It's been a typical week so far: insurers are 4 for 4; insureds/victims are 0 for 4

The Court of Appeals announced decisions in four cases over the last three days:

1.  A purchaser of "30 year shingles" that failed within 15 years was told he waited too long and his case was dismissed.

2.  An insured whose house burned lost his claim because his Proof of Loss didn't have a "sworn signature," even though the insurer admitted telling him it had enough information to process his claim.

3. A malpractice claim was lost because the Court prevented the patient's attorneys from cross-examining the surgeon about the content of the medical records.  The court deemed the subject matter "collateral" and not relevant to the Defendant's credibility, even though it was related to the surgeon's discussion of the case with the head of surgery and was not "peer review."

4.  The injury claim brought by a woman who fell in the parking ramp at Bishop Airport was dismissed, even though the hole in which she fell was covered by an inch of snow, wasn't noticed by one of the Airport policemen who investigated (and not "open and obvious" and even though the company managing the ramp had reported the hole "several" times without taking any action to fix it or warn of its presence.

Republican justice for the Party's special interest, insurance company friends.