These are all


The TRUE Stella Awards -- 2007 Winnersby Randy CassinghamIssued February 2008 Unlike the FAKE cases that

have been highly circulated online for thelast several years (see

fordetails), the following cases have been researched from public sourcesand are confirmed TRUE by the ONLY

legitimate source for the StellaAwards: . To confirm this copy is

legitimate,see -v-2007 Runners-Up and Winner:

#3: Sentry

Insurance Company. The company provided worker's compensation insurance for a Wisconsin "Meals on Wheels" program.

Delivering a meal, a MoW volunteer (who was allegedly not even wearing boots) slipped and fell on a participant's

driveway that had been cleared of snow, and Sentry had to pay to care for her resulting injuries. Sentry wanted its

money back, so it sued the 81-year-old homeowner getting the Meals on Wheels service. It could have simply filed for

"subrogation" from her homeowner's insurance company, but by naming her in the action, it dragged an old lady into

court, reinforcing the image of insurance companies as concerned only about the bottom line, not "protecting"

policyholders from loss.

#2: The family of Robert Hornbeck. Hornbeck volunteered for the Army and served a stint

in Iraq. After getting home, he got drunk, wandered into a hotel's service area (passing "DANGER" warning signs),

crawled into an air conditioning unit, and was severely cut when the machinery activated. Unable to care for himself

due to his drunkenness, he bled to death. A tragedy, to be sure, but one solely caused by a supposedly responsible

adult with military training. Despite his irresponsible behavior -- and his perhaps criminal trespassing --

Hornbeck's family sued the hotel for $10 million, as if it's reasonably foreseeable that some drunk fool would

ignore warning signs and climb into its heavy duty machinery to sleep off his bender.

But those pale in

comparison to...THE WINNER of the 2007 Stella Award: Roy L. Pearson Jr. The 57-year-old Administrative Law Judge

from Washington DC claims that a dry cleaner lost a pair of his pants, so he sued the mom-and-pop business for

$65,462,500. That's right: more than $65 million for one pair of pants. Representing himself, Judge Pearson cried

in court over the loss of his pants, whining that there certainly isn't a more compelling case in the District

archives. But the Superior Court judge wasn't moved: he called the case "vexatious litigation", scolded Judge

Pearson for his "bad faith", and awarded damages to the dry cleaners. But Pearson didn't take no for an answer:

he's appealing the decision. And he has plenty of time on his hands, since he was dismissed from his job. Last we

heard, Pearson's appeal is still pending.Copyright 2008 -- this message may be forwarded as long as it remains

complete and unaltered.