i'm going to say something very technically legal and unpopular about the paterno decision, so bear with me for a few tweets.
-
-
Replying to @Ugarles
the court didn't find that paterno knew anything in 1976. the insurance company alleged it but the court didn't make a factual determination
3 replies 3 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
the insurer said that the university violated the notice provision by not informing it of a potential claim because paterno was told in 1976
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ugarles
this was a motion for summary judgment; whether or not this was true didn't matter in the ultimate determination by the court.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
the court found that even if paterno knew, he didn't tell anyone at PSU with an obligation to notify the insurer, so PSU was off the hook
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ugarles
so there's allegation by the insurer that he knew but no examination of the evidence behind that claim because it didn't matter to the court
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
and then penn state lost anyway because even though it won the notice argument, it lost the on-the-nose "sexual abuse" exclusion
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
it tried to argue that the abuse wasn't in the scope of sandusky's employment and the court replied "duh. nobody gets hired to molest kids."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
"but he molested kids by using his influence and position as a coach at penn state, so you don't get reimbursed for your settlements"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.