@William Stewart What I was stating was that no one will be suing you unless you are grossly negligent. I am not suggesting that insurance is a bad thing, simply that if you keep up the property , "litigation" against "you" is highly, highly unlikely.
@Jason Bott Thank you for the example, however, the details are clearly important. First of all, just because an attorney is retained does not a "lawsuit" make. My input was relevant to "litigation", not claims. The adjuster is willing to pay out because they see reasonable risk of losing in court. Which means that in your example, a reasonable argument could be made, that the landlords negligence or influence was the primary cause of the tenant's injury.
While I respect you holding back the details, I must point out, that details are the ONLY important factor here. You can't just declare your example is valid without defining your example. A property policy adjuster does not simply "pay out" whenever someone can not shoot straight. Additionally, correct me if I'm wrong,but many policies and insurers will not cover any medical costs in the event of attempted suicide by the insured who, in your example, is not even the person who tried to off themself.
I think it's safe to assume that the tenant in your example, lived. As well, in the context which you provided the example, the claim is regarding the tenant's medical bills. Other types of claims could include family members seeking damages for pain and suffering, in which case, the landlord must have some significant involvement and influence in how and why the suicide took place. Or the landlords property policy seeking damages for cleanup costs associated with a suicide, In which case, your example would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. That being said, according to your example one of the two is accurate?
1. The tenant who attempted suicide retained an attorney, and is now either involved in, or threatening a suit against the landlords property insurance.
2. The tenant who attempted suicide had an insurance policy (health, life, E&O). The insurer of that policy had paid out on some claim/s (medical, pain and suffering..etc), and is now attempting to recover some of the costs they sustained, as well as attorney's fees (and maybe court costs) by threatening, or bringing suit against the insurer of the landlords property policy.
If one of those two is accurate, I would love to know what the tenant's counsel, or the tenant's insurance company's counsel is claiming as having been the landlord's avoidance of responsibility or negligence, and how it relates to the tenants suicide attempt.
@William Stewart , just to be clear... even in Jason's example, the landlord is not involved in any litigation. The landlords insurance company is. And again, i am not suggesting insurance is a bad thing, however, I highly doubt that any attorney would take a case for a tenant claiming their attempted suicide was the result of an uninsured landlord's negligence or avoidance of responsibility for 180k (or more), unless they had reason to believe the landlord had the money.
More clearly stated, Jason's example, most likely, displays the dark side of insurance, where the only reason there is potentially a case against the landlords insurance company (not the landlord), is because the landlord had insurance.
I would like to state that I believe anything is possible, and Jason's example may contain a victim of some serious negligence. In which case, it would be very unfortunate for the tenant. But if not, I'm sorry, I do not agree with insurance companies being allowed to sue other insurance companies regardless of the reason. The result is innocent party's insurance company adjuster's just signing off on 180k payouts because John Doe forgot to pick up his paxil script and was too lazy to go to CVS and pick up a new bottle of tylenol, resulting in everyone's policy premiums going up.
Lastly and repetitiously, no litigation was brought against the landlord.
