Obama has been using these to drum up sympathy for his cause, and it's time to make him own them.
Start calling them what they really are:
Obamaville
Spread the meme....
Posted on 10/31/2011 1:40:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Occupy Wall Street movement, which is ongoing and has now spread to a number of cities across the United States, will test both public and private entities when claims start rolling in, according to a risk-management expert.
While most cities are accustomed to demonstrations, they may not be prepared for an ongoing movement like OWS, says Lori Seidenberg, a member of the Risk and Insurance Management Society’s board of directors, serving as board liaison to the society’s Standards & Practices Committee.
“Something like this could not have been anticipated by any risk manager,” Seidenberg says. “I know there is always a chance of a gathering in a park, but I don’t think a prolonged occupation was on anybody’s radar.”
Seidenberg, also vice president of enterprise risk management for Centerline Capital Group in Manhattan, notes that while the perception is that Zuccotti park is a public space, it is owned by a private organization. “I can’t think that even they thought this would happen,” she says, pointing out that at any time, “the private owners can technically pull the plug on this.”
The reason they haven’t, she says, is that the owners don’t want a negative outcome, or appear to be unsympathetic to occupiers, “even though it’s causing them a lot of grief.”
As well as impacting the park itself, she says the protest has a big impact on local businesses. For example, even though portable johns are set up, there are not enough of them, meaning that protesters frequently request the use the facilities of nearby businesses.
This creates more potential for injuries on their premises and for loss of income, she says, adding, “I know a lot of businesses down there are hurting because the usual Wall St. regulars who eat in the restaurants are staying away. So they have contingent business-interruption loss.”
But even though they may be losing money, their loss of business is something that most likely would not be covered by their insurance policies, she explains, as the loss is not the result of government or civil authority.
“I think this is going to challenge some coverages, if people can’t get to the area or choose not to go there, or if it gets so bad that the city closes the park for health reasons. There is a lot of gray area in coverage and it should be interesting to see what the carriers decide,” she says.
And with potential liability issues, Seidenberg says there are more gray areas. Should someone be injured, such as a demonstrator, area employee or resident, “it is a privately owned park, so you would think the first recourse would be against the park owners, but definitely the city is involved.” She wonders if there is an indemnity agreement between the city and the park to provide coverage or pick up any claims made by the public.
Another consideration is that if a protester is injured on another person’s property, would the park owner be liable for that as well?
And if the occupiers are injured, but are there voluntarily, can they be held responsible for their own actions, or would they be able to follow the letter of the law and sue the property’s owner?
“Usually the intention of general liability is to cover accidental things that policyholders are responsible for,” Seidenberg says. “And you have to prove some level of negligence as well. But if this is something that can’t be anticipated, then you can’t really establish negligent or sudden and accidental.”
If sued, would the park owner in turn be able to sue the city? “I definitely think there is going to be subrogation potential and they will pursue subrogation to recoup costs—not just for lawsuits, but to maintain the park, and after they leave, to clean it up,” she says, noting that the OWS site has become a tent city consisting of a medical tent, media tent, food tent and more. She adds that some local residents are also having difficulties. “I’ve heard of cases where the protesters have damaged personal property. I also understand there have been confrontations [between protesters and local residents],” she says.
Public workers also are at risk. “The police who are there are being subjected to things day after day. Their public health and safety is in question,” she says. “I think you’ll start to see lawsuits coming from the people occupying Wall St. as well, and at what point do you determine liability?” she asks. “Is it something they caused themselves or was there an expectation that the police would protect them from certain things?”
“Usually the intention of general liability is to cover accidental things that policyholders are responsible for,” Seidenberg says. “And you have to prove some level of negligence as well. But if this is something that can’t be anticipated, then you can’t really establish negligent or sudden and accidental.”
If sued, would the park owner in turn be able to sue the city?
“I definitely think there is going to be subrogation potential and they will pursue subrogation to recoup costs—not just for lawsuits, but to maintain the park, and after they leave, to clean it up,” she says, noting that the OWS site has become a tent city consisting of a medical tent, media tent, food tent and more.
She adds that some local residents are also having difficulties. “I’ve heard of cases where the protesters have damaged personal property. I also understand there have been confrontations [between protesters and local residents],” she says.
Public workers also are at risk. “The police who are there are being subjected to things day after day. Their public health and safety is in question,” she says.
“I think you’ll start to see lawsuits coming from the people occupying Wall St. as well, and at what point do you determine liability?” she asks. “Is it something they caused themselves or was there an expectation that the police would protect them from certain things?”
Yep
These little communists bast!!!s are out to destroy America.
Gee, and the NYT’s never even figured this! Cretins!
Squatter’s rights
Most cases of adverse possession deal with boundary line disputes between two parties who hold clear title to their property. The term “squatter’s rights” has no actual legal meaning, but is generally used to refer to a specific form of adverse possession where the disseisor holds no title to any properties adjoining the property under dispute. In most jurisdictions of the United States, few squatters can meet the legal requirements for adverse possession.
If the squatter abandons the property for a period, or if the rightful owner effectively removes the squatter’s access even temporarily during the statutory period, or gives his permission, the “clock” usually stops. For example, if the required period in a given jurisdiction is twenty years and the squatter is removed after only 15 years, the squatter loses the benefit of that 15-year possession (i.e., the clock is reset at zero). If that squatter later retakes possession of the property, that squatter must, to acquire title, remain on the property for a full 20 years after the date on which the squatter retook possession. In this example, the squatter would have held the property for a total of 35 years (the original 15 years plus the later 20 years) to acquire title.
Depending on the jurisdiction, one squatter may or may not pass along continuous possession to another squatter, known as “tacking”, until the adverse possession period is complete. Tacking is valid only if the conveyance of the property from one adverse possesser to another is founded upon a written document (usually an erroneous deed), indicating “color of title.” This concept is known as privity, a requirement for tacking under some statutes. If tacking requires privity in the jurisdiction, a squatter claiming adverse possession without a foundation on a written document (claim of right) may not tack previous periods of adverse possession onto his own for purposes of running out the statutory period. A lawful owner may also restart the clock at zero by giving temporary permission for the occupation of the property, thus defeating the necessary “continuous and hostile” element. Evidence that a squatter paid rent to the owner would defeat adverse possession for that period.
So, if I owned a business and these useless eaters were keeping my customers away, could I sue the park owners for not evicting them?
It's right on target. I was thinking along these lines a few days ago.
It's just a matter of time before an actionable incident occurs.
Oh goody! Lawyers and insurance companies. This just gets better and better.
I wondered about that as soon as I learned that park in NYC was privately owned.
Aren’t the park owners risking personal liability by NOT evicting them? Seems like, at some point, the insurer would be able to show that the owners were negligent in the upkeep of the property.
The article is correct, if the surrounding businesses have no coverage for this type of loss they will sue the park owners. If they are covered then the insurance companies will sue the park owner.
I cannot conceive why the park owner would expose itself to such liability. Maybe Obama promised to indemnify them.
Obama has been using these to drum up sympathy for his cause, and it's time to make him own them.
Start calling them what they really are:
Spread the meme....
I read somewhere that the city has an agreement that requires the owners to provide open access.
They just found a dead guy in a tent at one Occupied location.
Open access is the same thing as running a campground? They have an agreement with the city to ignore their own rules against overnight camping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.