"Ought to"??!?? How about "could" or "contractually can"??!??
Maybe United as a corporate policy decides not to stand on its CoC and antagonize already distressed customers at a vulnerable moment to the tune of thousands of dollars. You don't know what UA's
policy is.
"Ought to"? Please. Not every clause of every contract must be exercised. This post really shows your true colors.
Rubbish. Take a look at the grammatical construction and you will then see why your post is 180 degrees wrong. It is not that I believe that the carrier "ought to" pursue the claim against OP.
Rather, as is quite clear, if you take the time to read the sentence, it says that if OP brings the matter to the carrier's attention, that the carrier might determine that it "ought to" have pursued OP's wife for the collection.
The failure to carefully read properly constructed sentences is exactly what started this thread in the first place. No need to perpetuate that.