• Wed, Mar 28 2012

Latest In The Case of Lauren Scruggs, The Model/Blogger Injured In Plane Propeller Accident

Model/blogger Lauren Scruggs–who suffered severe injuries when she walked into a moving plane propeller late last year–rejected a settlement offer and is suing the plane’s insurer, Aggressive Insurance Services. Apparently the company offered Scruggs $200,000, the cap for injuries suffered by those they define as passengers. Scruggs contends she was not technically a passenger:

Scruggs said Aggressive offered to pay her the $100,000 sublimit for each of the policies for a total settlement of $200,000. She said the insurer took the position that she was a “passenger” as defined by both policies. Scruggs disagreed, saying that the sublimits are not applicable because she was not a “passenger,”and that “she was not in the aircraft or getting in or out of it at the time of the incident.” She claims that “she had completed her exit from the aircraft prior to the time of the incident and was physically located on the tarmac when the incident happened. Until struck by the propeller, she was not in physical contact with the aircraft after her exit.”

For those of you who are into that sort of thing, here’s the full suit. Scruggs will not be suing the pilot of the plane.

(Courthouse News via HuffPost)

[UPDATE: Courthouse News has filed a correction: there's been no suing. Here's what they said:

"A model who lost a hand and an eye to an airplane propeller did not "reject" an insurer's settlement offer of $200,000 as Courthouse News reported Tuesday morning - she neither accepted nor rejected it, but asked a judge to clarify the meaning of the policy, NBC and the Dallas Morning News reported later Tuesday, citing the CNS report and Lauren Scruggs' attorney.

Both NBC and the Morning News reported that attorneys for Scruggs and for Aggressive Insurance had reached an agreement on Scruggs' complaint in Dallas County Court, the terms of which were not released."

Though indeed there was some discussion of what it meant to be specifically a "passenger," Scruggs and Aggressive Insurance have apparently resolved the issue. Our headline has also been updated to reflect this.]

Share This Post:
  • Cee

    Hmm, I’m a bit torn. While I do believe she deserves more for her medical expenses and such, I think it sounds a bit frivolous. I haven’t read the docs (work apparently has something against legal readings and so does my phone). I mean, what did the pilot do? Shove her into the propeller? Flew a plane with propellers subconsciously knowing that someone would walk into them? We live in the country of frivolous lawsuits so even though it sounds heartless, I can’t help but be skeptical.

    • kit

      The pilot blocked her physically when she began exiting incorrectly and then instructed her to walk behind the plane. She did not follow his directions.

      I am with you 100%, Cee.

    • superjack

      Well I’m not afraid to sound heartless. She walked into a fucking plane propellor. That was moving. She should get a Darwin award, not a million dollars.

      For example…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn4p3E-YmFw
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxlQUuBWfc8

      If it wasn’t for her accident, this girl would be exactly the kind of dumb, frivolous moppet that this site regularly mocks.

  • Miss C

    Try looking at this another way:

    “Taliban gouges out woman’s eye for being a bit unwise, lands her with lifelong medical bills”

    Is it that simple then?

    Serious question, not snark – I know myself how tempting it is to look and laugh at something as “obvious” as this, and another perspective is sometimes useful.

    • castor

      Yeah, that would be a really apt comparison if she walked into the Taliban’s gouging stick after someone explicitly told her not to.

    • Miss C

      OMG… under the Taliban, men explicitly TELL women not to walk into – well, anywhere – so, if they do, do they deserve a really HARSH penalty – or maybe just a reminder of local bylaws?

      To put it another way, does being a bit silly mean you DESERVE to lose an eye? Be saddled by lifelong medical bills?

      If you’ve lived past 23 and never done anything as unwise as this, or never been quite as daft, then… good on you.

    • Jennifer Wright

      We’re going to do a poll: should you or should you not walk into gouging sticks?

    • Miss C

      Nope – do it,

      “Have you, or have you not, survived unscathed after someone told you ‘Honey, don’t do that!’”

      And what do you think the penalties should be for “yes” votes?

  • Kj

    Meh. I would sue. I don’t think it’s that frivolous. Let the judge decide if it’s justified.

  • Miss C

    Poster down yonder said she should get a Darwin Award…

    Wahatever, does this mean Fred West and Josef Fritzl, who have LOTS of blood-children, are somehow BETTER that people like Einstein, who has… I dunno any children at all?

    FFS….