A Tennessee man took an international Pizza chain to court over what he called an “excessively hard crouton.”
The claimant alleged he was eating at a nearby Pizza parlor when he allegedly broke a partial denture as he bit into a crouton.
His lawyer initially attempted to deal with the situation through insurance, but they filed suit when negotiations stalled.
His law suit states the crouton caused personal injuries and damages. He stated in the suit the Pizza parlor caused damage to his denture by “negligently serving at defendant’s restaurant excessively hard croutons.”
Of course the liberal Judge saw things his way and awarded him $2,400 along with interest and court costs.
But despite the legal question having been decided, there might be a bigger mystery at hand here. ”The real question is who actually orders salad at a pizza parlor? And the bigger question is who manufactured the croutons???? That would be the real company to sue!
Submitted By: laird on April 1, 2015
We received an injury for an employee that was injured in a company talent show at the annual company picinic. The employee did the splits at the end of her singing stint and severely dislocated her leg. She went down into the splits very fast and her entire right leg turned the opposite direction. She screamed bloody murder and could not get up so an ambulance was called right away. The paramedics twisted her leg back to normal and off she went to the hospital.
She has filed a claim for an orthopedic injury to her right leg and also filed a psyche claim as she says she was embarrassed in front of the entire company. She does not want to return to work place EVER.
This is going to be a tricky one. We are hoping she changes her mind as time goes on. The employer has visited her in the hospital and assured her that everyone is very sympathetic to her injury and no one will make fun of her. And advised that everyone wants her to return to work. She has not sought any psychiatric care. We have 90 days to accept or deny the psychiatric component.
Submitted By: loser on March 31, 2015
A Pomona man and ex-wife arrested for workers’ compensation insurance fraud. Detectives from the California Department of Insurance arrested Gonzalo Sandoval, 51, and his ex-wife Socorro Lopez, 65, of Paramount, on multiple felony counts of workers’ compensation fraud including making a false claim to obtain compensation and attempted perjury.
Lopez allegedly submitted fraudulent claims close to $100,000 for in-home health care services she claimed she provided to Sandoval years after he injured his back at work. The couple both testified that the claims were true, although video footage taken of Sandoval contradicted the testimony. ”Insurance fraud is a multi-billion dollar enterprise in California. Sandoval and Lopez didn’t just cheat their insurer; all Californians end up paying the real price for workers’ compensation fraud through higher premiums as those costs are passed on to consumers,” said Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “Thanks to the hard work of department detectives, these scammers are behind bars and can no longer take advantage of the systems in place to help those who really need them.”
In 2000, Sandoval sustained a work related injury to his back. In 2012, Sandoval’s ex-wife Socorro Lopez filed a lien with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for $47,500 claiming she provided home health care services for Sandoval from 2010 to 2012. After filing the lien, Lopez and Sandoval both provided sworn statements regarding the home health care services performed. Video footage obtained by Liberty Mutual showed Sandoval performing activity that contradicted their testimony. A year later, in 2013, Lopez submitted an additional invoice to Liberty Mutual in the amount of $85,440 for services she provided from 2010 to 2013. Lopez received $41,000 she was not owed. Sandoval was booked at the Inmate Reception Center in Los Angeles and Lopez was booked at Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood. Their bail is set at $30,000 each and both individuals are facing five years in state prison if convicted.
This case is being prosecuted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
Submitted By: admin on March 30, 2015
Recently a court in Germany ruled in favor of mans’ right to pee standing up. A landlord tried to keep part of a tenant’s deposit for allegedly damaging the marble floor of a toilet due to his bad aim.
Apparently in Germany there is an ongoing debate about whether men should stand or sit and it is no laughing matter in Germany, where some toilets have red traffic-style signs forbidding the standing position. There is also a derogatory term for men who sit and pee – “Sitzpinkler” – which implies that it is not masculine behavior.
A Judge in Germany said men who insist on standing cannot be held to account for collateral damage. “Despite growing domestication of men in this matter, urinating while standing up is still widespread,” he said.
Submitted By: betty on March 30, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court gave a former UPS driver another chance to show her employer discriminated against her when she was pregnant, sending the case back to a lower court.
At issue is an employer’s responsibilities under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Peggy Young, a UPS driver, said the company discriminated against her when she became pregnant by not assigning her light work. The company contended that it obeyed the law because it provided light work only in certain situations; it did not single out pregnant women, the company said. (But UPS changed that policy in January, saying it tries to accommodate pregnant workers.)
Today’s 6-3 decision was read by Justice Stephen Breyer. He was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.
NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported last December on the case brought by Young, who had been driving a UPS delivery truck for four years when she became pregnant. UPS asked that she contact the company nurse, who asked Young for a doctor’s note. The doctor, Nina reported, thought the request for a note “odd,” but wrote one that recommended that Young, almost all of whose pickups involved envelopes and small packages, not lift more than 20 pounds.
But the UPS nurse said that the company didn’t provide alternative work to off-work incidents. Young lost her job and UPS health insurance for nine months.
Here’s more from Nina’s story:
“Young sued UPS for back pay and damages under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. UPS fought the suit in court, contending that it treated Young just as it treated other employees who were limited in their ability to lift as a result of events that took place off the job. UPS’s policy is that drivers are supposed to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. It didn’t matter to the company that Young’s actual job required her to lift more than 20 pounds only a few times a month, and that a co-worker was willing to help.”
The Associated Press says today’s decision reflects a middle ground.
“Courts must now re-examine Young’s case with a more accepting view of the discrimination claim,” the AP said. “UPS and other employers facing similar suits still are able to argue their policies were legal because they were based on seniority or some other acceptable reason.”
Submitted By: admin on March 25, 2015
We received a claim for an auto accident for a mother of six who died last week after her husband backed a trailer into her while leaving the house for work.
She was killed instantly in in the freak accident. She tragically leaves behind six children including 11-month-old twins, an 8 year old girl, an 11-year-old girl, a 12 year old boy and a 14 year old boy as well as her husband.
Her husband was backing his large truck out of their yard Wednesday morning, when the trailer he was pulling struck and rolled over his wife. The police have ruled out any foul play. We are ready to pay all benefits and just received notice from an attorney that he is representing the six children who will be suing their father for their mothers death in order to establish trust funds on the settlement and to protect the money from their father.
Submitted By: loser on March 24, 2015
One of our insureds is a restaurant owner. Every day the restaurant puts together an employee meal that is free to all employees who chose to eat it. If they do not want to eat the meal they may purchase food at 50% off. The restaurant is being sued by ONE employee who claims that the restaurant always makes food that does not fit into her Muslim oriented diet.
She states in her law suit she feels that she is being retaliated against for seeking the right to exercise her religion. She said in her deposition that she thinks the cooks purposely make foods she is not able to eat just to screw with her. She said they make a lot of pork dishes.
She thinks the cook purposely made beautiful cupcakes and cookies to entice her as when she went to eat them was told ” you cannot eat those as they vanilla in them and vanilla extract contains alcohol.” And Muslims are not allowed to have alcohol.
We of course we have to aggressively fight this lawsuit. She would probably also sue if she had eaten the food and then found out the food was not on her religious diet.
Submitted By: danielle on March 18, 2015
Claimant made a claim on her boyfriend’s homeowner’s policy when she fractured her back in the middle of the night when she fell down a fire pole hole in her boyfriend’s house. She testified at her deposition that she was having drunken sex with said boyfriend and woke up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and whoops….fell down the file pole hole–naked. Her boyfriend slid down the pole (also naked) to help her. The case settled after her deposition.
Submitted By: SoftKitty on March 18, 2015
Enter to Win Crazy Gift Cards -- Up to $100.00! You would be Crazy not to submit your bizarro claims stories for the chance to win up to $100.00 in gift cards if your story is laugh out loud funniest, cringe-worthiest or craziest. Submit your Crazy claims today -- just make sure not to use any real names of people or companies. You could be a winner!