Insurer Must Pay $10 Million for HIV Rescission

Friday, September 18, 2009

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered an insurance company to pay $10 million for wrongly revoking the insurance policy of a 17-year-old college student after he tested positive for HIV. The court called the 2002 decision by the insurance company "reprehensible."

Posted by silver_ironist at 10:31 AM | 18 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

silver_ironist

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2005/06/26
Visited 2009/11/20

Status: user

"Goldilocks Syndrome" Identified in Health Insurers (3 comments) ...

Soaring Copper Prices Indicate Recovery (67 comments) ...

Lender Lacks Docs, Judge Cancels Mortgage (14 comments) ...

Limbaugh Calls for Return to Segregated Buses (275 comments) ...

Insurer Must Pay $10 Million for HIV Rescission (18 comments) ...

One-footed Snake Found in China (8 comments) ...

Wilkerson: Cheney is Crazy (5 comments) ...

Homing Pigeon Beats DSL Line (4 comments) ...

Cheney for President? (22 comments) ...

Mentally Ill American Deported to Mexico (60 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

And it only took 7 years to get a verdict on such an obvious case.

The status quo, what Repubes find worth fighting for.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2009-09-17 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here's a more in depth look at the case.

#2 | Posted by American1st at 2009-09-17 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just out of curiosity, what will be the payout limit on HIV cases under the Dem "public option"?

#3 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-17 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just out of curiosity, what will be the payout limit on HIV cases under the Dem "public option"?

#3 | Posted by rightisright

There will be no rescission with a public option, so such cases will not be necessary. That was easy.

#4 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2009-09-18 03:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

And it only took 7 years to get a verdict on such an obvious case.

The status quo, what Repubes find worth fighting for.

#1 | Posted by Corky

It was Bush's fault.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-09-18 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Frivilous lawsuits like this are what is ruining health care in this country.

The most important aspect of Health Care is not whether or not US Citizens get the help they need.

THE MOST IMPORTANT thing is whether or not Insurance Companies can make a profit!

#6 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-09-18 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Meanwhile back at the insurance company accountants figure out whether paying the fine is still cheaper than providing the insurance in the future.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2009-09-18 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."

So? It's not like we expect an insurance company to actually incur costs or cover people. We loves them for their CEOs and Directors because we know Jayzuzz will make us one as soon as we get our GED.

The Right

#8 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-09-18 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't take it up the ass and you won't get HIV.
#9 | Posted by wurster | Flag: Send This Dolt The Memo

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-09-18 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Send This Dolt The Memo
#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Not it.
*holds finger to nose

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2009-09-18 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Don't take it up the ass and you won't get HIV.

#9 | Posted by wurster at 2009-09-18 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:has preexisting condition of mental retardation

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2009-09-18 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

This makes no sense at all. Why on earth would an insurance company not choose to do the right thing?

sMurphy

#12 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2009-09-18 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Doesn't sound like anybody knew he had HIV prior to his signing up for the insurance, so the company was in the wrong and the government right for stepping in and making the bastards pay.

The emo fucks pretending that corporations should have some sort of focus on doing the "right thing" instead of fulfilling it's purpose, to make money, just happen to be right this time.

#13 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-09-18 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whatdoyoubet this isn't the last ruling in this case? Roberts will do his best to overturn it, 15 or 20 years from now.

#14 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-09-18 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fortis was wrong. The kid didn't even know he had it

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2009-09-18 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Flag:has preexisting condition of mental retardation

---------

Popular affliction here.

#16 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-09-18 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Punitive damages should be even more than that. As someone posted, this is cheaper for the insurance company than revoking this reprehensible tactic of cutting off people that acted in good faith when they are in need. Fuckers.

#17 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-09-18 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was Bush's fault.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-09-18 10:53 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

For once you are actually making sense...

Bush did have 8 years to help out with health care, 6 years of it with control in the house and senate...

What'd he do instead?????

What gets me is saps like you RIR, Wheelchairborne, Tadpole, et al want to bitch about something you have no knowledge of.

#18 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2009-09-19 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag: