Columns

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

For the last twenty-five years, my legal practice has been devoted to bringing lawsuits against employers and employee benefit administrators who failed to provide my clients with the benefits they had rightly earned. 

There is an elegant simplicity to this aspect of employment law because benefit plans work like contracts. Like a contract, an employee’s consideration is providing work for the employer. In return, the employer pays for that work, in part through non-wage compensation such as healthcare, life insurance, retirement benefits, and disability insurance. The value of these benefits to an employee and the employee’s family has been steadily growing each year. 

Litigating these disputes has led to my forming a few biases. Forgive me, but I do not have the greatest regard for human resource departments, and there are a few insurance companies that I believe are actually bad actors, not just opponents.

But lately, I have come to empathize with my would-be adversaries . . . at least a little bit.  

The world of employee benefits — or should I say this new world of benefits — is becoming increasingly complex. It is fraught with new employee expectations, and there seems to be legal peril everywhere for employers and plan managers.  Just recently, the Department of Labor (which has been beset by scandals and resignations) issued its revised enforcement priorities, which, if relied upon, may result in legal troubles down the road should a new administration come into power with different priorities.  Today’s relief from regulatory enforcement could be tomorrow’s class action lawsuit. Benefit participants, in contrast, must tailor their cases to meet the moment, but benefit plans have a decades-long horizon. 

In an employee-side litigation practice, the legal process is straightforward. An employee has a benefit plan problem. The first attempt to solve the problem is by filing a claim for benefits. If that fails, there is an internal appeal with the plan. If the problem remains unsolved, then a lawsuit is filed. Benefit litigators review existing precedents, outline their legal cases, and work to see that their clients prevail. 

In the old days, employee benefit plans only had to monitor themselves for compliance with basic Department of Labor regulations and to be mindful of unique rules in insurance and banking that applied in states where a company operated. Most plans would receive regular updates on significant developments in case law across the U.S. It was all a bit sleepy and rote. 

In 2010, that started to change, led by the massive federal law requiring that healthcare plans be brought in line with the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (“Obamacare”). That was a huge change; so huge, in fact, that the law itself contained a built-in mechanism giving plans years to adjust the implementation deadlines. Then, the regulatory authorities repeatedly extended those deadlines even further. 

Prior to this, federal regulations for employee benefit plans had been amended only a handful of times since 1975. After Obamacare, the applicable regulations and USDOL bulletins began changing with great regularity.  

Before and after the law was passed, the Tea Party erupted with intense criticism over the law, and in turn there were hundreds of attempts to change the law, eliminate it, or repeal its most controversial provisions through litigation. Obamacare today looks nothing like it did fifteen years ago. 

This sudden charged approach to what was, essentially, an employee benefits law, has led to increased plan litigation and other challenges as when the federal government tried to impose a fiduciary standard on financial advisors across all plans and into individual investors. This fiduciary duty rule has changed so many times that it is hard to keep up. It was recently struck down again by a federal court.  

Since 2025, the pace of proposed laws affecting employee benefit plans has been on fire.  Plans are suddenly being forced to grapple with some really “out there” issues.  

Consider what today’s benefit plans must now address:

1. New, unusual, and unproven medical treatments and requests for coverage based on influencers, streamers and politics. Podcasters and the current HHS Secretary regularly provide medical advice to the public in a way that is new, untested, and complicated. Suddenly, employee benefit participants are hearing about how injecting peptides can help them live longer, lose weight, and look better. Participants are being told not to vaccinate or to vaccinate themselves and their families differently. 
(Recently, the U.S. military ruled that mandatory flu vaccinations for active-duty personnel are considered “woke” and would be discontinued.) Proven cancer drugs that may have been covered by health insurance are suddenly being labeled “investigative” by the FDA. With plan participants being told to eat saturated fats, lard, heavy meat diets, and to stop eating plant-based foods and getting vaccinated, it remains to be seen what will happen for cardiac, cancer, rheumatology, and infectious disease costs over time for those plans. Plans have to keep up with this, and if all this medical advice turns out to be wrong, there will be additional pressure put on health insurers and self-funded healthcare plans to clean up the medical mess.

2. Expensive life-changing drugs are coming to market, and their arability is certain to increase rapidly with AI technology.  Today, there are potentially lifesaving and life altering genetic therapies that are being developed by doctors and scientists, but they are funded privately and access to the drugs are at the cost of millions of dollars per treatment. “60 Minutes” recently chronicled the rapid and remarkable development of life-saving gene therapies that cost millions per dosage. The takeaway from the lengthy report was that benefit plans have no idea how to deal with this and definitely have not established sufficient cost reserves. 

3. Political backlash surrounding medical treatments and coverage. The backlash against DEI programs generally, and certain medical treatments specifically, has led to complexities in the medical treatment offerings for the LGBTQ community.  This is a completely different environment than two years ago. Moreover, the DEI fights have led to massive cuts in medical research grants to American universities. So, now healthcare innovations are being outsourced to financial investment firms or the private credit markets for development on their timetables, not in our universities using grant money.  Again, how do benefit plans forecast healthcare claims over the next 20 years and will there be a backsliding in medical treatment options which, again, promises to increase care costs?

4. Political backlash surrounding the climate and retirement plan investments. States like Florida have required their retirement benefit plans to divest in investments that are marketed to help the environment and to redirect those funds to other investments, including fossil fuels. Florida actually passed a law that prohibits any type of investment that has as an objective the improvement of environment or climate. In our current political state, this may serve as a template for aggrieved plan members who object to similar investments by their own retirement plans and wish to litigate these issues.

5. Your home is now your 401k. In the retirement realm, plan administrators may have to develop rules allowing people to put their homes into their 401(k) plans. This will require harmonizing contribution limits with lending laws and reconciling ERISA’s prohibition on collection activity against a retirement plan with legal documents such as mortgages and home refinancing. 

6. Alternative investments in 401k plans. Also in the retirement plan realm, there is a push to open 401(k) plans to cryptocurrencies, hedge funds, and other alternative investments. The proposed regulation is more than 150 pages, single-spaced, and with all sorts of scenarios that add to the confusion surrounding the rules. 

7. The use of AI in administrative services contract administration for benefit plans. This is a small headache now, which promises to become a migraine soon, if it is not figured out. It is clear that many large insurers are experimenting with AI to cut down on labor costs, but it is unclear whether that complies with ERISA’s fiduciary standard.  AI generated claims management reveals itself when a claim is paid and the Explanation of Benefits forms continue to show the claim as denied. Ultimately, these types of problems find their way back to the company. 

This is a whole lot of change in a relatively short period. Plan designers have to keep up in a fast-changing world and plan administrators have to carefully monitor what is happening across the country. But empathy only goes so far. Not to worry, ERISA litigators will be there, too, watching closely to see how the plans navigate these changes.

  ——————————-

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway founder of Michigan-based J.J. Conway Law, is a national employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator representing clients in individual cases and class action lawsuits.

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

Scaffolding is essential on construction and renovation projects, but when something goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating. Fires, collapses, and structural failures involving scaffolding often lead to serious injuries, major property damage, and complex insurance disputes.

A recent large-scale construction fire in Denver—where more than 100 firefighters battled a multi-alarm blaze at an apartment project—highlights how quickly a construction-related incident can escalate into a multimillion-dollar loss affecting property owners, contractors, neighboring businesses, and insurers.

For businessowners, property owners, and policyholders in Michigan and across the United States, understanding scaffolding insurance coverage is critical. 

The question is not just what happened, but who is insured, under which policy, and for what damages.
 
Why scaffolding insurance coverage matters

Scaffolding incidents often involve multiple parties and layered insurance policies. When a loss occurs, insurers may dispute responsibility, deny coverage, or shift blame to other parties. 

 Scaffolding-related claims commonly arise from:

• Fires at construction or renovation sites

• Structural collapse or instability

• Falling tools, debris, or materials

• Damage to adjacent buildings or vehicles

• Injuries to workers, pedestrians, or residents 

In dense areas like Detroit, Chicago, or surrounding Midwest cities, a single scaffolding incident can affect an entire block—leading to evacuations, business interruption, and regulatory investigations.

 
Common insurance policies implicated in scaffolding losses 

Understanding which insurance policies may apply is the first step toward protecting your interests.

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) 

CGL policies often serve as the primary coverage for bodily injury and property damage caused by scaffolding accidents. But coverage disputes frequently arise over:

• Whether the damage resulted from ongoing operations or completed work

• Policy exclusions related to construction defects or fire

• Additional insured status for property owners or developers

2. Builder’s Risk Insurance 

Builder’s risk policies may cover damage to the structure under construction, including losses caused by fire. Insurers may still deny claims by arguing:

• Improper installation or maintenance of scaffolding

• Violations of safety codes or project specifications

• Excluded causes of loss
 
3. Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions (E&O) 

When scaffolding design, supervision, or inspection is involved, claims may extend to engineers, architects, or project managers. These cases often hinge on whether professional judgment or a construction defect caused the loss.

 4. Excess and Umbrella Policies

Large losses frequently exceed primary policy limits. Excess and umbrella insurers may resist paying, leading to high-stakes litigation over policy language and trigger of coverage.
 
Key coverage disputes after a scaffolding incident 

Scaffolding claims often raise complex legal questions, including:

• Who qualifies as an insured or additional insured?

• Was the fire or collapse accidental or tied to an excluded peril?

• Do multiple insurers owe defense and indemnity?

• Can insurers shift responsibility through subrogation or contribution claims?

In large-scale fires like the Denver construction blaze, disputes often expand to include neighboring property owners, municipalities, and utility providers—each with separate insurance interests.
 
Practical steps after a scaffolding-related loss

If you are a property owner, contractor, or business affected by a scaffolding incident, early action is critical. Immediate steps to protect your claim include:

• Preserve contracts, insurance policies, and certificates of insurance

• Document damage with photos, videos, and expert reports

• Notify all potentially applicable insurers promptly

• Avoid recorded statements without legal guidance

• Consult counsel experienced in insurance coverage litigation

  ____________________
 
Attorney and Counselor Rabih Hamawi has extensive expertise in insurance coverage, business negotiations, and commercial litigation. He focuses his practice on representing businessowners, homeowners, property owners, and other insurance policyholders in fire, property damage, and insurance-coverage disputes with insurance companies and in errors-and-omissions cases against insurance agents. He can be reached at (248) 905-1133.

I have been mesmerized by space travel since its beginning and copies of the famous photo, Earthrise, taken by Astronaut William (Bill) Anders on December 24, 1968, has been hanging on the walls of my office and home since it was distributed.

I have been mesmerized by space travel since its beginning and copies of the famous photo, Earthrise, taken by Astronaut William (Bill) Anders on December 24, 1968, has been hanging on the walls of my office and home since it was distributed.

I have never tired looking at it. It continually leaves me in awe.  The beauty!

Thus, I could feel my heart beat increase as I watched Artemis II take off for its 10-mission around the Moon. And I wished the four astronauts on board Godspeed.

But, at the same time, I have been distressed by a contradiction and irony.

Here we are working to make the unhabitable (the Moon, Mars) habitable for humans while we making the habitable (Earth) uninhabitable.

While the first objective is decades away, the latter is approaching quickly; it is a fait accompli; there is no avoiding the disaster for the planet.  

The actor, William Shatner, who, at age 90, was on a sub-orbital space flight -- Blue Origin NS-18 -- in 2021, was interviewed as Artemis took off, and he explained how much he was moved by the beauty of the Earth.

Then, he added quickly, how depressed and dismayed he was at the speed with which are destroying it.

Here is a short list of what we face:

--First, population growth. You don’t have to be a scientist to recognize that, given the problems we are experiencing at eight billion on the planet, any growth will be devastating.

--It is too late to cool the Earth. The present temperature increases are caked-in.  Even passionate environmentalists have accepted an increase of temperatures to 1.5° Celsius which is about 0.4 tenths more than we have experienced since the beginning of the pre-industrial revolution (around the mid-1800s).

--We can’t stop the melting of glaciers and the subsequent rising of the oceans that are drowning populated islands as I write this.

--Rainforests, the “lungs of the Earth,” so vital to our survival because they absorb CO2 are being destroyed daily. Haiti alone has lost 98 percent of its rainforests.

--Then we have water, soil, air pollution not to mention water shortages in much of the world. Eight hundred million people – 1 in 10 -- do not have access to clean water.

--More than a million animals and plants are threatened with extinction, according to scientific studies.

---Plastics are suffocating us. In 1950, we manufactured two million tons of plastic. We are approaching the manufacture of 500 million tons -- that’s 500 million tons. Microplastics have been found in human brains and blood. We are a Great Lakes state and 22 million tons of plastic are dumped in these lakes annually. Seventeen billion pounds go into the oceans each year.

--We cannot, it’s impossible, to cleanup our oceans, lakes, streams and other waterways. One scientist, testing a new submarine, found plastic trash bags at 36,000 feet below the surface, the deepest anyone has ever gone.

If you drive an SUV, consider it contains about 400 pounds of plastic.

--We are experiencing rage fires and wind storms around the world, the likes of which we have never seen before.

And, I might stress, these are just a few highlights -- more accurately, lowlights.

(Incidentally, we are polluting space as well. NASA itself has stated that there are 6,000 tons of materials in Low Earth Orbit, making it the “world’s largest garbage dump.” The International Space Station has had to initiate evasive maneuvers on many occasions to avoid crashing into this “junk.”)

Anyone who believes we can solve all the problems makes Pollyanna look like a pessimist.

It is not in the cards. The political will does not exist to tackle these issues nor do the economics.

There have been 30 annual international environmental summits called the Conference of Partners (COP) since 1995 and each year the environmental situation was worse than the previous meeting.

Lots of passionate speeches, promises and pledges.  Never any follow up.

In 1994, Carl Edward Sagan, astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, and science communicator, wrote a book, “Pale Blue Dot:  A Vision of the Human Future in Space” (Random House).  In it, he included a photo of the Earth taken, in 1990, from some 3.75 billion miles from Earth by the space probe, Voyager 1. The Earth appears the size of a pinhead. Sagan concludes his description of the photo with the following:

“There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.  To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

Sadly, Sagan’s hope and wish have fallen on deaf ears.

In his essay, he also observed: “In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

How right he was. There is a word for doing it to ourselves: Suicide.

 ————————

 Berl Falbaum has written extensively about climate change, and the environment.

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

Practicing law is demanding — long hours, unforgiving deadlines, and high stakes. Most lawyers expect those pressures as part of the calling. Conflict is also inherent to the work. 

However, incivility and unprofessionalism should not be. Such conduct adds a weight that should never be part of the job. We understand that disagreement and advocacy are part of the profession, but what should be professional disagreements too often become personal attacks, and what should be intentional advocacy can become performative. As professionals, we must reconsider what zeal in advocacy actually requires. 
It is easier to see incivility in someone else’s conduct, but the only behavior lawyers can control is their own. Culture shifts one lawyer at a time, through the thousands of choices we make and how we show up in our professional work each day. Have you ever walked out of a conversation wishing for a do-over? Perhaps it was a curt reply, an email sent too quickly, or a defensive explanation. These moments remind us that incivility and unprofessionalism can be subtle and unintentional, shaped by pressure more than malice. One of my favorite quotes is from psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, who wrote, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Frankl reminds us that there will always be events that trigger us. Our power lies in pausing and considering our choice: Will we react impulsively or respond with reflection and intention? This practice, repeated one lawyer and one moment at a time, is how our profession grows in civility and professionalism.  

Reaction vs. Response  

A critical difference exists between reaction and response. A reaction is immediate and driven by the nervous system’s urge to reduce tension. Reaction narrows options and can escalate conflict. A response, on the other hand, includes a pause for reflection and consideration of objectives, tone, and long-term consequences. Response widens options and better serves the client’s interests. 

The “space” Frankl describes is what psychology calls “the window of tolerance,” a framework developed by psychiatrist Daniel Siegel that describes our capacity to pause, think clearly, regulate emotions, and act in alignment with our values. Outside of that window, we move into fight, flight, or shutdown, and our response yields to our survival reflex. Legal practice routinely pushes lawyers to the edges of that window with contentious hearings, demanding clients, and relentless deadlines. Without awareness, reaction can become our default. 

Correcting a Misconception 

The phrase “zealous advocacy” has taken on a life of its own in legal culture. Many lawyers have come to hear “zeal” as permission for aggression, hostility, or winning at any cost, often at the expense of civility and professionalism. However, the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct never use the term “zealous advocate.” The comment to Rule 1.3 on diligence states only that a lawyer should act “with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy on the client’s behalf.” 

Zeal, by ordinary definition, means eagerness and enthusiastic interest in pursuit of a cause. Advocacy is the act of supporting a cause. Considered together, zealous advocacy is simply the enthusiastic pursuit of a client’s cause. That pursuit exists within the framework of ethics and professionalism. Within that framework, civility is not a courtesy but a professional discipline, and ethics calls us to to choose intention over impulsiveness.  When zeal is misunderstood as aggression rather than enthusiasm, self-interest can replace client interest.  That posture is not advocacy. It is reaction misnamed as zeal. 

A pause does not betray diligence. It protects it by preventing errors, aligning action with client objectives, ensuring competent representation, and promoting thoughtful execution. As lawyers, our ethics are guided by the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, which encompass core principles such as competence, diligence, candor, and fairness.  

These duties require professional judgment. A pause supports that judgment by creating space to consider obligations, options, and consequences and to notice whether we are serving the client’s interests or protecting our own comfort and image. The standard in our rules is reasonable promptness, not immediacy, and certainly not impulsive promptness. The canon implies deliberation. Incivility and unprofessional conduct often grow from reactivity rather than reflection. The pause helps us meet our ethical obligations. The challenge is learning how to widen the space when pressure narrows it. 

Widening Our Window 

Creating space is a practical skill. We widen our window of tolerance through ongoing awareness, reflection, and practice. We can practice in small, ordinary ways: delaying an email rather than pressing send in the heat of the moment, pausing to ask whether our conduct serves the client’s interests, using a brief recess to allow emotions to settle before proceeding, and, when all else fails, pausing to breathe. Slow, steady breathing signals safety to the nervous system, calming the stress response and allowing the thinking parts of the brain to come back online. One effective breathing technique to try is box breathing: inhale for four counts, hold for four, exhale for four, and hold again for four, like tracing the four sides of a box. Even 30 seconds of intentional breathing can change the course of an interaction. 

Practicing True Zeal 

Leadership in law is rarely dramatic. More often, it looks like steadiness in ordinary moments. It is the discipline to remain calm when provoked, the resolve to do what is right rather than what is easy, and the wisdom to know when to speak and when to remain silent. 

Lawyers shape the tone of litigation, courtrooms, and negotiations through their conduct. That influence calls us to be pillars of the profession, leaders who bring enthusiasm to their work while meeting pressure with professionalism, fortitude, and response over reaction. 
This form of leadership models true zeal in advocacy. 

Harper Lee’s character Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird exemplifies zealous advocacy in action. When he sits outside the jail to protect his client, he is calm, collected, and unwavering in the face of threats. His courage is not theatrical; it is regulated and principled. The jail scene is only one of many moments in which Atticus demonstrates zealous advocacy — from his careful preparation to his respectful engagement — and unwavering fidelity to the rule of law. His conduct demonstrates what zeal in advocacy rightly means: advocacy anchored in enthusiasm, civility, and professionalism. 

When we choose response over reaction, we show colleagues, clients, and young lawyers that zealous advocacy is not loud, hostile, or aggressive. We model that strength can be calm, that professionalism can be firm without being harsh, and that passion for a client’s cause can coexist with respect for everyone involved. Our profession needs more people like Atticus Finch, advocates who prove day after day that true zeal is deliberate, principled, and humane.

 ———————————

Sarah E. Kuchon, of Hohauser Kuchon, is the 93rd president of the Oakland County Bar Association.

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

By Rabih Hamawi

When your home or business suffers direct physical damage—whether from fire, water, or another covered event—you expect your insurance company to evaluate your claim fairly and promptly pay what is owed. But many policyholders are caught off guard when the insurer requests an Examination Under Oath as part of the claim's process.

What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO)? 

An EUO is a formal proceeding where the insurance company questions you about your claim while you are under oath. 

Think of it as similar to a deposition—but it happens during the claim's process, not a lawsuit.

What to Expect:

You are placed under oath (sworn to tell the truth).

The insurer’s attorney asks detailed questions.

A court reporter records everything.

Your answers can be used to approve or deny your claim.
 
Why do insurance companies request an EUO? 

Insurance companies request an EUO as part of their investigation process, particularly when a claim involves complex facts or raises questions that require clarification. The primary goal is to verify the details of the loss, assess the accuracy and consistency of the policyholder’s statements, obtain information about damages sought, and evaluate overall credibility. In many cases, insurers also use the EUO to gather information that could justify limiting or denying coverage under the policy.

An EUO is more likely to be requested in situations involving large or high-value claims, where the financial exposure is significant.

 It may also be triggered by inconsistencies in prior statements, gaps or missing documentation, or circumstances that the insurer believes warrant closer scrutiny. In some cases, even without clear evidence, insurers may suspect potential fraud and use the EUO to explore that possibility. Claims involving business interruption or loss of income are also commonly subject to EUOs, as they often require detailed financial review and supporting documentation.
 
What to do if an EUO is requested after a property insurance claim

Take these steps immediately:

Do not ignore the request.

Timely submit a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss.

Ask what documents are required.

Request clarification on topics to be covered.

Prepare thoroughly before attending.

Consider legal guidance early.

 What happens during an EUO?

Understanding the EUO process can help reduce stress and ensure proper preparation. During an EUO, you are placed under oath and questioned by the insurance company’s attorney about your claim, while a court reporter records everything in a transcript.

The questions typically cover the cause of the loss, the specific property that was damaged, your financial situation, and any prior claims history. You may also be asked to provide supporting documents, such as receipts, repair estimates, or photos of the damaged property. Preparing in advance and knowing what to expect can help you answer clearly and consistently, protecting your claim from unnecessary challenges or delays.

 Practical mistakes to avoid during an EUO 

Even small missteps during an Examination Under Oath can put your claim at risk. Common mistakes include:

Guessing answers instead of saying “I don’t know.”

Volunteering extra information not asked by the insurer.

Appearing unprepared or without supporting documents.

Being defensive or argumentative during questioning.

Failing to review prior statements before attending.

Attending an EUO without an experienced insurance attorney by your side.

 Avoiding these mistakes helps ensure your testimony is accurate, consistent, and protects your claim from unnecessary challenges.
 
Why you need an attorney for your insurance claim

An EUO can be complicated, and small mistakes can lead to reduced or denied claims. An experienced insurance attorney helps you understand your policy, prepare documents, and answer questions accurately to protect your rights.

Attorney Rabih Hamawi is an experienced insurance-coverage attorney who has successfully handled hundreds of claims and recovered millions for policyholders. The Law Office of Rabih Hamawi can be reached at (248) 905-1133. 

Early in my newspaper career, I was involved in covering a story about a man who bought a car wash at a local gas station. 

Early in my newspaper career, I was involved in covering a story about a man who bought a car wash at a local gas station. 

It proved to be anything but a run-of-the-mill writing assignment, even for a somewhat seasoned newspaperman who had covered virtually everything that a small-town community could offer, including a murder, a kidnapping, a gang rape involving players from the high school football team, a half-dozen teen deaths in separate car crashes, a massive blaze at the local Ford plant that police suspected was caused by arson, and the ouster of a school superintendent after he was involved in a drunken public episode. 

In this instance, the seemingly routine trip to the car wash cost the longtime resident “$5,000,” blared the opening to the story. 

There was no point in burying the lead, I figured.

His misfortune began shortly after he entered the car wash when one of the spraying attachments broke free and began wildly pummeling his relatively new four-door sedan, cracking the windshield, several windows, and dinging and damaging virtually every other section of his car.

The story, of course, didn’t stop there, as it eventually evolved into a lawsuit against the gas station establishment for causing the car wash trauma the customer experienced while suffering various minor injuries. After some legal jousting, the parties reached an undisclosed settlement that several local attorneys theorized might have been as high as $20,000.

In other words, that was some kind of car wash.

Years later, in 1992, there was another mishap that grabbed national headlines when a 79-year-old New Mexico woman sued McDonald’s for burns she suffered after spilling a cup of coffee she purchased through the convenience of the drive-thru window.

The story, in the bite-size form that was told by late-night comedians and some legal commentators, amounted to this: woman buys $1 cup of coffee, promptly spills it, sues fast-food giant, and gets $3 million.

End of story? Not quite,

The case, which one major television network labeled “the poster child of excessive lawsuits,” was widely portrayed as a woman suing a corporation for a quick buck over her own careless actions.

In reality, the lawsuit proved to be something far different, particularly after it was revealed that McDonald’s was guilty of “callous” and “reckless” behavior in serving its coffee at a scalding hot temperature that ranged from 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit – roughly 40 degrees higher than that served by other fast-food companies. 

The woman was a passenger in a car driven by her grandson when they stopped to place an order for some coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. In the process of trying to remove the lid, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee over her lap, causing her to sustain third-degree burns to 6 percent of her body and lesser burns to 16 percent of her body. In a matter of seconds, the skins on her thighs and genital area melted away.

She was then rushed to hospital, where she spent the next eight days undergoing a series of skin grafts and other procedures that left her disfigured and disabled.

Despite the extensive injuries she suffered and the cost of the medical treatment she incurred, the woman initially sought just $20,000 from McDonald’s, an amount that would cover her past and projected medical expenses. She also wanted the company to make policy changes to serve its coffee at safer temperatures in the event of a spill. 

McDonald’s refused to change its policy, offering instead to cover just $800 worth of her medical expenses.

When the case went to trial, a jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s outrageous conduct. The amounts were later reduced by the judge, who ruled that the plaintiff was partially to blame for her injuries from the way she removed the lid from the cup. 

During the trial, company officials testified that McDonald’s required coffee to be served at the excessive temperature to ensure that it stayed hot for commuters, even though the temperature can cause third-degree burns in a matter of 3 to 7 seconds. 

Officials also acknowledged that it had known about the risk of severe burns from its coffee for more than 10 years after facing nearly 700 other claims and lawsuits from 1982-92.

The day after the verdict, news media reports indicated that the coffee at McDonald’s outlets was being sold at a temperature of 158 degrees, some 30 degrees cooler than that spilled on the plaintiff and other burn victims. Coffee spilled at the reduced temperature was determined to cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, thereby increasing the margin of safety significantly and making McDonald’s earlier policy look even more reprehensible. 

Now, as the late radio personality Paul Harvey often said in his broadcasts, “you know the rest of the story,” which is about as sad and sickening a case of corporate greed can be.