• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Suh Stomps Packer, Wrecks car, LIES....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just heard on the local news the passenger was told by SUH he wouldn't taker her to the hospital.. of course SHE is lying but not your beloved SUH..

He also said no one else was in the car turns out that was a lie.. His character is really taking a hit.

Did you see the condition of his car? Was he going to fireman carry her to the hospital?

Where did he lie about who was in the car? That's not mentioned in this story, but this is interesting:

The report states that the officer who arrived on the scene two minutes after the 911 call did not observe any victims in the area. Two other officers who arrived shortly thereafter also did not see anyone who required medical attention, and no witnesses reported any victims or said that Suh was driving recklessly.

I suppose you think that the people who reported injuries later (after they were denied insurance compensation and probably after speaking to an attorney) are more credible than the police who arrived on the scene almost immediately?
 

Well said. Some posts are making it sound like dozens of would-be gold diggers have staked out bars across the nation just waiting for rich athletes to come in, so they can fake an injury or an assault. I actually can't even think of one publicized case of a pro athlete being entrapped in this fashion.


No one says they are staking out bars... although that kind of thing does happen... just saying that in this particular case, there is no real evidence that Suh lied or "covered-up" passenger injuries. No one was seriously injured (5 stitches is not a serious injury, especially when the person elected to roll off scene before the police arrived a couple minutes later).
 
Did you see the condition of his car? Was he going to fireman carry her to the hospital?

Where did he lie about who was in the car? That's not mentioned in this story, but this is interesting:



I suppose you think that the people who reported injuries later (after they were denied insurance compensation and probably after speaking to an attorney) are more credible than the police who arrived on the scene almost immediately?

Really going out on a limb here.
  1. You don't know they talked to an attorney
  2. You don't know insurance was denied
From my experience I doubt any attorney would want a lot of exposure on this at this point, the less info out there for speculation the better off the case IMO, especially if it's bogus. If it's bogus as you seem to suggest, then what benefit does the attorney and claimant gain by having a bunch of press snooping around uncovering what the attorney wouldn't want them to? Look, if Suh is insured, this is out of his hands, it's in his insurance companies hands to handle. There is nothing for this claimant to gain other than a normal BI (bodily injury) claim. There will be no punitive damages to come from this as he wasn't intentionaly trying to harm her or otherwise impaired.
 
No one says they are staking out bars... although that kind of thing does happen... just saying that in this particular case, there is no real evidence that Suh lied or "covered-up" passenger injuries. No one was seriously injured (5 stitches is not a serious injury, especially when the person elected to roll off scene before the police arrived a couple minutes later).

5 stitches is DEFINITELY a serious injury if it scars the person, especially in the facial area. You're really making claims that you have no idea what you're talking about. Unless of course you're either a personal injury attorney or a claims adjuster.
 



Really going out on a limb here.
  1. You don't know they talked to an attorney
  2. You don't know insurance was denied


From the article:

From the scene of the accident, the woman walked away from the car and asked her husband to pick her up. She then was driven to the Oregon Health and Science University for treatment. The insurance company initially refused to pay for her injuries, doing so only when the police report was amended to support her story.
When the woman in the car saw a television report about the crash on Sunday morning, she was upset because she felt Suh had lied to police, according to KGW.

From my experience I doubt any attorney would want a lot of exposure on this at this point, the less info out there for speculation the better off the case IMO, especially if it's bogus. If it's bogus as you seem to suggest, then what benefit does the attorney and claimant gain by having a bunch of press snooping around uncovering what the attorney wouldn't want them to? Look, if Suh is insured, this is out of his hands, it's in his insurance companies hands to handle. There is nothing for this claimant to gain other than a normal BI (bodily injury) claim. There will be no punitive damages to come from this as he wasn't intentionaly trying to harm her or otherwise impaired.

A lot of attorneys would love the exposure associated with a case of this profile. And, she could certainly sue Suh for negligently injuring her, which seems to be what she is setting up with her "he was reckless and I only remember being thrown around the car" story to the news media.

Granted, it should be limited to her actual costs of recovery, but often that exceeds the actual costs in cases like these. It really depends how hard his insurance company and/or private lawyers want to fight it. She will be claiming all sorts of things like negligent infliction of emotional distress and the like... these are "soft claims" which could lead to pretty big money settlements.

And no, I don't think 5 stitches, even in the face, constitutes a "serious" injury in need of ambulance assistance (which is what this entire thread bases the "lie" accusation on ... i.e. when he said no one needed an ambulance, he was lying).
 
Last edited:
Did you see the condition of his car? Was he going to fireman carry her to the hospital?

Where did he lie about who was in the car? That's not mentioned in this story, but this is interesting:



I suppose you think that the people who reported injuries later (after they were denied insurance compensation and probably after speaking to an attorney) are more credible than the police who arrived on the scene almost immediately?

The police now have an amended police report.. Seems the police were wrong the first time.

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2011/12/passengers_detroit_lions_ndamu.html

The amended police report obtained by KGW now says that there were four people in the car, not three, and that one person was seriously injured.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


From the article:

From the scene of the accident, the woman walked away from the car and asked her husband to pick her up. She then was driven to the Oregon Health and Science University for treatment. The insurance company initially refused to pay for her injuries, doing so only when the police report was amended to support her story.
When the woman in the car saw a television report about the crash on Sunday morning, she was upset because she felt Suh had lied to police, according to KGW.



A lot of attorneys would love the exposure associated with a case of this profile. And, she could certainly sue Suh for negligently injuring her, which seems to be what she is setting up with her "he was reckless and I only remember being thrown around the car" story to the news media.

Granted, it should be limited to her actual costs of recovery, but often that exceeds the actual costs in cases like these. It really depends how hard his insurance company and/or private lawyers want to fight it. She will be claiming all sorts of things like negligent infliction of emotional distress and the like... these are "soft claims" which could lead to pretty big money settlements.

And no, I don't think 5 stitches, even in the face, constitutes a "serious" injury in need of ambulance assistance (which is what this entire thread bases the "lie" accusation on ... i.e. when he said no one needed an ambulance, he was lying).

Sounds like either a)health insurance or b)some sort of med pay coverage may have declined. At any rate, that is VERY DIFFERENT coverage than a 3rd party injury claim, which is what we are talking about. Medpay or PIP coverage has carefully laid out policy language so it's easy to at least initially deny coverage. Again that is very different than a 3rd party claim, which falls under state laws and NOT insurance policy language. If she was in the car, and was injured, and Suh was the driver, and no other cars were involved Suh IS negligent. Therefore she HAS a third party injury claim which covers a) medical expenses and b) pain and suffering. Insurance companies will indemnify Suh, meaning the will provide coverage up to what he is insured for (which my guess is he has at least 500/1000000/100 + an umbrella policy), meaning that unless the insurance company fails to reach a fair settlement Suh WILL NOT be sued. You obviously don't understand how all this works, and I don't blame you for that, it's very boring stuff and I am glad I don't do that anymore.

At any rate, back to the attorney, if the claim is bogus and the attorney is making this public, he is either a) incompetent or b) young or c) both. Again, are we sure she has an attorney? And just because someone walks away from an accident doesn't mean that weren't injured in said accident. I will say, I am impressed with the quick response from the police.

edit: like I said, I worked injury claims for 6 years, never once did I deny an injury claim in the matter of a week, let alone a few days.
 
Last edited:




I'm not saying that her claim is entirely bogus, but it could end up inflated.

She chose to walk away from the scene.

People who claim suh is a liar because he said no one needed an ambulance are way off base, and that's the main issue I have with his treatment in is thread.
 
An amended report doesn't mean the police were wrong. It just means they added information that game out later. Hence an amendment.

Right, the first report was not 100% correct. If something is not correct then it is wrong or not 100% truthful.
 
Right, the first report was not 100% correct. If something is not correct then it is wrong or not 100% truthful.

it was amended to reflect new witness testimony. That doesn't mean the testimony was or is true. Not the police's fault that the witnesses decided to leave the scene.
 
Last edited:
it was amended to reflect new witness testimony. That doesn't mean the testimony was or is true. Not the police's fault that the witnesses decided to leave the scene.

Correct, never said it was there fault but it was still wrong nonetheless..

The amended police report obtained by KGW now says that there were four people in the car, not three, and that one person was seriously injured.

That tells me the first report was wrong. My posts are in direct relation to your post here..

I suppose you think that the people who reported injuries later (after they were denied insurance compensation and probably after speaking to an attorney) are more credible than the police who arrived on the scene almost immediately?

In this case their credibility isn't the issue but the facts they reported are, which changed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:



I'm not saying that her claim is entirely bogus, but it could end up inflated.

She chose to walk away from the scene.

People who claim suh is a liar because he said no one needed an ambulance are way off base, and that's the main issue I have with his treatment in is thread.

Choosing to walk away from the scene doesn't mean that she did or did not have an injury, it quite simply has nothing to do with the validity at all. If she is claiming paralysis then yeah, but she had a cut and a black eye. I am not sure what would be inflated about the claim, she had a cut and a bruised eye. If the cut leaves a rather visible scar she will be entitled to a rather nice little settlement. If there is no scarring the value of her claim goes down. It really doesn't matter how Suh was at fault (less DUI or some other impairment), it just matters that he is. It also doesn't matter that he said nobody was injured. Her claims worth is what the injuries sustained warrant. So if you're not saying her claim is bogus, I fail to understand the argument. Nobody, or at least VERY few, are saying Suh is a terrible person. But he has a growing image problem and this doesn't help one bit. I am not gonna speculate on what Suh did or didn't say, and why. I wasn't there. My whole argument has been the validity of the passengers claim. These things happen, doesn't make Suh a bad person, I was one adjuster of about 80 injury adjuster at my office, and I received roughly 3 new accidents a day or about 15/week. Point being, there are a crap load of injury accidents every day.
 
Last edited:
Granted, it should be limited to her actual costs of recovery, but often that exceeds the actual costs in cases like these. It really depends how hard his insurance company and/or private lawyers want to fight it. She will be claiming all sorts of things like negligent infliction of emotional distress and the like... these are "soft claims" which could lead to pretty big money settlements.

And no, I don't think 5 stitches, even in the face, constitutes a "serious" injury in need of ambulance assistance (which is what this entire thread bases the "lie" accusation on ... i.e. when he said no one needed an ambulance, he was lying).

I don't feel like I addressed this well in my original response. 3rd party liability claims consist of 2 parts, always. Actual damages (medical bills, lost wages) and as you call it emotional distress (or as we called it, pain and suffering) which is obvioulsy the amount above and beyond actuall expenses incurred. Regarding his insurance company and his lawyers, his lawyers would only get involved if claimed damages were in excess of what his insurance limits are. If he only has minumum limits (i.e 25/50/15 in OR I believe) he is quite simply not very smart for doing that. Not sure what you mean by "soft claim" in this regard. This is how 99% of auto injury accidents settle out. Laws in states are VERY clear that any claimant is entitled to pain and suffering. And no, they don't always lead to "big money", they certainly can but not very often. Of course this is all dependent on the injury.

5 stitches to the face is very much a "serious" injury if it has some scarring involved. Maybe it doesn't require ambulance assistance per se, but it can be VERY serious. Nothing that would threaten Suh's limits provided he has ample coverage. But I will tell you, at the company I worked, only the senior claims adjusters handled that stuff, it can be pretty tricky. We simply don't know much about this girl, but just for the sake of argument to clue you in on how serious these can be, let's say this young lady is a model. Now she has a scar above her eye effectivley ending her career, or severly cutting down what she makes. You don't think that's serious?
 

And BTW, the police credibility is the same as the attorney or the claims adjuster. In other words, they aren't a witness to the accident, therefore their credibility is just like anybody elses, relying on what people tell them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top