The common law notion of strict liability developed from the assumption that a person who brings about a risk of personal injury or property damage with a peculiarly dangerous activity bears responsibility for the harm sustained. The rule of strict liability differs from negligence torts as liability will be imputed devoid of fault on the wrongdoer. Strict liability has been extended to cover the manufacturers and distributors of products considered dangerous by statutes. In Minnesota, the Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1980) allows courts to impose strict liability for dog bites. If a dog attacks or inflicts injuries without provocation, you can institute a lawsuit hinged on strict liability for compensation by the owner or person harboring the canines. The Minnesota statute vests a cause of action on any person assaulted by a dog for compensatory money by just demonstrating the law has been flouted.
Jane Hart (then five years old) sustained severe injuries after a dog crushed her right arm and bit her in the stomach. The wounds led to brutal lacerations and permanent disability, the doctors performed a surgery that almost brought her life back but for the permanent scars. Her parents sued the owner of the dog under the Minn.Stat. § 347.22 (1980) and brought him to book on strict liability. The jury rendered a verdict for Hart and her attorney, on the advice of her parents underwrote a structured settlement arrangement to decentralize her monies. Minor settlements like hers create a future income stream that matures when the recipient reaches eighteen years. At 25, Hart the structured settlement had become a thorn in her flesh and only made her finances a lottery. Hit hard by the market volatility and inflation; she decided to sell her structured settlement payments for a lump sum payment.
Sell My Structured Settlement
Scratching Her Head Over the Highest Bid
Hart had time to rustle for the highest bid in a market swollen with structured settlement funding companies. She sought to familiarize herself with the factoring industry by perusing internet resources and the Minnesota Structured Settlement Protection Act. Consumer protection advocates and prior reviews allowed her to separate the wheat from the chaff. At last, a renowned buyer of annuities offered a huge lump sum offer which she endorsed.
Court Petition and Supporting Materials
As required by state laws, the buyer of her annuities lodged a petition and relevant papers in the county court of her residence. Hart received a crisp disclosure statement and agreement before the court hearing. The documents required by the court include the transfer agreement, the disclosures and proof of notice, a list of her dependents and ages, and personal documents.
Court’s Two-Sided Standard-The “Best Interest” and “Fair and Reasonable” Tests
The court approved the transaction as it passed muster as stipulated by the Minnesota SSPA. The court provided emergency aid by sanctioning the deal as she needed money immediately. She produced her earning receipts and proved her aggregate income per year could not meet the housing expenses, student loans, and notices sent by bill collectors. Economic hardship makes court tick. The second limb of the test requires the court to make specific findings the discount rate applied to compute the gross advance amount is “fair and reasonable.” The court imparts fairness and reasonableness by comparing the effective interest rate to that of a loan, mortgage or prevailing rates in the factoring industry. The courts do not engage in mere rubber stamping, if Hart canceled her future payment rights for a valueless consideration, the deal would have blown up.
What is the “Discounted Present Value” and why is it imperative?
The discounted present value refers to the total amount of the structured settlement periodical payments sold scaled with the current federal rate in percentage circulated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accessible online. The court reviews the evidence adduced by the buyer of annuities on the cost of acquiring a similar annuity for the payment rights assigned using a quote given by insurance companies.
Flowers of the Flock-Top 3 US Structured Settlement Funding Companies
J.G. Wentworth has extended experience in re-purchasing structured settlement payments in the US. The company gives you a vehicle to garner quick bucks from your structured settlement payments with a first-rate price offer and a contract in plain English, no hidden fees or exploitative clauses.
Stone Street Capital offers a lucrative hub to cash in your cyclic payments under a structured settlement annuity. A company representative evaluates the transaction before forwarding to the judge for review and approval with a final court order.
SenecaOne is a seasoned financing company with profitable discounted lump sums for annuities, structured settlements, pensions and lottery awards. As a buyer if income streams, the company has rapidly emerged to the frontline due to low discount rates and condensed transfer expenses.…