Should I Have Accepted the Money?

[Dan Z]

I think the same moral principles apply whether it's $5 or $5 million.

I agree - although like Robert said, $5 was a lot easier to ignore than $5 million.

[Biblical Anabaptist]

Here's a recent dilemma I was faced with:

I recently received a $5.77 check that came as a result of a class action lawsuit against a mortgage company that I had a bit of business with about 10-15 years ago. Evidently, the company was ordered by a court to pay a certain amount for some unethical/unlawful practice to those affected by the practice - and $5.77 was my share.

As a conservative Anabaptist, and as a matter of principle, I choose not to sue people (Matthew 5, I Cor 6). But, as far as I can tell, I never formally joined this lawsuit - but was a recipient of the settlement nonetheless.

So...what would you have done with the $5.77 check?

Good question. Last week I received around $50.00 because some oil I purchased from Tractor Supply Co apparently did not meet the specs on the label. Apparently, some folks suffered damage to their equipment as a result. I don't know that I did.

[Ernie]

As a conservative Mennonite, he refused to sue the department store where the accident happened. It took about a year for him to recover before he could fully work again. My grandmother had to work in order to support him and their seven kids.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's admirable that he stuck to his values and principles. On the other hand, the family suffered.

It really bothers me when churches do not help those who are struggling financially in their churches, if the reason for the struggle has to do with something other than not getting advice from the church or not heeding the advice of the church. Even in the latter, there is room for mercy.

I think that "kingdom economics" only works in a collective church setting that believes in and practices mutual aid. (I believe that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit designed the church as the ideal earthly society and that it is one of the most beautiful societies when it is done well. Outside of that, people have to do what they have to do to get by and this sometimes puts people in some very difficult situations and quandries.

[Szdfan]

I think the same moral principles apply whether it's $5 or $5 million.

Sure, but I think the stakes are different. It's a lot easier to refuse $5 than $5 million.

[Szdfan]

As a conservative Mennonite, he refused to sue the department store where the accident happened. It took about a year for him to recover before he could fully work again. My grandmother had to work in order to support him and their seven kids.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's admirable that he stuck to his values and principles. On the other hand, the family suffered.

It really bothers me when churches do not help those who are struggling financially in their churches, if the reason for the struggle has to do with something other than not getting advice from the church or not heeding the advice of the church. Even in the latter, there is room for mercy.

I think that "kingdom economics" only works in a collective church setting that believes in and practices mutual aid. (I believe that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit designed the church as the ideal earthly society and that it is one of the most beautiful societies when it is done well. Outside of that, people have to do what they have to do to get by and this sometimes puts people in some very difficult situations and quandries.

To be fair, I don't know whether my grandparents received aid from the congregation, just that according to family lore, it was a difficult year for the family.

[JimFoxvog]

i have not been personally contacted, that i recall, i haven’t pursued, but, FaceBook:

April 27 / “Anyone who used Facebook in the last 16 years can now get settlement money. Here's how.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-s ... laim-meta/

I looked into that. It requires signing a form swearing to the truth of one's statements. I sent a question to the address they gave for questions saying I do not swear oaths and asking if I could affirm under penalty of perjury instead. Just got a form response telling me how to fill out the form; only a computer responded and it wasn't programmed to deal with the question. I feel fine with big rich companies paying a penalty for misbehavior, but the amount will probably be a similar trivial amount so I doubt I will try to pursue it further.

[Neto]

It's a bit fuzzy in my mind now, but we owned a car that we allowed our daughter to use. Someone ran a stop sign and plowed into the car, and our insurance sent a form which seemed to be saying that we were required to sue the other party. I told them I chose not to, and they clarified it, saying that all I needed to do was testify as to the facts of the case. I don't think anything came of it - I think I remember that the other insurance company just made sure the car was "totaled", even though the damages were very minor. They said they had no choice, since their algorithm indicated that the car was not worth the amount of the damages as determined by their adjuster. I asked them if I could settle for less, and they refused. (I suspect out of spite, because the adjuster figured the cost of new parts, when no one is going to use new parts on an older car - you go to a salvage.) I just wanted to fix it, as I couldn't get another vehicle of similar mileage and quality for the amount they offered. Basically they forced me to sell it against my will. I was going to take less if they would avoid the salvage title. I ended up letting them have it. Then that insurance company had the audacity to try to get me to buy insurance from them.

Sorry for the long story. My point is that we are required by law to purchase an insurance policy on a car, and part of that involves some language that sounds like you are agreeing to sue another party - to defend the rights of the insurance company.

[Ken]

It's a bit fuzzy in my mind now, but we owned a car that we allowed our daughter to use. Someone ran a stop sign and plowed into the car, and our insurance sent a form which seemed to be saying that we were required to sue the other party. I told them I chose not to, and they clarified it, saying that all I needed to do was testify as to the facts of the case. I don't think anything came of it - I think I remember that the other insurance company just made sure the car was "totaled", even though the damages were very minor. They said they had no choice, since their algorithm indicated that the car was not worth the amount of the damages as determined by their adjuster. I asked them if I could settle for less, and they refused. (I suspect out of spite, because the adjuster figured the cost of new parts, when no one is going to use new parts on an older car - you go to a salvage.) I just wanted to fix it, as I couldn't get another vehicle of similar mileage and quality for the amount they offered. Basically they forced me to sell it against my will. I was going to take less if they would avoid the salvage title. I ended up letting them have it. Then that insurance company had the audacity to try to get me to buy insurance from them.

Sorry for the long story. My point is that we are required by law to purchase an insurance policy on a car, and part of that involves some language that sounds like you are agreeing to sue another party - to defend the rights of the insurance company.

Insurance companies do that because it is cheaper for them to declare the car a total loss versus repairing it. If the cost of repair exceeds cash value of the car minus the auction value of the totaled car then it is cheaper for them to declare it a total loss and sell it at auction.

Here in Washington State you can keep your "totaled" car if you want and the insurance company is legally obligated to pay you the cash value of the car minus your deductible and the estimated amount the damaged car is worth if sold at auction. They have some formula for figuring that out. If you choose to go that route they report it to the DMV and your title gets a "totaled" designation so anyone you sell it to will see that it was once totaled.

[Ken]

Sorry for the long story. My point is that we are required by law to purchase an insurance policy on a car, and part of that involves some language that sounds like you are agreeing to sue another party - to defend the rights of the insurance company.

You are only required to purchase liability insurance not comprehensive or collision.

I don’t think there is any obligation to sue anyone if you just have liability insurance in the event that you hit another driver or run someone over and it is your fault. You aren’t technically insuring your CAR at all, but rather insuring the public against your own negligence when using your car. If you only have liability insurance then the insurance company doesn’t care what happens to your car. It’s not their problem.

[Joy]

It's a bit fuzzy in my mind now, but we owned a car that we allowed our daughter to use. Someone ran a stop sign and plowed into the car, and our insurance sent a form which seemed to be saying that we were required to sue the other party. I told them I chose not to, and they clarified it, saying that all I needed to do was testify as to the facts of the case. I don't think anything came of it - I think I remember that the other insurance company just made sure the car was "totaled", even though the damages were very minor. They said they had no choice, since their algorithm indicated that the car was not worth the amount of the damages as determined by their adjuster. I asked them if I could settle for less, and they refused. (I suspect out of spite, because the adjuster figured the cost of new parts, when no one is going to use new parts on an older car - you go to a salvage.) I just wanted to fix it, as I couldn't get another vehicle of similar mileage and quality for the amount they offered. Basically they forced me to sell it against my will. I was going to take less if they would avoid the salvage title. I ended up letting them have it. Then that insurance company had the audacity to try to get me to buy insurance from them.

Sorry for the long story. My point is that we are required by law to purchase an insurance policy on a car, and part of that involves some language that sounds like you are agreeing to sue another party - to defend the rights of the insurance company.

A friend of mine just went through the same thing in Texas.