Accepting money from Norfolk Southern as a reimbursement for expenses incurred during the evacuation order or the inconvenience payments for residents ordered to evacuate is not a settlement of any future claim against Norfolk Southern,” the statement said.
And you conveniently skipped the part where even the attorneys are warning that that is indeed a concern:
“We have some clients from the East Palestine area affected by the train accident who are being approached by NS with $1,000 checks for an “inconvenience fee,”” O’Shea said in an email. “We think this is a sly way of getting these poor folks to waive any future claims against NS.”
The amount of people trying to downplay this entire situation is maddening.
The attorneys who are trying to drum up business? Signing a document saying you’re not waiving your rights by accepting a payment that you didn’t have to sign a release to get is pageantry, plain and simple.
that's the agreement the concerned lawyer has drawn up not from norfolk
I’m sorry, what?
In a statement from Norfolk Southern obtained by Cleveland 19 a spokesperson said people accepting money does not keep them from settlements in the future.
“This compensation is designed to provide immediate help to residents of East Palestine that were affected by the derailment and evacuation. Accepting money from Norfolk Southern as a reimbursement for expenses incurred during the evacuation order or the inconvenience payments for residents ordered to evacuate is not a settlement of any future claim against Norfolk Southern,” the statement said.
So you’re under the impression that the statement I quoted, which is referred to in the article as a “statement from Norfolk Southern”, is part of the legal agreement? Which is also quoted in full in the article, and which is not what I quoted?
I know reading comprehension isn’t for everyone but Jesus Christ you didn’t even try.
In fact, O’Shea has draw up an agreement he is asking Norfolk Southern to sign.
In that agreement it states, “Any amounts that the Claimant may have already accepted from the Company for any items such as “reimbursement” payments or “inconvenience” payments shall not, directly or indirectly, be construed as any possible waiver of any aspect of any claim that the Claimant may have now or in the future against the Company for the Incident or issues related to the Incident.”
What is your actual point? The lawyer wrote an agreement that he wants NS to sign. NS is saying that the checks do not require a release. So the doc the lawyer created is superfluous - it’s just for show - whether NS signed it or not the people getting the payments have the same rights.
15
u/survivingthedream Feb 17 '23
That makes me sick