- 24 -
understanding of paragraph 3.0 as follows: “Well, we understood
this provision agreement that it really offered Sarah absolute
protection. That there would be monies available for her, and
her care, from this annuity. That there’s no way anybody could
cash in the annuity, and take proceeds from her.”
Ms. Weiss-Davenport, like her husband, testified that she
viewed the lawsuit as comprising a single claim for the three
plaintiffs and was never privy to any breakdown of pain,
suffering, or medical problems for her daughter separately. When
asked to describe her role in connection with the annuity
amounts, Ms. Weiss-Davenport stated:
Well, I think that one of my biggest roles was
just Rick and I having the discussion about why we
should do it this way, how they work, because I,
obviously, do not have a background in finance, and how
this would benefit, in the long run, Sarah, to have two
separate payments coming in, from two different
companies, in case, as Rick said, one of the companies
were to go under.
We wanted it set up this way so that in the event
that Rick and I were to become deceased, or, for
example, one of us left the marriage and there was a
new person coming on board, we wanted to make sure that
Sarah’s share would be kept up.
And that’s why we set it up this way: for her
safety. Because as Rick said, our biggest fear was
that what would happen to her if she outlived us. And
at the time we had no other children to consider
helping to take care of her.
Thus, the Court has before it a situation where on the one
hand decedent’s parents affirmed, primarily in response to
leading questions on direct examination, that they understood all
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011