It was suggested:
There is one addition under "Statement of Facts", which I believe needs to be added to help explain your last statement about the new "cash cow" of the police department. Let me know what you think about the following addition to be inserted under your first statement under the title, "Statement of Facts".
"The female Stopping Officer signed only one of the citations falsely stating that Plaintiff-Appellant had no insurance and was driving without insurance. Defendant provided proof of up-to-date insurance with a signed letter from the insurance company, but could not question the female Stopping Officer as to why she lied on both counts on the citation, because the female Stopping Officer was not present at trial."
That brings out an important aspect of being denied the proper witness alright.
The delicate dance is around trust and fiduciary obligation. There is a very good point being brought up by the officer on the witness stand. The insurance company is not typically obligated to cover any uninsured driver at the wheel. It could be a 10-year old for that matter. The carrier is not expected to cover somebody untrained at heavy equipment. However on the other side of that coin is somebody trained to have had a valid driver license and is still paying the carrier premiums on a constructive trust that the company will honor receipt of those payments. The fact of the matter is that there are other reasons than incompetence to operate a motor vehicle that could be at play and the... well, do you see where I am going?
The officer is testifying for somebody else. The officer in this instance is likely a shill who was replacing the actual Stopping Officer in order to get a plug in for this New Cash Cow. What is technically inappropriate is that the Officer on the Stand would be assuming to know the mind of the Insurance Industry - not whether or not he is correct in doing so.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Reply With Quote