This case is absolutely absurd. And fortunately, the judge refused to go along with it.

In a defective products decision that is scheduled to be published in tomorrow's edition of the New York Law Journal, the manufacturer of a defective clothes dryer offered to pay the entire amount of damages paid out by the plaintiff insurance company (in excess of $200,000) to one of its insureds when the insured's home burned down as the result of a fire caused by the defective dryer.

In fact, the manufacturer, Electrolux, offered to pay the statutory interest on the claim as well.

The insurer would be thrilled at the settlement offer and the prospect of putting the case to rest, right?

Wrong.

The insurer refused to accept the settlement offer of 100% of what they asked for; they were actually angered by the settlement offer. They wanted "their day in court."

But the judge refused to go along with the insurer, stating, "[The insurer] is correct that the Court cannot force it to accept Electrolux's offer, but neither can [the insurer] force this Court to waste its time trying a case that is effectively in default."

It is truly sad and disturbing that some people have lost perspective on what our judicial system is supposed to achieve: a civil venue and system for resolving our disputes. It is not - nor was it ever designed to be - a soapbox.

And the insurer's notion that they would waste court and juror time and taxpayer money so the world could hear their story is downright offensive.