Roger Herrin of Harrisburg, Ill. has handed over 600,000 quarters, weighing nearly four tons, to his adversary in partial settlement of a legal dispute over the division of insurance proceeds. Describing himself as “very, very bitter,” Herrin said he wanted to “do it in pennies” but was unable. [Associated Press]
6 Comments
I would have made him stand there and count out every coin to me to insure he paid the full amount.
From the story, it is impossible to make any kind of assessment of the merits of the dispute. With that limitation acknowledged, Roger Herrin seems more emblematic of what is wrong with the American judicial system than an example of those unjustly aggrieved by it. Ordered to pay back a sum, this self-described “very, very bitter” litigant contrives to do so in a fashion designed to inconvenience the prevailing parties. The ability of bitter litigants to aggravate and impose needless costs on their adversaries (even when said bitter litigants lose in court) is one of the more unfortunate aspects of modern litigation.
This guy’s a prick.
Even though he says its about losing a son, the party he’s being so bitter to was not the cause of the wreck, but instead one of the other victims. Herrin has already received $1.6M for his son’s estate, after settling with the insurance company. The remaining passengers, including Jared head, who suffered $630k of injuries, were left to split a small amount of underinsured motorist coverage.
This isn’t about payment from a party that’s not at fault to a party that is. It’s about payment as between a dead kid’s estate and a badly injured living kid.
And Herrin should have known he was overpaid in the first place,since the trial court failed to consider his own insurance, and the issue on which he lost was appealed right away.
The relevant case is at 965 N.E.2d 422.
Ed, the problem is to do that, you have to stand there.
It would be worth it just to inconvenience him.
A million and a half dimes would weigh the same.
Bob