The PERSON is "insured". The MAN was hurt.

So this man was hurt by his person ? And how a man can be a party in this ? :)

Well the person damaged the "value" of the person! :P

It would be fun to see the actual transcript of that case. Other than the insurance company being the defence party, I can't make any logic of this.

"....Mr Rutman claims affected his memory and made him oversexed...." oversexed.... hahaha

When you "DuckDuckGo" it, all the links don't seem liable. :)

We have more then one person. The person contracting with the insurance company is not the same then his other legal Person? Would it be on person that made the legal purchase of that boomerang. The other person is the beneficiary of insurance. The insurance company is trying to have to Man being surety and responsible for the damage, he is saying that his insured person is? It's a quick try at reasoning this through... is this a shit stain?

Larry SUE-YOURSELF Rutman, What a dude :D

Steph, just focus on the basics: IT'S ALL SURETY AND ACCOUNTING.

WTF! I'm also have trouble making sense of this :/ It seems there can only be two parties with SURETY here, either the state and/or the insurance company.

The answer is simple, really; IT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED! http://m.snopes.com/goes-around-litigates-around/

Pete: You need to brush up on your critical thinking, and Google-Fu. :p

I thought "oversexed" gave it away :D

Ha ha ha! Fuck! This is what happens when you reply to comments and/or presuming it must be true instead of inspecting the link. :/

Ceit Butler, I am in Quebec, the internet is censored here :D

Depriving you of access to snopes.com? :/

Oh shit, first time I see this snopes thing, let me snopes "surety" :-o