I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
This was my thought too. The article makes her seem like a raging entitled bitch, but if she had to have multiple surgeries on her wrist, I could see subrogation action (I think that's what it's called) being a part of this.
So a broken wrist from 4 years ago is causing this woman to be unable to lift a small plate of food? That's a stretch and a half.
I'm surprised she's not wearing a neck brace because the healed wrist causes pain to shoot up her arm and into her neck, which causes migraines and loss of work.
My aunt does have lasting effects from a broken wrist. She was picking up a rental car and an employed plowed into her. I think they finally settled, but it was years of surgery and pt. I think she's finally accepted the limitations aren't going to be fixed.
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
THIS IS A THING?
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
THIS IS A THING?
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
Yes, it's a thing.
My friend's son hurt himself on her property, but the insurance company sent her a survey asking how the accident happened and if it happened on someone else's property, so they could go after them.
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
THIS IS A THING?
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
Yes. If someone else could be liable, they'll only pay if you take legal action against the liable party, and then they get a portion of the settlement for what they paid out (I think the percentage they're entitled to varies by state).
This was my thought too. The article makes her seem like a raging entitled bitch, but if she had to have multiple surgeries on her wrist, I could see subrogation action (I think that's what it's called) being a part of this.
But again, wouldn't they be suing the homeowner's insurance? And not the kid directly?
Since I'm not an insurance lawyer, I don't know for sure, but I think you have to sue the person who caused the damage, then their insurer will pay up.
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
Yes, it's a thing.
My friend's son hurt himself on her property, but the insurance company sent her a survey asking how the accident happened and if it happened on someone else's property, so they could go after them.
the same thing happened to me when I failed to catch a softball playing catch w/ a coworker at a company outing and it hit me square in the mouth. stitches inside and out of my lip. But I just filled out the form saying it was my fault (which it was)
The kid is 8 years old. I know in Ohio there was a limit to damages caused by a minor *if the injury was caused by negligence or was purposeful*. I hope NY has something similar and she gets totally slapped down.
ETA: it could be the insurance company is demanding that she sue or they won't pay. Often if there is an "at fault" they will require it. So if the kid is "at fault" they could. But yeah, to drag an 8 year old into court to explain how he was so excited to see his aunt that he hugged her and she broke her wrist. That's pretty low. I'm assuming they're looking to a settlement to prevent that from happening.
Post by cattledogkisses on Oct 13, 2015 14:27:49 GMT -5
Poor kid.
My niece tackle-hugged me once and hurt my back, but I gave her a pass because she's 6, and it was an accident. Sometimes kids don't realize that they're capable of hurting adults when they're excited or being silly. I just asked her to be a little more careful in the future. No suing needed.
I feel like there's no allowance for accidents sometimes in today's world. Someone always has to pay, dammit.
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
THIS IS A THING?
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
Yes, this is a thing. Several years ago, my older daughter was playing basketball at the house across the street from her grandparents. Long story short, she injured her ankle while playing. My insurance company tried to get more information about the location where the injury happened. Yeah, the people who were renting the house at the time had moved back to Michigan (from GA), and I was not about to rat them out over something that was not in any way their fault.
They're held to a different standard. An adult's actions would be judged against how a reasonable person would act but the kid gets judged against a standard of a reasonable person of their age. So really she has to prove that a reasonable eight year old would know not to excitedly greet their aunt. Which--I'm going to go with no.
So a broken wrist from 4 years ago is causing this woman to be unable to lift a small plate of food? That's a stretch and a half.
I'm surprised she's not wearing a neck brace because the healed wrist causes pain to shoot up her arm and into her neck, which causes migraines and loss of work.
Right? Maybe she should be looking at her doctor instead of her nephew.
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
If that were the case they'd be going after the parent's homeowners insurance since it seems like it happened on their property, not the kid.
Not in my state. You cannot sue the liability insurance directly, you have to sue the INSURED, not the iNSURER. HOWEVER, when insurance here seeks subrogation, it's the insurance company that is the Plaintiff, and the insurer only sues for what they PAID, they cannot sue for pain and suffering and that shit, which it sounds like she is. So, no, this is not a subro case, but no, they would not sue the insurance directly.
I'm not excusing her at all, because WTH, but do you think it's he case where her health insurance company is making her go after them. I can't think of the term, but you know when insurance companies will try to assess damage, if it happened on someone else's property.
If it's not the above, she is awful.
THIS IS A THING?
Is it no wonder we think insurance companies are a necessary evil because dude!
Every time I got for physical therapy, I get a letter from my insurance company asking why and if it is related to a workers' comp claim.
So a broken wrist from 4 years ago is causing this woman to be unable to lift a small plate of food? That's a stretch and a half.
I'm surprised she's not wearing a neck brace because the healed wrist causes pain to shoot up her arm and into her neck, which causes migraines and loss of work.
Right? Maybe she should be looking at her doctor instead of her nephew.
They're held to a different standard. An adult's actions would be judged against how a reasonable person would act but the kid gets judged against a standard of a reasonable person of their age. So really she has to prove that a reasonable eight year old would know not to excitedly greet their aunt. Which--I'm going to go with no.
So now because I'm down this line of questioning, what would be the remedy for damages if the ruling went against the minor? Are the parents automatically liable?
If that were the case they'd be going after the parent's homeowners insurance since it seems like it happened on their property, not the kid.
Not in my state. You cannot sue the liability insurance directly, you have to sue the INSURED, not the iNSURER. HOWEVER, when insurance here seeks subrogation, it's the insurance company that is the Plaintiff, and the insurer only sues for what they PAID, they cannot sue for pain and suffering and that shit, which it sounds like she is. So, no, this is not a subro case, but no, they would not sue the insurance directly.
Right, you'd be suing the parents in order to get at their homeowner's insurance. I didn't think the details of how you'd go about going after the insurance were necessary to get the point across. I didn't mean to imply that you would actually sue the company, just that they'd be the ones you'd ultimately be going after.
I bet the jury walked into the room and they all said, "WTF did we just listen to?"
I like to think that the jury would have found a way to give her some money if the extent of the physical injuries really was affecting her day-to-day life, given what I'm reading from the lawyers here about having to sue the insured vs. sue the insurance company. I figured the media will publicize the more salacious details like "But I can't eat hors d'oevres with my friends!!!!" and thought maybe there was something more substantial in the lawsuit than that. Probably not though.
They're held to a different standard. An adult's actions would be judged against how a reasonable person would act but the kid gets judged against a standard of a reasonable person of their age. So really she has to prove that a reasonable eight year old would know not to excitedly greet their aunt. Which--I'm going to go with no.
So now because I'm down this line of questioning, what would be the remedy for damages if the ruling went against the minor? Are the parents automatically liable?
Honestly, I've never worked on a suit involving a minor and the bar was a long time ago so I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.
So now because I'm down this line of questioning, what would be the remedy for damages if the ruling went against the minor? Are the parents automatically liable?
Honestly, I've never worked on a suit involving a minor and the bar was a long time ago so I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.
But I have questions! LOL!
Honestly this is kind of fascinating. I'm wondering how you collect against someone with no legal assets? Unless the ruling doesn't go into effect until they are no longer a minor.
They're held to a different standard. An adult's actions would be judged against how a reasonable person would act but the kid gets judged against a standard of a reasonable person of their age. So really she has to prove that a reasonable eight year old would know not to excitedly greet their aunt. Which--I'm going to go with no.
So now because I'm down this line of questioning, what would be the remedy for damages if the ruling went against the minor? Are the parents automatically liable?
This is what makes me question the Aunt's motives, assuming the boy was a co-beneficiary of Mom's life insurance policy (if she had one) he may have money in his name. the timing of this makes me suspicious.
Post by MixedBerryJam on Oct 13, 2015 15:16:05 GMT -5
My SIL sent this to me with the comment that she'd let her nephews poop on her head without suing. That said, the line about not being able to hold her hors d'oevres plate made me question if this is supposed to be satire or something. But the kid's mom just died? So he probably has some kind of inheritance? I think I'm going to be sick.