right lawyer"?

cavalier1138 wrote:

RdnXP wrote:Thank you for your thoughts!
So, what then distinguishes one personal injury lawyer from another, in terms of trial outcomes?
Is it a matter of "any case can be won with the right lawyer"?

Kinda... It also depends on the judge and the strength of your case.

I'm starting to feel like maybe you're looking for legal advice and/or a referral to a local lawyer who handles personal injury suits...

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I mean, it's objective in that you can't completely make things up out of thin air, and there is existing law that you have to address and can't simply ignore. It's subjective in that your lawyer's skill matters and the inclinations of your judge (and jury if there is one) also matter.

Keep in mind that cases only get to court when there is some legitimate argument to be made that matters are unclear/ambiguous. Cases settle before that many many times because the parties come to an agreement on how things should be handled. If they get to trial there is usually at least some room for arguing either side successfully. (It might not be a lot, but there has to be something.)

mjb447 wrote:You might enjoy a case called FRIGALIMENT IMPORTING CO. v. B.N.S. INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP., which is discussed in a lot of 1L contracts courses. The case required a court to interpret what the word "chicken" meant in a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant: in doing so, the court analyzed things like the "dictionary meaning" of the word, the contract as a whole, negotiations between the parties, trade usage of the word as established by certain regulations and testimony, what the parties should reasonably have expected (Plaintiff's definition would have resulted in Defendant deliberately contracting to incur a loss), and the subsequent conduct of the parties. A primary takeaway for blossoming 1Ls is that even facially unambiguous contractual terms can result in litigation and colorable argument on both sides.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:Something something vehicles aren't allowed in the park.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:Something something vehicles aren't allowed in the park.

mjb447 wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:Something something vehicles aren't allowed in the park.

I sometimes use chicken as a vehicle for BBQ sauce (particularly if I'm taking it to the park). I hope metaphorical vehicles are okay.

RdnXP wrote:

mjb447 wrote:You might enjoy a case called FRIGALIMENT IMPORTING CO. v. B.N.S. INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP., which is discussed in a lot of 1L contracts courses. The case required a court to interpret what the word "chicken" meant in a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant: in doing so, the court analyzed things like the "dictionary meaning" of the word, the contract as a whole, negotiations between the parties, trade usage of the word as established by certain regulations and testimony, what the parties should reasonably have expected (Plaintiff's definition would have resulted in Defendant deliberately contracting to incur a loss), and the subsequent conduct of the parties. A primary takeaway for blossoming 1Ls is that even facially unambiguous contractual terms can result in litigation and colorable argument on both sides.

Thanks for the recommendation! Do you think the is a strength or weakness of the legal system? At what point is it just pedantry?

mjb447 wrote:

MarkinKansasCity wrote:Something something vehicles aren't allowed in the park.

I sometimes use chicken as a vehicle for BBQ sauce (particularly if I'm taking it to the park). I hope metaphorical vehicles are okay.

RdnXP wrote:And this similar question applies to other areas. If a fired employee sues a company, what exactly in contention? Either the company can fire him or not, for a given reason? Or is that too simplistic?

Sorry if the question is stupid. Thanks for your thoughts!

snowball2 wrote:

RdnXP wrote:And this similar question applies to other areas. If a fired employee sues a company, what exactly in contention? Either the company can fire him or not, for a given reason? Or is that too simplistic?

Sorry if the question is stupid. Thanks for your thoughts!

Some people (generally higher-compensated employees) have employment contracts which should lay out terms of separation from employment. But even then it's not clear cut. As with any contract there can be elements of bad faith in performance, as just one example. Let's say the employee was entitled to annual bonuses which are paid out on a certain date. If, again by way of example, the person is terminated before that date and is therefore not paid a bonus the dispute may be about whether the employee has sufficiently performed the duties that resulted in the bonus and whether the firing was timed to avoid paying the bonus. (There are easily 100 other ways disputes can arise).

For "at-will" employees (those with no contractual right to employment) the law says they can be fired for "good reason, bad reason or no reason at all" WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT they cannot be fired for an unlawful reason, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, age. The employer will claim that the termination was either performance related or other not-unlawful reason. The employee has the burden of proving that the decision was based on unlawful factors. If the person presents a good faith basis for their belief they can then conduct discovery and try to either establish a pattern of treatment for others in the same group or otherwise develop evidence.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

kellyfrost wrote:

Our resident insurance expert should be with you shortly.