RIM Faced With Consumer Lawsuits Over BlackBerry Outage

‘Research in Motion’ received indictment from users of United States and Canada because of days-long service outage on BlackBerry devices that happened across the world prior this month.

Ten million aggravated BlackBerry users on five continents were divested with email, instant messaging and browsing because of the system-wide failure of the service. Because of the four-day outage that tainted the company’s figure, RIM’s co-CEOs apologized to millions of BlackBerry customers and to set back its drive to catch up with Apple and other smart phone adversaries. 

On behalf of all U.S. BlackBerry owners with an active service agreement at the time of the email, internet and messaging interruptions, the U.S. lawsuit, filed in federal court in Santa Ana, California on Wednesday, accusing Research in Motion of breach of contract, laxity and unjust enrichment.

On Wednesday, the Canadian lawsuit filed in Quebec Superior Court was brought on behalf of all Canadian BlackBerry holders with an active service agreement. Research in Motion was also charged because of the failure to recompense BlackBerry users with refunds for loss of service and must obtain full responsibility for these damages.

Research in Motion message-seeking comments were not immediately returned. Sherman Oaks, California resident Eric Mitchell brought the U.S. lawsuit. Meanwhile, Mitchell did not sign a service contract straightly with Research in Motion, through a mobile carrier Sprint; he paid the company fees for BlackBerry device. He therefore had an “implied contract” with Research in Motion, it said.

Mitchell was unable to use emails and other communications in real-time, without delay, dropping and interfering with his productivity and causing him dent and loss of money because of the global service outage that began on Oct. 11 up to Oct. 14. Mitchell paid for a service he did not receive, the lawsuit said. U.S. plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as cash compensation for service bills along with attorneys’ fees and lawful expenses.

This report was referred from Insurance Journal, the leading insurance headlines breaker in the internet.

Proposal Approves Above Aged 21 Up Motorists To Ride Without Helmets

The use of helmets has imposed its importance in terms of safety on the road. With the use of helmet, a rider would have greater resistance to any unwanted accidents along the road as this will protect the head from any further damage. With the new law passed in Michigan House Committee, such concept of “safety” was somehow modified. This was now based on age bracket.


In a proposal passed in Michigan which will now continue for approval in the state Legislature, this will allow some motorcyclists to ride without being ticketed on the road.


The said proposal was duly approved by the House Transportation Committee which legally allows motorcyclists of age 21 or older to track the road of Michigan provided that they have met various trainings or experience conditions.

The measure now seeks approval to the House floor wherein a similar bill already passed the Senate.


Rick Snyder, a governor, did not seem to approve in considering the motorcycle helmet law when it was passed in the Senate this summer. He noted that more experienced motorcyclists does not mean they are immune from accidents given they are skilled enough, but he further added that he might consider the motorcycle helmet law as a component of a broader legislative package related to cheap auto insurance. 


According to a statement from Governor Jennifer Granholm, the Legislature has now passed bills to eradicate the state’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law before but the measure was voted using vetoing twice by then. 


However, the law still campaigns that for safety purposes, as much as possible wear helmet and protective gears while on the road as this will guarantee better protection for motorists. 


The law is expected to take effect as soon as it will gain approval from the state Legislature and to higher bodies.

Video Clip!

You know, there are a number of insurance companies who are to be found in the internet. But be sure to screen each one of them to determine whether they are legit or not.


Nonetheless, please never get dizzy in choosing the perfect insurance for you. Save your clicks and go directly to a cheap online auto insurance company that is guaranteed, reliable and quick.


Here's one for you.

Colorado Bill Binding Homeowners Insurance Nullifications Crushed

A bill that restricts insurance carrier’s freedom to underwrite and provide rates that accurately reflect consumer’s risks of loss exposure has been defeated by the Colorado House Economic and Business Development Committee. A recent meeting has undergone an election that resulted to a 9-4 vote to defeat the bill.

The recently defeated bill, Senate Bill 15, which concerns the “requirements for a homeowner’s insurance company to take adverse action on existing insurance coverage for home based claims experience”, supposedly, forbids homeowners insurance companies to cancel or refuse renewals when the policyholder has made more than two claims in the past three years.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is teaming up with other members in the insurance industry to suppress this “anti-insurance consumer, anti-underwriting accuracy, and anti-fairness legislation”, says Christian J. Rataj, Western state affairs manager for the NAMIC. “We commend the Colorado House Economic and Business Development Committee for defeating a bill that would have created unfair cross-subsidization of rates problems for consumers that would have led to actuarially unsound homeowners’ insurance rates for Colorado homeowners.”

He continues that insurers are obliged to have the liberty to study an unabridged representation of the policyholder’s risk of loss exposure potential in order to properly and accurately make an informed underwriting decision. The proposed legislation, however, poses a serious danger to the exactness of insurers’ underwriting practices since it prevents insurers from considering certain claims history relevant to a policyholder’s risk of loss exposure.


In conclusion, he comments that the Colorado Division of Insurance already has adequately and appropriately regulated authority which reviews homeowners’ insurance rates and adjudicates them to warrants that are not excessive, inadequate, or biased.