The 17 victims of the Hingham Apple Store crash might have to share a $40,000 insurance payout.

Submitted by il_biciclista t3_z29nlw in boston

I don’t know how much auto insurance the driver actually carried, but the minimum requirement in Massachusetts is that insurance covers “$20,000 per person and $40,000 if more than one person is hurt.”. In a case like this, where 17 people are hit, that’s less than $2,400 per victim, which will barely make a dent in the hospital bill for someone who just got hit by a car. 

I think Massachusetts should greatly increase this minimum. It will slightly increase the cost of driving, but vastly decrease the cost of getting run over, which seems like a worthwhile tradeoff. 

For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

90

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

amish_hacker473 t1_ixfdese wrote

All 17 of these people are going to sue the driver. They'll get more money out of that than insurance.

104

1000thusername t1_ixfdgxi wrote

I fully agree that the Massachusetts minimum insurance limits are absolute GARBAGE.

When we are also in our vehicles, we can choose for high limit “underinsured/uninsured driver” options on our insurance, but if you’re a pedestrian or cyclist or caught up in something like this?? The whole system falls apart.

19

1000thusername t1_ixfezl2 wrote

Replying to amish_hacker473 (#624,407)

That assumes the person responsible actually has any money to take, though.

Even wage garnishments x17 might net them $12.43 a month for 50 years because they won’t garnish wages below a certain point - they will set aside a “living wage” type amount from any salary before allowing for garnishment, and then that has to be divided up amongst them.

And that’s if the guy doesn’t go to jail and have no wages to garnish or go underground working under the table like many deadbeat parents and other lawsuit losing defendants do so their wages can’t be garnished.

It’s a horrible reality for these people that they aren’t likely to get shit.

48

Conan776 t1_ixffjnw wrote

Ever heard the expression "bad cases make bad law"?

Maybe as an addendum we could add: "freak accidents make for bad insurance coverage examples."

14

fauxpublica t1_ixfnmi3 wrote

Bollards. No bollards in front of the store. That mall has millions of dollars in coverage. There is plenty of available insurance. And the Apple Store facade. Is that reasonable to just have a sheet of glass that close to the parking lot intersection? I defended this same case in Cambridge a decade or more ago at a coffee shop. Had to look at 100s of pictures of bollards at mediation with an excellent plaintiff’s attorney. There is loads of available coverage. But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.

221

RailRoad_Candy t1_ixfu33e wrote

Everytime something happens to people who arent me, caused by people who arent me, someone who is not me wants to go diving in my pockets.

How about this, open a GoFundMe for all of the victims. I assume that as outraged as you are you know them. Then, dump a whole bunch of YOUR MONEY into it.

See, there are a lot of people out there just making ends meet and you're advocating taking even more from them in order to satisfy some feeling of justice. Its gross.

So set it up, and dump in some of YOUR MONEY. I mean its the least you could do. Well, I guess the least you could do would be nothing...followed by coming onto reddit trying to get internet points.

LAME.

−10

NoMoLerking t1_ixfub43 wrote

Replying to fauxpublica (#625,618)

I thought it was so odd they have planted shrubs at the curb. Many years ago I was having lunch outside when I heard a crash. Turned around to see a car perched up on a cement planter. If it had been shrubs I’d have been dead for sure.

26

AccomplishedSpread75 t1_ixfubxm wrote

Worker’s compensation will handle the employees’ claims and the WC carrier will likely subrogate against the drivers insurance (depending on MA subrogation laws)

9

1000thusername t1_ixfulf8 wrote

Replying to fauxpublica (#625,618)

Yeah the mall is a possible lawsuit target. I heard the news saying the state had been promoting these bollards too, so if there’s any documentation indicating a conscious choice not to install them, then watch out.

Someone lower down said they’d sue Apple. I disagree with Apple specifically because they don’t control the parking lot or structure overall, but the mall is quite possible, yes.

22

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixfxyxb wrote

People have their own health insurance which should cover the majority of the costs. Anyone without health insurance I bet a GoFundMe is setup. Not sure what the purpose of your post is.

−6

bigditka t1_ixfzaso wrote

Gotta find the deep pockets - Apple and the Derby Street Shops.

20

hce692 t1_ixg4xm7 wrote

Replying to 1000thusername (#626,437)

Apple could absolutely be sued. All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it. Especially in a town like hingham where people can afford lawyers, I have no doubt an argument could be made about the negligence of entirely glass walls

11

hce692 t1_ixg52go wrote

Replying to 1000thusername (#624,608)

You don’t sue the individual. It’s going to be their insurance company suing his, especially if they need long/short term disability and a personal injury lawyer representing any of the victims would be suing their insurance and undoubtedly Apple plus the shopping center ownership

12

wsdog t1_ixg53di wrote

3k on car insurance lol sorry what? I send way less for 2 cars and way more than the minimum required in Maine.

24

and_dont_blink t1_ixg5ckw wrote

Replying to BasilExposition75 (#625,651)

Keep what hush-hush? It's kind of already in the news.

Apple's insurance will cover damages to the building if they choose to exercise it and workers compensation will cover any employees, but anyone else is on their own unless they can prove negligence on Apple's part. While they might get added to a lawsuit, and might offer to settle if it's less than the legal fees to go to court, it's so cut-and-dry it'll likely be tossed before it's even at that point.

11

bbhlcd t1_ixg6nho wrote

Very very weird of you to use this insanely recent tragedy to harp on your 7 mo+ vendetta against Massachusetts insurance minimums

22

EamonnMR t1_ixg8e5a wrote

Easy PR for apple to pay off some medical bills.

4

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixgaglr wrote

Replying to michael_scarn_21 (#627,633)

Yes, this is true. I assume Apple employees will get some sort of workers comp. A few of those people probably have short term or long term disability through their employer. Those that don't have MA PMFL benefits at very least.

2

SkiingAway t1_ixgbcgi wrote

> For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

And there's New Hampshire, which doesn't require insurance at all. So think about that the next time you see NH plates....

4

aly-moon t1_ixgcdq4 wrote

Doesn't mass have mandatory health insurance requirements? I could be wrong?? I'm just wondering for the sake of their medical care immediately

2

startmyheart t1_ixgdgom wrote

Replying to aly-moon (#628,333)

AFAIK, medical insurance will sometimes deny claims for care due to auto collisions because it should be covered by the auto insurance of the at-fault driver. Cool system we've got going here

3

startmyheart t1_ixgdi2p wrote

Replying to aly-moon (#628,333)

AFAIK, medical insurance will sometimes deny claims for care due to auto collisions because it should be covered by the auto insurance of the at-fault driver. Cool system we've got going here

4

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfoss wrote

Replying to hce692 (#627,671)

The drivers insurance is only responsible for what their policy holder has in coverage and not a penny more. This is why some people carry umbrella insurance. Victims can sue the driver and whoever else might pay, apple, derby street management - it’ll all depend on what you can win in court and someone’s ability to actually pay.

19

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfx97 wrote

Replying to 1000thusername (#626,437)

I’d argue that having an add glass store front where cars can easily drive through makes apple responsible. I understand it looks modern and well designed but of they had a half wall or more support beams maybe the far wouldn’t have been able to kill someone and hurt so many people. I’m not lawyer but that would be my argument. No idea if that would even work.

0

aly-moon t1_ixgg9hh wrote

Replying to startmyheart (#628,449)

Ah I understand. It's the same here in RI. I was wondering if you guys had it any better with your set up. I moved from mass about 15 years ago but my family is still there.

2

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgg9xd wrote

I think the punishment for driving without insurance or a license should be increased greatly especially with the recent passage of question 4.

1

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixggtma wrote

Replying to il_biciclista (#625,443)

I’ve seen the saying that some people are lawsuit proof. You can win a million dollar lawsuit against someone but it doesn’t mean you will actually collect a dime. I’ve also heard (would love a personal injury attorney to chime in) that the first thing lawyers do is look people up in Lexis nexus for insurance information along with an asset search. So having good insurance and umbrella insurance will actually increase your chance of a lawsuit. I’d personally still have it because I own my home and have some assets.

1

bthks t1_ixgjx9p wrote

Replying to startmyheart (#628,449)

I truly don’t think the fact that auto insurance premiums would go down if universal healthcare is implemented has occurred to anyone. I moved overseas recently and there’s a number of things that are cheaper because affordable medical care exists. The rock climbing gym I go to is about half the price of the one I went to in the US simply because they don’t need the same insurance coverage.

3

tacknosaddle t1_ixgt93z wrote

Replying to fauxpublica (#625,618)

The general rule of thumb that the victims' lawyer(s) will use is to identify the "deep pockets" that are potentially liable in a lawsuit. I think it's a safe bet that the Apple Store/Company and the mall are going to have deeper pocket than the insurance policy of the guy that drove through it.

46

BostonBopper t1_ixgw5vx wrote

Replying to startmyheart (#628,449)

That's simply not true. Health insurance will pay for medical care regardless of underlying cause. It can't deny coverage of say treatment for a broken arm because someone else caused the broken arm in an auto accident.

The insurer could pursue a lien against the driver and his insurer, but that all happens behind the scenes.

3

cleancutmover t1_ixh375g wrote

Hilarious. Lets fix the problems of the world by giving more money to insurance companies.

5

Complex_Ad775 t1_ixh3ezs wrote

You also notice big retail stores have them… some inconspicuously like target. They used giant red balls at the store front.

3

il_biciclista OP t1_ixh3vo1 wrote

Replying to cleancutmover (#630,448)

I'm actually suggesting taking more money from the insurance companies. I realize that premiums would increase as a result, but this is not a policy that the insurance companies would want.

1

symonym7 t1_ixh4ynp wrote

…in Apple Store credit, of course.

1

Squish_the_android t1_ixh5whc wrote

Replying to il_biciclista (#630,523)

Insurance companies would net benefit here.

Higher limits are touched less often. Your second 100k of coverage costs much less than your first. If everyone is forced to take on higher limits the insurance company comes out on top because everyone is paying for something they're unlikely to use.

This policy of increasing minimum coverage limits also has a greater impact on poorer citizens, so good luck dealing with that angle.

Edit: I swapped my first/second around originally

3

tomcat3121 t1_ixh60pf wrote

They can sue the driver directly and go after any extra assets that he may have (house, retirement savings, bank accounts, the car itself), or f by some miracle he has an umbrella that would kick in too. That's actually why they have the low limits, if you want higher you need to get an umbrella and protect yourself.

​

One question though, I had thought I read somewhere, and I could be mis-remembering that if you were charged criminally you could not be sued for personal liability in MA. Does anyone else know anything about this?

3

hippocampus237 t1_ixh6e3f wrote

Replying to Ok_Purpose_1606 (#626,866)

There are indications that people lost limbs! No way their health insurance covers 100% of expenses. Most insurance carriers pay a percentage of expenses and may have maximum payouts. Their bills are going to be high - through no fault of their own.

3

1000thusername t1_ixh931y wrote

Replying to Ok_Purpose_1606 (#627,110)

Even with… some of the high deductible or catastrophic-only plans have thousands upon thousands of OOP per year. Given that it’s the end of the year, someone with “mangled limbs and amputations” as they described some will get tucked with thousands times TWO very quickly. Even that is enough to destroy a family, let alone some having an inability to work for a long time and maybe never again if they were in a physically demanding field (day construction or similar) that can’t be done with one leg/arm or no legs/arms. For many even a $10k outlay for copays and such would destroy them.

2

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixhayhg wrote

STILL???

20 years ago, the drunk who hit me and took off only had $20k of insurance and I spent that before I woke up in tht hospital.

10

Public_Tension8585 t1_ixhbuzb wrote

Even 50/100 means that each injured would only get under $6k.

>For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

Liability coverage isn't a major factor for your premium. I used to be an independent insurance agent and sold over 600 policies to people in various states. I'd play all day with coverages from different carriers to try to find people the best price. Bigger factors are credit, how long you've had coverage and at what level, collision coverage + deductible, and accidents/tickets.

People who are insuring themselves for 100/300/100 and have had this for 10 years are usually getting much better rates than someone insuring with state minimums who have only ever had state minimums, all other factors being equal.

2

hamakabi t1_ixhc1zh wrote

Replying to il_biciclista (#625,443)

funny, I had this same thought about your suggestion that I pay for twice as much insurance coverage just because some other douchebags can't drive and it makes you personally offended.

0

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhchxy wrote

Replying to tomcat3121 (#630,735)

>They can sue the driver directly and go after any extra assets that he may have (house, retirement savings, bank accounts, the car itself),

This only helps if the driver is wealthy. If you get run over by someone without any money, you should still have help paying medical bills.

>by some miracle he has an umbrella that would kick in too.

As you seem to understand, the purpose of an umbrella policy is to protect the assets of a wealthy driver (or other policyholder). That doesn't change the fact that the victims are at the mercy of the driver's financial situation.

>That's actually why they have the low limits, if you want higher you need to get an umbrella and protect yourself.

Yes, one purpose of insurance is to protect yourself. Another purpose of it is to protect others. If you opt for the lower limit, that adversely affects anybody you run over. I think that the required insurance should increase, because the victims don't have any input in what insurance you choose.

>One question though, I had thought I read somewhere, and I could be mis-remembering that if you were charged criminally you could not be sued for personal liability in MA. Does anyone else know anything about this?

I don't know the answer to that. You might be right. I hope that's not the case.

2

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhd6ct wrote

Replying to hamakabi (#631,299)

>funny, I had this same thought about your suggestion that I pay for twice as much insurance coverage just because some other douchebags can't drive and it makes you personally offended.

To be clear: I'm not personally offended that some douchebags can't drive. I'm personally offended that 17 people just got run over by a car, and are likely going to be stuck with large medical bills and little help paying them. I'm personally offended that this happens literally every day in this country.

2

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhdlff wrote

Replying to UsernameTaken93456 (#631,223)

Yes. Still.

There is nothing in the law that indexes this for inflation. If the state house doesn't make any changes, then it will continue to be $20,000 indefinitely, regardless of how much medical costs increase.

3

tateotw t1_ixhf36l wrote

This is a bizzare thread, not sure what youre getting at here

5

LonelyAccountantCPA t1_ixhihbh wrote

I mean once they exhaust his coverage amount can’t they sue him directly?

2

wsdog t1_ixhl6q1 wrote

Replying to alohadave (#632,125)

You really think a car can hit somebody ONLY at a glass storefront. No other location is actually possible.

Why not put bollards everywhere in front of every single structure?

−4

fakecrimesleep t1_ixhlmlq wrote

They (insurance companies) do this because they fully expect injured people to sue for the full amount of their hospital bills + more if they have the money and just deal with whatever pebbles or their own disability insurance they already have if they don’t.

2

alohadave t1_ixhm88c wrote

Replying to wsdog (#632,291)

Jesus, are you really willing to die on this hill?

You are the only one complaining about putting bollards everywhere. In this case, in a shopping mall, bollards are appropriate, and would have saved life and limb, literally.

8

wsdog t1_ixhmirj wrote

Replying to alohadave (#632,392)

No, alright you're good, I agree. Spend money on bollards instead of checking drivers who can induce harm. Maybe it's a better solution.

−3

dante50 t1_ixhnrw1 wrote

Replying to wsdog (#627,644)

Yes, the classic “architecture” of an outdoor mall where an Apple Store is wedged between a Barnes & Noble an Anthropologie. I mean, famous landmarks across the globe deploy bollards for safety, but let’s not spoil ‘Merica’s suburban parking lot malls!

7

wsdog t1_ixho9gz wrote

Replying to dante50 (#632,538)

Very true, cannot agree more. Museums cover paintings with glass because of a couple of idiots with glue and soup.

A tiny fraction of idiots always ruin the lives of everybody else. My point that the idiots should be targeted, not everyone else.

And Apple stores have decent architecture.

1

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhpjs6 wrote

Replying to hippocampus237 (#630,772)

>Most insurance carriers pay a percentage of expenses and may have maximum payouts.

Have you ever had to use your own health insurance for really high hospital costs? This is not the way it works. Otherwise no one would be able to afford cancer treatment or surgery. Please google "out of pocket maximum." Maybe for dental insurance it works the way you describe.

1

gustavpentel t1_ixhr75j wrote

Replying to bigditka (#627,026)

Dont forget Toyota. There is a very well established issue with unintended wide open throttle on Toyotas. This would be - at the absolute minimum - the 94th person killed by this since the issue was discovered.

2

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhs3mi wrote

Replying to UsernameTaken93456 (#631,248)

I wasn't trying to say it was. I was saying for this specific accident. People are like making it into this political thing that the system has failed them and like everyone there is like an uninsured person who makes minimum wage. Most of the people there probably have resources to tap into to cover costs. Can we worry about their health not their finances?

1

techiemikey t1_ixhtloz wrote

Replying to wsdog (#632,416)

This is a case of "you can only control what you are capable of controling". The property owners could have placed ballards for protection (and even done something like planters to prevent it from being ugly). The business could choose something other than a glass front, as they are allowed to make changes.

What could they have done about drivers specifically? The only people who could have is the government, who can't place the ballards.

4

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhtpch wrote

Replying to il_biciclista (#629,446)

Some people, many people. Without knowing you're assuming everyone there is uninsured or has cheap health insurance. The world is not made up entirely of people who are disadvantaged financially. This is a tragedy, not everything has to be turned into a crusade for you to take action. Worry about their health first not their finances. I would be insulted if a friend heard I was injured and the first thing they thought about was how I was going to afford it and not asked me about how I am actually feeling physically.

−3

techiemikey t1_ixhu9xb wrote

Replying to hce692 (#627,660)

> All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it.

I disagree with "and was sued for it." The "sued and won" is usually a "this was brought up to them as an issue before and they decided to not to address an issue". But safety laws exist because people died and we realized "hey...we shoud fix that.

−1

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhv8h0 wrote

Replying to startmyheart (#628,454)

No. The at-fault drivers auto insurance will pay for what it can. Then your own health insurance coverage kicks in to pay the rest minus deductible, coinsurance. And then you're only paying up to your OOP maximum.

3

Lazy-Hooker t1_ixhyu11 wrote

Ugh that's awful. Apple should pay for their medical expenses and they should install those cement poles in front of the stores there.

−1

downthewell62 t1_ixi698b wrote

Or, Massachusetts should make shitty auto insurance companies pay out more to victims, or just give us all affordable healthcare

1

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixi980x wrote

Replying to artificial_bluebird (#634,166)

Sure.

So this was 20 years ago and I didn't have medical insurance, because I had been laid off and was waitressing.

Now, I would have been on my parents insurance, as I was only 23.

I was hit by a car as a pedestrian and knocked out. I briefly woke up in the ambulance, and again as they were putting staples in my head. I don't remember the MRI, CT or anything like that. I woke up the next day with a bad concussion, a tore rotator cuff and various bruises and road rash. IIRC, it was like $22k before I left the hospital.

Then I had various aftercare appointments - I had to see a neurologist a few times, I needed PT for my shoulder and vestibular therapy for my TBI. One thing I needed but did not get was therapy for what became a pretty bad case of PTSD. 20 years later, and I still don't feel comfortable driving or being in a car.

I couldn't work, because I was a waitress and you can't waitress with one arm and vertigo. There was no "lost wages" coverage, but I was super lucky - my parents were able to help me cover my bills and ended up getting an office job within a few months.

I forget how much my total bills were, but I was staring down the edge of bankruptcy at the ripe age of 23. I ended up suing my mother's insurance company, because I was covered under her umbrella policy.

So, if my parents couldn't have helped me, I would have been homeless and if they didn't have an umbrella policy - or if I had registered to vote in MA or signed a lease- I couldn't have accessed that and I would have ended up bankrupt.

The guy who hit me was broke, btw. Totally judgement proof.

4

1000thusername t1_ixiay17 wrote

Replying to Ok_Purpose_1606 (#633,257)

I’m sure those close to the victims are doing that. We who do not k ow anyone involved can take a more clinical and critical look at what the big picture means for these people and how could this be prevented from happening to others (not only the physical act of the car hitting them but also the structural issues that will leave the survivors’ lives in a shambles and possibly advocate for change - change that could help them as well as change that could help others in the future).

OF COURSE we wish them well with their health.

2

psychicsword t1_ixiug62 wrote

Replying to fauxpublica (#625,618)

> But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.

It is also possible that the under covered driver insurance add on of the victim's auto insurance will cover them as well.

I ran into the low coverage limit for bodily harm after being hit and I got another 15k from my own insurance.

1

il_biciclista OP t1_ixj0qll wrote

Replying to Public_Tension8585 (#631,281)

>Even 50/100 means that each injured would only get under $6k.

I think you and I are on the same page here. I just mentioned Maine as an example of a US state that is better than Massachusetts in this respect. Frankly, I think drivers should have to carry at least $1 Million of liability coverage. The US DOT values a human life at $9.6 Million, so even $50,000 seems kind of insulting to me.

>Liability coverage isn't a major factor for your premium. I used to be an independent insurance agent and sold over 600 policies to people in various states. I'd play all day with coverages from different carriers to try to find people the best price. Bigger factors are credit, how long you've had coverage and at what level, collision coverage + deductible, and accidents/tickets.

I didn't know this, but It makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for sharing.

I don't have access to the tools that you had. Instead, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that carrying $8 Million of liability per victim should lead to less than a $2,000 increase in premiums for the average driver. ($8 Million per death times 40,000 deaths divided by 200 Million drivers).

I've been told that I'm crazy, and that increasing the liability requirements that much would result in everyone spending $50,000 per year on insurance. It's reassuring to hear that that might not be true.

2

il_biciclista OP t1_ixj0uzh wrote

Replying to Ok_Purpose_1606 (#633,257)

>Some people, many people. Without knowing you're assuming everyone there is uninsured or has cheap health insurance. The world is not made up entirely of people who are disadvantaged financially. 

I’m not assuming that every single person in that store was poor. I’m suggesting that the financial burden should lie with the driver’s insurance, rather than the victims. If you get run over by a car, it shouldn’t matter how rich you are, or how rich the driver is. 

>This is a tragedy, not everything has to be turned into a crusade for you to take action. Worry about their health first not their finances. I would be insulted if a friend heard I was injured and the first thing they thought about was how I was going to afford it and not asked me about how I am actually feeling physically.

I am worried about their health, but at this point, nothing can be done to change the fact that they just got run over by a car. My thoughts and prayers aren’t going to help them. Money might. They could have expensive medical bills, and could be missing a lot of work. 

2

Public_Tension8585 t1_ixj95tb wrote

Replying to il_biciclista (#637,627)

A good start would be requiring the minimum to be 50/100. While Mass is 20/40, the vast majority of states are only 25/50, so it's not like we're way under par. The reason for 50/100/50 (last one being property damage) would be due to the HCOL, types of vehicles, etc. Hit someone in Mass and chances are you're going to be in more financial trouble than hitting someone in Tennessee, even though Ten is 25/50.

> don't have access to the tools that you had. Instead, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that carrying $8 Million of liability per victim should lead to less than a $2,000 increase in premiums for the average driver. ($8 Million per death times 40,000 deaths divided by 200 Million drivers).

Even if this actually only raised premiums by $2k, it doesn't sound realistic from the perspective of the insurance companies. Not to mention the amount of fraud it would encourage.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but back at my old agency I heard that insurance companies run on razor thin margins, majority of the money they make is from the interest they make.

2

SleaterKenny t1_ixjnk6j wrote

Replying to SleaterKenny (#634,228)

LOL the bollard lobby has apparently found this post. -14 as I type. Seriously, people think bollards are good? I mean, I get why they're necessary sometimes, but they are still a blight.

0

fauxpublica t1_ixjuxqs wrote

Replying to Pleasant_Influence14 (#639,397)

I don’t remember the name. The owners were excellent, compassionate people and the accident had absolutely nothing to do with the coffee shop, except that she drove into it. She was actually shopping somewhere else. They leased the commercial space from a realty trust which was the true defendant. I can’t recall the name of the coffee shop, just the location.

1