Originally Posted by
CollegeFlyer
Speaks volumes? But...
1. She sued in federal court, which she could not have done if she had named her husband as a defendant. That would have defeated diversity jurisdiction.
2. If she and her husband share property (e.g. joint bank and investment accounts), suing him is a waste of money. She would be paying her own recovery, and the lawyer would take a cut.
Are you sure about point 1? It isn't really clear to me. The husband is clearly a Japanese national but the nationality of his wife is less clear (I don't think she's Japanese, given her middle initial and non-Japanese first name). The house in Florida is the wife's, according to the article, which indicates to me that they may be residing separately.
Perhaps they are already in the process of being divorced in Japan and are litigating their claims against each other in that context. Perhaps they have already signed a settlement between each other and just want to see if they can get United to chip in. I'm sure there is some key twist which we're all missing.