Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Yep. We have a family member who was just informed that they are losing their homeowners insurance unless they pop for a new roof. They never had a visit from a rep, site visit etc.
I am hoping that the Supreme Court eventually sees drones as fundamentally different than helicopters or airplanes with regard to being allowed to look down on private property. It’s one thing to pass over in an airplane, or hover briefly in a helicopter. Further, either of those are limited on how long they can stay without detection and cannot explore otherwise invisible areas. Drones can. I truly feel that it’s an invasion of privacy for an insurance company, government agency, etc to operate a drone without a warrant (or court order for private sector) in areas that would otherwise be considered secure areas off-limits to the public.
So an insurance company should just insure your family members house without inspecting it? If the roof is in poor shape, why would they want to insure it?
Didn’t say that. What I object to is them being able to essentially trespass rather than being above board and paying a visit. Would you want to be at work and look on your cameras, only to see some person you don’t know poking around your property? I don’t see the drone as any different just because it isn’t touching the ground. Personally I believe that if anyone flies a drone over my property without a warrant or my permission, I should be able to take it out. Yes, I’m fully aware I cannot.
My other gripe is that insurance companies collect ever-increasing premiums, while simultaneously attempting to deny paying out when it’s time. As a person who pays various premiums, I understand that I benefit when the insurance company doesn’t give coverage to homes in severe disrepair, drivers with poor driving history, etc. However, there’s a difference between not insuring true homes in disrepair, and not insuring anything that could even remotely result in them paying out. They have lobbied their way into mandated existence, while simultaneously operating as a for-profit company.
But all in all, it’s the sneaky invasion of privacy that really pisses me off.
With regard to my family member, I’d counter with (a) the roof is older, but not what I’d consider unserviceable and doesn’t leak (b) the home is paid off and (c) if they believe the home has been degrading to a point of cancellation, it seems as though a month’s warning before cancellation is ridiculous. You can’t even get a roofer out that soon.
Defamation cases rarely ever pan out since you need to provide solid proof and evidence that what was said caused monetary loss. I don’t see that happening.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Crashing sucks, hospital's suck, but they should have sued gravity.
Man, gravity owes me a lot of money. It lied to me and beat me up for the better part of 3 decades.
It’s a variation on the casino model. The house always wins.
They could pull about 10 quotes from this thread alone.
I forgot how mentioning any political figure in 2024 will derail any conversation you’re currently having. So I erased my last post to bring everybody back to the subject at hand. My bad
So...there was no 50? No person riding for another? No signing of the release form? Feel bad for the family, but he lost control and crashed over the berm?
Pretty standard "yeah we signed a release but we don't think it should apply because we don't want it to" part of the complaint. Nothing in the original complaint about others signing the release etc... so yeah.... the argument seems to be that the track was the problem and anyone who so much as hauled dirt there is to blame.
“Motocross rider crashed riding/racing on a motocross track and is suing that motocross track because they got hurt”- Is this at least correct?
Do you have the complete pleadings? Can you point me where to look for them?
https://trellis.law/case/bc695848/zachary-price-taylor-vs-county-los-an…
Can get free 14 day trial. There's limits on how many documents you can get but most of them are just procedural things that aren't going to be interesting.
That’s exactly how I feel. Did his kid crash in a race setting, and did he sue track for his injuries from said crash? The answer is yes and beyond that really doesn’t matter.
IMO, once your tire hits the dirt you have made the decision that the tracks risk ratio was acceptable, period. If you truly believe a track is too dangerous you would have to be mentally challenged to ride on it. Coming back after the fact once you've hurt yourself and crying about it just makes you look like a bitch...
I will say when Bruce sued Washougal when he got hit be Jared McNeil's bike while "working" (spectating for free) as a flagger no one around here wanted to talk about it openly for fear of being ostracized. I don't have that problem & posted the info on Fb & other places & conforonted Bruce in person about it. His story didn't match the court docs but it was interesting to hear his side..........The only thing I see a NDA, if there even is one, covering in these cases is the exact terms of the settlement. I can't see why it would cover the parties opinion of what happened.....
Do you know for a fact that the insurance company isn't behind the lawsuit? I haven't seen anything that shows that they aren't yet. What I do see is a lot of people that don't understand what and how a subrogated law suit works.
Wouldn’t the attorneys be the (medical) insurance company’s in-house staff? Is it possible to check who the insurance company is, and who they have on retainer and/or payroll? Honest questions here, not trying to be sarcastic.
Seems as though that could potentially rule in/out who is really behind the lawsuit.
Pit Row
Typically no they usually have local outside council to handle the cases and they filed under the name of the insured.
Insurance companies contract out work regularly. I know several attorneys who have been retained to handle local issues for insurance companies.
Also, a very quick online search confirmed that in California the policyholders can be listed as the plaintiffs on subrogation suits, so having the Taylors listed doesn’t really make a difference in figuring out whether it’s being driven by them or their insurance company.
Gotcha. Guess I just always assumed they’d have full-time staff dedicated to this. That said, I can think of a number of good reasons to have local counsel (familiarity with local courts/judges, not being subject to a perception of “the big city attorneys from out of town,” etc).
New video calling somebody out.
The main thing that makes me skeptical about this being purely subrogation case is that the usual suspects in the media who are de facto PR for the industry haven't let everyone know that's what this is. My suspicion is that they know it isn't that and the best they can do to run cover is talk about the track being sketchy, float the idea of insurance being involved, tell us all the parties would like to tell us more but they just can't because NDA....
Everything I’ve seen, points to RT being behind it and not the insurance company. And even if it is the insurance company, which I do not think it is, we have all had insurance companies up our asses. I personally know zero people in my 48 years around this sport that have been forced to sue. And most people I know have a lot less money than Rich and Family.
On that note, until I hear there was a water truck Or dozer parked right on the other side of the berm, I think this is Dirty.
So your strong opinion is based on feeling and you really have no proof or idea? Until there is proof that it's the Taylor family and not the insurance companies that are behind this I'm not going to buy into the shitbag Kooksey narrative, the guy is a douchbag and has many axes to grind with many people in the industry.....
Its been obvious from your first post that your opinion is based on feelings and you have no proof or idea. But these hypocritical posts from you keep me entertained.
As I have said multiple times I have seen no proof that it isn't the insurance company pursuing this...do you have any proof otherwise? No of course not so just fuck off...show me facts or just shut the fuck up!
Lol facts are he could make a video saying chase went 1-1 at hangtown and you would enter the thread with your normal bs saying he's a liar. Anyone that hasn't seen how biased and wrong you are most of the time can visit the bike claim thread.
Simple question dipshit...do you know for a fact that the insurance company is not behind the lawsuit? I have no bias I'm just asking for proof and nobody has been able to deliver...but there you are sucking the Kooksey teet and trying to do the same shit he does by dealing with zero fact and 100% speculation....prove me wrong and show me facts...
I’m not sure how anyone can listen to the Kooksey guy, he’s like nails on a chalkboard. That’s all I got to add
Post a reply to: LACR lawsuit