"An inherent risk is something that can't be taken out regardless of the caution you use," he explains. "This isn't one of those risks. This could have been avoided. If (my client) had been in her brother-in-law's car and he ran into a pole and she lost her thumb, no one would have a problem with the insurance paying for her medical expenses. But because it happened in a boat and now she's having to sue family to get at the insurance, there's this notion that she's a horrible woman."

Lance suggests the insurance company is taking advantage of the family relationship. "They don't think you'll sue your family," he says. "In my opinion, that's what they're gambling on."

It's a big gamble. If the insurance company had paid the policy maximum of $100,000, they would be off the hook for any more money.

But if the case goes to court and a jury decides in favor of the plaintiff, damages could be many times that number.

Says Lance, "This is a massive injury that involves clear-as-can-be liability. The insurance company is jumping over dollars to pick up nickels. This case is a duh. The insurance company should just pay."

To me, he adds, "You're not the first one to jump to the conclusion that my client is an awful person for suing her sister. But she's just the opposite. She's a sweet, kind woman who unfortunately lost her thumb in a tragic accident and has to do this to get some help paying her medical bills."

I'm not saying the woman who is suing her sis will win her suit. The insurance company will undoubtedly keep arguing against it (I called the insurance company and a spokesperson cited client confidentiality in declining comment). Maybe in the end there will be no payment.

What I am saying is that this is a completely different case than the conclusion I at first quickly jumped it to. Often the hard, cold facts — and headlines — don't come close to telling the whole story.

---

Lee Benson's column runs Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Please send e-mail to benson@desnews.com and faxes to 801-237-2527.