Kidnapper Sues Hostages for Breach of Contract

Two years after the hostage incident that happened last September, 2009 inside the house of Jared and Lindsay Rowley, the suspect is now suing his two for breach of contract.

The Kansas couple was held hostage by Jesse Dimmick of Aurora, Colorado last 2009. Due to the hostage incident, Dimmick was shot at his back by a police resulting to serious physical injury which almost killed him. His hospital bills reached $160,000 which he cannot pay in any way.

During the time of the said hostage incident, the involved couple was newlywed. The couple stated that Dimmick invaded their house which brought emotional distress to both of them. They filed murder case and other charges to the suspect which brought him now in jail. He was sentenced with 11 years of imprisonment.

As a counter complaint to the couple’s lawsuit, Dimmick filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the Rowley couple. Allegedly, the couple violated their oral contract to cover up his crime in exchange for money.

The Rowley couple affirms that there was no such agreement and if there was any, it was null and void due to lack of legality.

In his lawsuit filed last month, Dimmick is claiming for a $235,000 for a breach of contract. He claims that he suffered a gunshot at his back that almost killed him and brought him into hospital indebtedness.

According to a news report at USA Today, the police officer who shot Dimmick said that his riffle accidentally discharged during the hostage incident.

Dimmick also named the City of Topeka in his breach of contract lawsuit, seeking for $75,000.

The couple has filed a motion to dismiss Dimmick’s lawsuit and apparently the judge is considering dismissing the same.

It’s very absurd that the hostage suspect still have the guts to file for a breach of contract lawsuit. This is not a kind of business wherein if one does not obey what has been set into the agreement or terms of condition, the other one can file for a breach of contract. The reality is, he committed an actual crime. Therefore, he deserves to be penalized and not to let him spin the law.

Share |

Anthem Blue Cross Sued For Breach of Contract over Out-of-State Liver Transplant

Insurance companies are not your friend.

That is the first thing you should learn when dealing with insurance adjusters.

Sure they will try to be friendly with you at first but you should remember that when doing their job, their primary duty is to make money for their company.

I’m not saying that they are bad people; I’m just saying that they are doing their jobs.

Take this latest lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross.

Ephram Nehme claims that Anthem Blue Cross committed a breach-of-contract for not paying about $205,000 of medical costs related to the out-of-state liver transplant he undergone.

However, Blue Cross denied any wrongdoing since the operation was done outside the coverage territory of the company.

The real battleground lies in proving whether Nehme would have died if he waited to have his surgery in UCLA.

Nehme claims that is the case while Blue Cross believes that there are not enough evidence to support that.

The trial is still ongoing and who knows how the jury will decide.

Many people, including me, would of course sympathize with Nehme.

Morally, we all believe that it is the insurance company’s duty to cover those expenses.

However, insurance companies are private companies who, of course are looking to make profit.

Less claims covered also means greater profit.

And Insurance companies have denied coverage to cases with fewer reasons than this one.

And they actually have valid legal arguments to support their defense.

Most insurance policies state the terms of their coverage explicitly.

Hopefully, Nehme will win, but I will not be surprised if he doesn’t.

Share |

City Sued By IT Contractor for Breach of Contract, Violations of Trade Secret, and Copyright Laws

That is the problem when an agreement does not work as the parties had hoped; it can turn to a bitter dispute and an expensive lawsuit.

The City of San Diego is now being sued by Axon Data Solutions Inc for alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement.

The IT Company is now asking $5.59 million from the city.

According to San Diego Processing Corp, a city owned agency, they have terminated the contract with Axon because the contractor failed to meet deadlines numerous times.

Axon did not contest the right of the city to terminate the contract but claimed that it is subject to payment of all Axon outstanding invoices for work completed, payment for any work in progress but not yet completed, and also Axon's wind-down costs.

They claimed that the city has not paid outstanding invoices but has begun using the codes processes they designed.

These actions, they claim, are unauthorized use of Axon's trade secrets and copyright protected materials.

Who is right?

Well that depends on the terms of the independent contractor agreement that they agreed upon.

Intellectual property right laws about copyright and trade secrets can be complicated.

Aside from the payment for the completed work of Axiom, the important question is who owns the completed codes and processes that are already being used.

Is it Axon, who actually developed the said codes or the city who commissioned the contractor to develop it?

All of those will depend upon the actual details of their agreement.

Share |