Oberlin Sues Insurers who Denied Coverage for Gibson Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't they have written statements by the insurance company that they would or would not pay?

I only know the broad outlines of this case, so grain of salt. But a lot of times, the plaintiff will throw the kitchen sink at the defendant in terms of an array of claims. Maybe one or two of the claims are potentially covered even if the bulk of the claims are for alleged actions that aren't covered. So, the insurer will defend under a reservation of rights. They have a good faith obligation to provide a defense but do so without waiving their right to deny coverage depending on the facts that come out in litigation or the conclusions reached by a jury.

It sounds like the insurer has concluded that the verdict and judgment were based on acts or omissions by Oberlin that weren't covered under the various insurance agreements.

ya think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went down a rabbit hole reading into this case. I can’t find ANYTHING about the students’ claims that they were attacked by the bakery owners. The police report says the opposite of what the students claim (it says the students attacked the owners), bodycam cop footage says the students were beating the bakery owner when police arrived, a post-incident video from the bakery owners supports the police report account. It’s so bizarre! The lead perpetrator, charged with a felony, went to Andover, which just makes this all crazier. And one of the charged students was from DC, Woodrow Wilson HS. I can’t believe the students would just make up a story wholecloth, but I can’t find anything to prove they didn’t. Bizarre-o.

They got caught stealing, and claiming racism is generally a very effective way out of these kinds of problems nowadays.

That wasn't really the problem though. The university can't be liable for what the black students claimed. They were held liable because one of their administrators actually led a demonstration and accused the bakery of racism without any grounds for such an accusation. And then the university instead of saying sorry, we made a mistake, fought the bakery "tooth and nail" - leading to this huge judgment. I think they had some very bad legal advice (except of course their lawyers are getting paid a lot for the protracted litigation).

I suspect that the know-it-all college administrators ignored the advice of their lawyers. I seriously doubt their lawyers ever advised them to take this case to trial.

You may be right. The school has been recalcitrant through this whole sad episode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went down a rabbit hole reading into this case. I can’t find ANYTHING about the students’ claims that they were attacked by the bakery owners. The police report says the opposite of what the students claim (it says the students attacked the owners), bodycam cop footage says the students were beating the bakery owner when police arrived, a post-incident video from the bakery owners supports the police report account. It’s so bizarre! The lead perpetrator, charged with a felony, went to Andover, which just makes this all crazier. And one of the charged students was from DC, Woodrow Wilson HS. I can’t believe the students would just make up a story wholecloth, but I can’t find anything to prove they didn’t. Bizarre-o.

They got caught stealing, and claiming racism is generally a very effective way out of these kinds of problems nowadays.

That wasn't really the problem though. The university can't be liable for what the black students claimed. They were held liable because one of their administrators actually led a demonstration and accused the bakery of racism without any grounds for such an accusation. And then the university instead of saying sorry, we made a mistake, fought the bakery "tooth and nail" - leading to this huge judgment. I think they had some very bad legal advice (except of course their lawyers are getting paid a lot for the protracted litigation).

I suspect that the know-it-all college administrators ignored the advice of their lawyers. I seriously doubt their lawyers ever advised them to take this case to trial.

The place where they were let down is by the GC. The GC should have taken control of things and stopped the school support and this right away. Either this did not happen or the GC was too weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oberlin must have the worst legal team. Wouldn't they have written statements by the insurance company that they would or would not pay? Also, Oberlin could have just apologized! Why didn't their lawyers tell them to apologize!

I suspect two things happened: their lawyer told them to apologize and settle, but Oberlin ignored legal advice, or their lawyer is a staff member and as bought into Oberlin’s own narrative (where Oberlin is a hero in their own mind) as the deans and management, so could not give good legal advice.

A normal lawyer with the fact pattern would have advised settlement and apology.

[Anonymous]

A couple of years ago, I read a story that contained comments about Oberlin College's advice from the school's outside counsel. I cannot recall the comments, but I do recall that my impression was that these folks and their advisors were not responding in a reasonable or dignified manner. Seemed to be obsessed with a self-righteous type attitude and legal advice that favored going to court over settling. Not sure whether this advice was from in-house counsel or outside counsel--although the trial lawyers who are almost always outside counsel were in agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the Gibson Bakery incident, Oberlin College is run and advised by idiots.

If Oberlin were based in San Francisco, then the school's actions would have been understandable, but still wrong.

This is one case where almost everyone is cheering for the insurance companies.

They aren’t idiots. They are narcissists. I suspect they are still angry and confused over why the imaginary reality they constructed didn’t turn out to be true, because like true narcissists they constructed a complex imaginary world where they were the victims. I’m sure they are angry and confused as to why the bakery fought back.

San Francisco just recalled school board members of the same ilk. I wouldn’t bet that SF would tolerate this blinding narcissism better.

You should hop on over to the Relationships forum here, where every other post ends up with someone like you diagnosing narcissism, based on nothing at all.

I don't have any relationship to Oberlin or a kid there, but the Oberlin hate on DCUM is out of all proportion and has nothing to do with the college's educational capability. Maybe you need to focus less on the supposed narcissism of an institution (is that even possible, medically? We'll wait) and focus more on why you and others here are so intensely invested in bashing a place where you didn't go to school and your kids don't and won't go to school. Before you ask: I'm not exactly invested in defending Oberlin, and the Gibson case never should have gone as far as it did (the college should never have doubled down the way it did), but I do loathe knee-jerk bashing on DCUM....

Negatives of Oberlin:

An administration which made incredibly dull decisions in the Gibsons' bakery lawsuit.

The school by virtue of its conduct has little appreciation of working people in town.

The school is expensive, calling into question its value - hardly unique for many private colleges in our current environment.

The school has some of the worst social mobility scores. They put a lot of effort into diversity but it doesn't apparently produce great outcomes in terms of social mobility. Perhaps the conservatory which is excellent, drives some of this as music is a very challenging and competitive business.

In the 70's - and I knew the athletic director back then - Oberlin was a very highly ranked liberal arts school. It has fallen radically in the rankings - from the top 5 to near 50th. Rankings are not the be all and end all but not a good sign.

This having all been said, Oberlin could be a good fit for some students - if they can afford it. But if you asked me in the 70's whether Oberlin would lose students to Ohio State, then with a reputation as one of the worst schools in the Big 10, I would have said "no way". But that is what is happening today.

None of this is a knee jerk reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the Gibson Bakery incident, Oberlin College is run and advised by idiots.

If Oberlin were based in San Francisco, then the school's actions would have been understandable, but still wrong.

This is one case where almost everyone is cheering for the insurance companies.

They aren’t idiots. They are narcissists. I suspect they are still angry and confused over why the imaginary reality they constructed didn’t turn out to be true, because like true narcissists they constructed a complex imaginary world where they were the victims. I’m sure they are angry and confused as to why the bakery fought back.

San Francisco just recalled school board members of the same ilk. I wouldn’t bet that SF would tolerate this blinding narcissism better.

You should hop on over to the Relationships forum here, where every other post ends up with someone like you diagnosing narcissism, based on nothing at all.

I don't have any relationship to Oberlin or a kid there, but the Oberlin hate on DCUM is out of all proportion and has nothing to do with the college's educational capability. Maybe you need to focus less on the supposed narcissism of an institution (is that even possible, medically? We'll wait) and focus more on why you and others here are so intensely invested in bashing a place where you didn't go to school and your kids don't and won't go to school. Before you ask: I'm not exactly invested in defending Oberlin, and the Gibson case never should have gone as far as it did (the college should never have doubled down the way it did), but I do loathe knee-jerk bashing on DCUM....

Negatives of Oberlin:

An administration which made incredibly dull decisions in the Gibsons' bakery lawsuit.

The school by virtue of its conduct has little appreciation of working people in town.

The school is expensive, calling into question its value - hardly unique for many private colleges in our current environment.

The school has some of the worst social mobility scores. They put a lot of effort into diversity but it doesn't apparently produce great outcomes in terms of social mobility. Perhaps the conservatory which is excellent, drives some of this as music is a very challenging and competitive business.

In the 70's - and I knew the athletic director back then - Oberlin was a very highly ranked liberal arts school. It has fallen radically in the rankings - from the top 5 to near 50th. Rankings are not the be all and end all but not a good sign.

This having all been said, Oberlin could be a good fit for some students - if they can afford it. But if you asked me in the 70's whether Oberlin would lose students to Ohio State, then with a reputation as one of the worst schools in the Big 10, I would have said "no way". But that is what is happening today.

None of this is a knee jerk reaction.

Agree completely.

—Obie alum

[Anonymous]

This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

On expenses, the tuition is basically the same as every other prestigious private college, but meets full financial need and has generous merit . It hss a 1.2 billion endowment. I assume that, in a pretty good quarter, the endowment makes more than the entire judgment.

On ranking, the criteria changed. Plugging in the stats of the conservatory does bring some numbers down. But at the same time, the conservatory remains excellent and a fundamental part of the school and its intellectual life.

One point from the article that has not been noted in this chain. The article said that the college strongly urged the insurers to settle the case before trial when there was an opportunity to settle for less than 10 million. Based on this fact, it seems that the college was not on some litigation crusade, and it was insurers who said no. If true, the insurers will have to pay the bulk of the amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

The incident happened Nov 9, 2016, which is less than 6 years and 9 months ago. (Maybe 6.75 years is almost a decade if you took math at OBerlin?)

The university administration defended their position as recently as Aug 30, 2022, which is less than a year ago.

All water under the bridge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

The incident happened Nov 9, 2016, which is less than 6 years and 9 months ago. (Maybe 6.75 years is almost a decade if you took math at OBerlin?)

The university administration defended their position as recently as Aug 30, 2022, which is less than a year ago.

All water under the bridge?

+You forgot that two days ago Oberlin made another catastrophically poor decision to sure it’s insurers which has thrown the college back into the news. Had it not done so, this thread would not have appeared

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

On expenses, the tuition is basically the same as every other prestigious private college, but meets full financial need and has generous merit . It hss a 1.2 billion endowment. I assume that, in a pretty good quarter, the endowment makes more than the entire judgment.

On ranking, the criteria changed. Plugging in the stats of the conservatory does bring some numbers down. But at the same time, the conservatory remains excellent and a fundamental part of the school and its intellectual life.

One point from the article that has not been noted in this chain. The article said that the college strongly urged the insurers to settle the case before trial when there was an opportunity to settle for less than 10 million. Based on this fact, it seems that the college was not on some litigation crusade, and it was insurers who said no. If true, the insurers will have to pay the bulk of the amount.

That sounds good, but Oberlin isn't prestigious anymore yet it is still charging like it is. Aside from the conservancy, Oberlin is not in competition with Williams and Amherst or even Hamilton and Colby. It's much closer to Dickenson in the pecking order and schools in that range throw around merit because they know that nobody takes the tuition number seriously

[Anonymous]

I would guess the vast majority of posts on this chain are from a small number of posters that have it in for Oberlin and an agenda to promote that post multiple times.

Of course they sued for coverage.

I have a rising college freshman attending a different LAC and a number of friends with kids there. It would have been a good likely for my student except for location. Strong education and a solid endowment and merit aid available.

I just do not hear about this suit except for on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oberlin must have the worst legal team. Wouldn't they have written statements by the insurance company that they would or would not pay? Also, Oberlin could have just apologized! Why didn't their lawyers tell them to apologize!

Then how would they be speaking TRUTH TO POWER? They would essentially be admitting the oppressors were right and that the oppressed students were wrong. And we can’t have that.

+1
They leaned all the way in on their social justice garbage and look where it got them. As the PP said, they could have SINCERELY apologized, admitted how wrong they were, and paid damages to the Gibson family. But they chose not to. Oh well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And they're fighting to try and make the insurers pay. They just can't stop being garbage human beings!

THIS ^^
I hope they go bankrupt, but their idiot alumni will probably band together to pay the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the Gibson Bakery incident, Oberlin College is run and advised by idiots.

If Oberlin were based in San Francisco, then the school's actions would have been understandable, but still wrong.

This is one case where almost everyone is cheering for the insurance companies.

They aren’t idiots. They are narcissists. I suspect they are still angry and confused over why the imaginary reality they constructed didn’t turn out to be true, because like true narcissists they constructed a complex imaginary world where they were the victims. I’m sure they are angry and confused as to why the bakery fought back.

San Francisco just recalled school board members of the same ilk. I wouldn’t bet that SF would tolerate this blinding narcissism better.

+ a million