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.
No, you have to sue the person actually liable. The parents aren't liable (unless she made a claim for negligent supervision or something). The kid is still covered under the policy as a resident, so the homeowner's policy would still defend and indemnify him.
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.
No, you have to sue the person actually liable. The parents aren't liable (unless she made a claim for negligent supervision or something). The kid is still covered under the policy as a resident, so the homeowner's policy would still defend and indemnify him.
Negligent supervision is not a difficult claim to make, certainly easier than a straight negligence claim against a minor.
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.
I think the spin to the article would be different if this were the case, though. Then it would be a "look at this rotten insurance company, making this perfectly nice aunt sue her beloved nephew." And at the very least, the aunt wouldn't be complaining about her hors d'oeurve plate.
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.
After DS was seen in the ER for a possible hand injury, we got a letter from a law firm representing the insurance company, wanting more info on the accident before they would pay the claim.
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.
Insurance. Homeowner's would still cover him as a resident. And she didn't claim he intentionally harmed her, so, this negligence would most likely fit within the policy. Parents aren't typically liable for their kids' torts. If there is no insurance, kid will have to pay once they reach adulthood (in most states).*
No, you have to sue the person actually liable. The parents aren't liable (unless she made a claim for negligent supervision or something). The kid is still covered under the policy as a resident, so the homeowner's policy would still defend and indemnify him.
Negligent supervision is not a difficult claim to make, certainly easier than a straight negligence claim against a minor.
In my experience, it is very difficult. I've had negligent supervision claims thrown out many times in summary judgment.
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.
Insurance. Homeowner's would still cover him as a resident. And she didn't claim he intentionally harmed her, so, this negligence would most likely fit within the policy. Parents aren't typically liable for their kids' torts. If there is no insurance, kid will have to pay once they reach adulthood (in most states).*
*This is not legal advice.
This seems...absurd.
ETA: Not direct at you personally. The thought of an eight year old getting a paper route or whatever to pay damages is what I am referring to. Or being saddled with debt immediately upon reaching 18. It's all just too absurd.
Insurance. Homeowner's would still cover him as a resident. And she didn't claim he intentionally harmed her, so, this negligence would most likely fit within the policy. Parents aren't typically liable for their kids' torts. If there is no insurance, kid will have to pay once they reach adulthood (in most states).*
*This is not legal advice.
This seems...absurd.
Usually if someone is suing, there is insurance. Most attorney's won't sue an uninsured minor. MOST. You can also sue parents for negligent supervision (or negligent entrustment if it's a car wreck and the parents own the car). And it is very state dependent. That's how my state does it, but other states may hold parents responsible.
Negligent supervision is not a difficult claim to make, certainly easier than a straight negligence claim against a minor.
In my experience, it is very difficult. I've had negligent supervision claims thrown out many times in summary judgment.
That must be jurisdiction dependent. When I clerked at a general practice firm they pretty much always went with a claim against the parent instead of the kid because the ones against the minor weren't winners.
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.
This was all I could think too. My 65yr old mother twice broke the same wrist 2 winters in a row when she slipped on ice. 2 years later and the wrist is FINE. If the doctors botched setting the wrist you'd think she'd be suing them not the nephew. Glad the jury found against her.
I feel like there's no allowance for accidents sometimes in today's world. Someone always has to pay, dammit.
I haven't been able to google and find it, but there is a Joe Bornstein ad that says "there are NO accidents, only bad decisions made by careless people"
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.
I think the spin to the article would be different if this were the case, though. Then it would be a "look at this rotten insurance company, making this perfectly nice aunt sue her beloved nephew." And at the very least, the aunt wouldn't be complaining about her hors d'oeurve plate.
I went back and re-read the article when it was posted on ML and there was a line I glossed over the first time. "He should be held responsible." That gave me a whole different swing on her. Subrogation or not, she's suing her nephew, making him (and his dad) go through legal loopholes right after his mother (and wife) died, all in the name of holding an eight year old child responsible for excitedly greeting his aunt. And as I said there, my guess is the hosebeast was wearing 4-inch Loubs or something equally inappropriate in the name of fashion rather than comfort and on those spikes there's no way she would have been able to maintain her balance.
I emailed this to my sisters and told them their kids better WATCH OUT or else Auntie Rita will come after them.
But in all seriousness there just has to be more to the story than we're seeing. There HAS to be! Assholery of this level simply does not exist in this world. It cannot!
But in all seriousness there just has to be more to the story than we're seeing. There HAS to be! Assholery of this level simply does not exist in this world. It cannot!
Aunt who sued nephew speaks out, says she was forced to go to trial
BRIDGEPORT –The aunt who sued her nephew for damages said that she was forced to do so by Connecticut law when the insurance company only wanted to pay her one dollar.
Jennifer Connell sued her nephew after the excited 8-year-old’s hug allegedly caused her to fall and break her wrist, lost her case on Tuesday.
A jury found in favor of Sean Tarala, who is now 12 years old.
The law firm of Jainchill and Beckert released a statement on behalf of Jennifer Connell:
“From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.”
Connell testified against Tarala on Friday. Tarala, accompanied by his father, Michael Tarala, appeared confused during a hearing Friday. The boy’s mother, Lisa Tarala, died last year.
Connell, a 54-year-old human resources manager, said she loves her nephew, but told the court he should be held responsible for her injury. Connell claims Tarala, of Westport, was negligent and careless, and is suing him for $127,000.
“Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough,” said her attorneys in a statement.
The hug happened March 18, 2011 when Connell showed up at the Taralas’ Westport home for the boy’s birthday. Sean was riding his brand-new red bike when he noticed his aunt, and came running, shouting, “Auntie Jen, I love you,” according to court records.
Connell’s 50-pound nephew jumped into her arms, sending the two tumbling to the ground, she testified. At the time, Connell said, she was injured but “it was his birthday party and I didn’t want to upset him,” according to the CT Post.
The court documents state that Connell fractured her left arm and needed surgery. She claimed the injuries were permanently disabling.
Connell, who doesn’t have children of her own, said her life in a third-floor Manhattan walk-up has been “very difficult” since that day.
Her social life has taken a serious hit as well, she said. “I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate.”
Connell’s attorney claimed that “a reasonable eight year old under those circumstances would know or should have known that a forceful greeting such as the one delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff could cause the harms and losses suffered by the plaintiff.”
She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third.
REALLY, REALLY??? ^o) How freaking frail are you, should you even leave the house if your bones are made out of glass. You might want to talk your dr about your osteoporosis and start taking some calcium. WTH
Post by marriedfilingjoint on Oct 14, 2015 13:52:10 GMT -5
I don't think you have to be frail to have a freak wrist accident that requires multiple surgeries. Nor do I think the child's age or size is relevant. All it takes is a hard fall where you catch yourself with your hand and end up putting all your weight on your wrist with it in the wrong position. If she didn't get seen right away it may have begun healing before being set correctly. I have a friend who had multiple surgeries for a wrist injury she suffered while on vacation.
For some reason this story reminds me of the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit and how the media successfully convinced the entire world that poor old woman was some money hungry sue-happy old coot.
I don't understand why her health insurance isn't paying her medical bills.
They may have, or she didn't submit them. Some people don't submit them because of paid v. incurred statutes. Here, when you sue, you are only entitled to what was ACTUALLY PAID rather than originally billed, and health insurance companies get bills cut WAY down. When you sue, any applicable lien-holders (medical providers/health insurance) are entitled to whatever they are owed/paid.
I don't buy her attorney's story AT ALL. I think it is probably something in the middle. She is claiming more extravagant injuries than she has, but actually was injured.
I don't understand why her health insurance isn't paying her medical bills.
It's probably one of the many very crappy insurers that deny everything and then make their clients try to fight for the $, either by appeal or by finding someone else liable.