The real story about the aunt who sued her nephew

[aurora]

Oct 16, 2015 9:39:00 GMT -5 toledo said:

blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/10/the-real-story-about-the-aunt-who-sued-her-nephew/


...

The threat of being roundly shamed and humiliated, as happened in this case, might put off people from claiming for compensation in the future – this is great news for big corporations and businesses who want to cut corners, but not so good for people who have been genuinely wronged.

If this had been reported as “Insurance company forces woman to sue nephew after refusing to cover her medical bills”, perhaps Americans would have decided that this was unfair, and they might have been more likely to support health care reform.

...

I hate insurance companies.

[fortnightlily]

Why is this even being dealt with under the homeowner's policy? I get that everyone's trying to make someone else foot the bill, but for crying out loud, we ought to have an adequate medical insurance system such that your own coverage takes care of the medical bills for any medical needs you incur, regardless of where/when/why it happened.

[wawa]

Oct 16, 2015 10:41:17 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Why is this even being dealt with under the homeowner's policy? I get that everyone's trying to make someone else foot the bill, but for crying out loud, we ought to have an adequate medical insurance system such that your own coverage takes care of the medical bills for any medical needs you incur, regardless of where/when/why it happened.

this has always confused me too.  Like, if a tree fell on her and that's why she's hurt - then sure.  Homeowner's insurance.  I can see the connection there.  But any time anybody gets hurt doing anything at all on my property - my homeowners is somehow on the hook?  Even if it had absolutely nothing to do with my actual property?  WHY??

Insurance companies really are the devil. 

[penguingrrl]

I'm not surprised. When my aunt was a 20 year old single mother of an infant (back in the late 70s) her mother came over at 7 am to babysit while my aunt worked. It was snowy/icy and my aunt hadn't shoveled and salted the steps yet and grandma's insurance company sued the landlord'so homeowner's. The landlord turned around and sued my aunt since per the lease it was her responsibility. So basically grandma died her daughter who was a young single mother living on minimum wage. Sadly, this concept isn't new.

[secretlyevil]

I hate insurance companies. I hope CT law is changed as a result of the attention this case generated.

[wawa]

Oct 16, 2015 11:05:38 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

Oct 16, 2015 10:56:28 GMT -5 wawa said:

 any time anybody gets hurt doing anything at all on my property - my homeowners is somehow on the hook?  

Quite possibly, depends on a lot of factors including state law, but quite possibly.

We have the same rule in my state about insurance companies not being named in the lawsuit if they are just the coverage.  Like if I get hit by someone that has State Farm, I don't sue State Farm, I sue the person even if State Farm pays for their lawyer and pays the settlement.

I mean, I know this is the case.  I had to fill out a form when I hurt my foot explaining where I was when it happened so my health insurance knew if they could hit up somebody's homeowners.  (the answer was no.  Happened on gov't property so good luck with THAT).  I just don't understand how this became a thing. 

How is liability defined in a homeowners policy in a state where this is the case such that something like one person knocking another person over through a complete accident is somehow included?   I mean, if I trip and fall on an icy sidewalk I see the connection.  But if somebody just knocks me over?  What does that have to do with the property??

[mich1]

Oct 16, 2015 11:14:45 GMT -5 wawa said:

Oct 16, 2015 11:05:38 GMT -5 Catlawdy said:

Quite possibly, depends on a lot of factors including state law, but quite possibly.

We have the same rule in my state about insurance companies not being named in the lawsuit if they are just the coverage.  Like if I get hit by someone that has State Farm, I don't sue State Farm, I sue the person even if State Farm pays for their lawyer and pays the settlement.

I mean, I know this is the case.  I had to fill out a form when I hurt my foot explaining where I was when it happened so my health insurance knew if they could hit up somebody's homeowners.  (the answer was no.  Happened on gov't property so good luck with THAT).  I just don't understand how this became a thing. 

How is liability defined in a homeowners policy in a state where this is the case such that something like one person knocking another person over through a complete accident is somehow included?   I mean, if I trip and fall on an icy sidewalk I see the connection.  But if somebody just knocks me over?  What does that have to do with the property??

This has been a thing for a very long time.  I have long term orthopedic problems, so have seen a lot of orthopedic surgeons over the last 20 years.  I cannot remember a time where I have not had to fill out a questionnaire at the surgeon's office with regards to my problems and how they were caused.  Most times, I even got a follow up phone call from the insurance companies wanting me to explain to them what caused such issues that I needed surgery from an orthopedic surgeon (mine are congenital).

[ESF]

Oct 16, 2015 10:41:17 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Why is this even being dealt with under the homeowner's policy? I get that everyone's trying to make someone else foot the bill, but for crying out loud, we ought to have an adequate medical insurance system such that your own coverage takes care of the medical bills for any medical needs you incur, regardless of where/when/why it happened.

If someone got injured because of GM's ignition switch, and needed a million dollars in medical care, should those costs be borne by all consumers via higher health insurance premiums, or should those costs be borne by GM for selling a product they knew would result in those injuries?

What if this woman's injury was caused by her nephew obtaining a gun that his parents had not properly secured? Aren't we always saying in the gun control threads that we should make homeowners insurance policies pay out when these things happen to raise rates and dissuade negligent gun ownership?

As I said in the other thread, I think sometimes health insurance companies can things too far in demanding that other people pay costs.  But I also get why it's a thing.  There's a lot of people and companies that should not be let off the hook just because people have health insurance.  It creates a moral hazard.

[Michelle]

My daughter stepped in a barrette at a friend's house that punctured her foot and insurance kept sending me forms to provide the address of where it happened because we had to go to urgent care to get it removed. I just refused to respond. Thankfully it just paid.

[iammalcolmx]

toledo thank you for posting this. I get it now. This is similar to how you must go to a Workers Comp physician when seeking medical care cause by a job injury.

[fortnightlily]

Oct 16, 2015 11:41:50 GMT -5 ESF said:

Oct 16, 2015 10:41:17 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Why is this even being dealt with under the homeowner's policy? I get that everyone's trying to make someone else foot the bill, but for crying out loud, we ought to have an adequate medical insurance system such that your own coverage takes care of the medical bills for any medical needs you incur, regardless of where/when/why it happened.

If someone got injured because of GM's ignition switch, and needed a million dollars in medical care, should those costs be borne by all consumers via higher health insurance premiums, or should those costs be borne by GM for selling a product they knew would result in those injuries?

What if this woman's injury was caused by her nephew obtaining a gun that his parents had not properly secured? Aren't we always saying in the gun control threads that we should make homeowners insurance policies pay out when these things happen to raise rates and dissuade negligent gun ownership?

As I said in the other thread, I think sometimes health insurance companies can things too far in demanding that other people pay costs.  But I also get why it's a thing.  There's a lot of people and companies that should not be let off the hook just because people have health insurance.  It creates a moral hazard.

That makes sense.  But those are cases of negligence, and there's a punitive element beyond just making sure the injured party's medical expenses are covered.

[Deleted]

DH was in a terrible car accident in his early twenties. He ended up lifelighted to a hodpitsl two hours away and his entire pelvis/femur was reconstructed. Medical bills were insane.

Because his best friend was driving, medical insurance went after his best friend's car insurance to pay the bills. I guess if the media were covering it, it would have looked like my husband was suing his best friend.

But they remained best friends through it all. It's crazy how insurance works.

[saz]

My son's friend (our neighbor) accidentally threw a rock on my son's foot and he had an ER visit and many months of follow up appointments for X-rays, tests, etc. When we got the questionnaire, we said he dropped the rock himself, on our property, so we wouldn't have to deal with legal issues with our neighbors. Our medical insurance paid. I'm sure plenty think it is unethical to lie to insurance, but if the aunt said she fell on her own property, this wouldn't have happened.

[pedanticwench]

So, the takeaway from this is that insurance companies are awful.

I cut myself on a mirror at home and had to get stitches recently. Sure enough, the insurance company both called and sent me letters asking where I was when it happened to see if they could go after someone else for the cost.

[orangeblossom]

Okay, so insurance is making her sue, but didn't the aunt or was it her lawyer that stated, the 8yp nephew shoukd have known that his exuberant hug could/woukd result in injury?! If so, um, I still don't like that that was said, whether by her or her lawyer.

[laurenpetro]

Oct 16, 2015 12:51:46 GMT -5 orangeblossom said:

Okay, so insurance is making her sue, but didn't the aunt or was it her lawyer that stated, the 8yp nephew shoukd have known that his exuberant hug could/woukd result in injury?! If so, um, I still don't like that that was said, whether by her or her lawyer.

This is where I'm at. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between "Most Horrible Person Evar" and "I'm Just A Victim!!!"

[earlgreyhot]

Why are we afraid of universal health care?

[scout8]

I don't think her medical insurance refused to pay. I don't understand where that is coming from. It is my understanding that she is suing for additional damages. She can't sue the homeowner's policy directly, so she sues the kid. If her medical insurance company wants to try to recover their costs, they can, but that isn't what is happening here. She personally sued the kid.

I dislike medical insurers, but as far as I can tell, they didn't do anything wrong here.

[scout8]

I wonder if she doesn't have health insurance. Maybe that is why she keeps talking about the homeowner insurance paying.

[pedanticwench]

Oct 16, 2015 13:09:39 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I wonder if she doesn't have health insurance. Maybe that is why she keeps talking about the homeowner insurance paying.

"averting any discussion of whether or not it was fair for her insurer to refuse to pay out."

I think she is probably medically insured and her insurance company went after the homeowner's insurance. I think this is how it typically plays out when an accident occurs in the home.

[scout8]

Oct 16, 2015 13:20:48 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Oct 16, 2015 13:09:39 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I wonder if she doesn't have health insurance. Maybe that is why she keeps talking about the homeowner insurance paying.

"averting any discussion of whether or not it was fair for her insurer to refuse to pay out."

I think she is probably medically insured and her insurance company went after the homeowner's insurance. I think this is how it typically plays out when an accident occurs in the home.

See, I don't think that is what happened though. If her medical insurance company went after the homeowner's insurance, then they would be the plaintiff as subrogee. The Aunt is the plaintiff here. She filed the lawsuit.

[aurora]

Oct 16, 2015 10:59:46 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I'm not surprised. When my aunt was a 20 year old single mother of an infant (back in the late 70s) her mother came over at 7 am to babysit while my aunt worked. It was snowy/icy and my aunt hadn't shoveled and salted the steps yet and grandma's insurance company sued the landlord'so homeowner's. The landlord turned around and sued my aunt since per the lease it was her responsibility. So basically grandma died her daughter who was a young single mother living on minimum wage. Sadly, this concept isn't new.

Please tell me by "died" you mean "sued" and that your grandmother didn't actually die in the accident (making a horrible incident so much worse).

[MarmeeNoir]

Oct 16, 2015 13:04:13 GMT -5 earlgreyhot said:

Why are we afraid of universal health care?

Poors might have a burden lifted. God forbid

[wawa]

Oct 16, 2015 13:04:13 GMT -5 earlgreyhot said:

Why are we afraid of universal health care?

because then big brother would be able to dictate the level of care you can receive.

Unlike now where it's a bunch of for profit companies with minimal levels of accountability.  See, that's clearly SO MUCH BETTER.

[suzyp]

Oct 16, 2015 13:20:48 GMT -5 pedanticwench said:

Oct 16, 2015 13:09:39 GMT -5 scout8 said:

I wonder if she doesn't have health insurance. Maybe that is why she keeps talking about the homeowner insurance paying.

"averting any discussion of whether or not it was fair for her insurer to refuse to pay out."

I think she is probably medically insured and her insurance company went after the homeowner's insurance. I think this is how it typically plays out when an accident occurs in the home.

But that's not what happened here.  SHE was the Plaintiff and her nephew was the defendant.  Insurance companies sue each other all the time - they did not here.  That's why I am suspicious of her story. She was trying to get to the homeowners' policy.  And there's likely a reason they did not pay - b/c the child was not negligent and therefore not liable for her injuries.  Sometimes an accident is just an accident and just because someone hurts you doesn't mean that they are liable for your damages.

[cattledogkisses]

This is making me realize how spoiled I am with my government healthcare. I have never had to fill out a questionnaire for anything, and every claim has always been paid in full without any questions.

H injured himself at his parents' house last year and needed an ER visit. Medical insurance paid in full with no questions. Good thing he didn't have to sue his parents, I guess?

[penguingrrl]

Oct 16, 2015 14:03:09 GMT -5 aurora said:

Oct 16, 2015 10:59:46 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I'm not surprised. When my aunt was a 20 year old single mother of an infant (back in the late 70s) her mother came over at 7 am to babysit while my aunt worked. It was snowy/icy and my aunt hadn't shoveled and salted the steps yet and grandma's insurance company sued the landlord'so homeowner's. The landlord turned around and sued my aunt since per the lease it was her responsibility. So basically grandma died her daughter who was a young single mother living on minimum wage. Sadly, this concept isn't new.

Please tell me by "died" you mean "sued" and that your grandmother didn't actually die in the accident (making a horrible incident so much worse).

OMG, fat fingers and autocorrect and me typing quickly! My grandmother was an awful person but not quite that awful!

[WanderingWinoZ]

yea, I can see this, but it also doesn't add up.

With her testimony about how it impacted her lifestyle, it sounded like she was going after more than medicals?? Pain & suffering? Or decreased life enjoyment??

[sushi]

My parents pretty much refused to allow us to hve visitors b/c they were afraid someone might get injured and sue them. Funsuckers.

I've had nearly 10 years of ebil gubmint healthcare and only 2 issues that I'm currently trying to resolve. And I've used quite a bit of medical care in the last couple weeks.

[scout8]

Oct 16, 2015 15:08:48 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

This is making me realize how spoiled I am with my government healthcare. I have never had to fill out a questionnaire for anything, and every claim has always been paid in full without any questions.

H injured himself at his parents' house last year and needed an ER visit. Medical insurance paid in full with no questions. Good thing he didn't have to sue his parents, I guess?

Nothing in this story says that her medical insurance refused to pay or forced her to sue the kid. She did not have to sue him. She chose to do so in order to recover under his homeowner's policy. Yes, her medical insurer could have gone after the homeowner's insurance if they thought they had a case, but that isn't what happened here.

I think everyone is confused because the attorney said something about the "insurance company forced us to sue". By that, the attorney meant that the homeowner's insurance refused to settle so she filed a lawsuit. Her medical insurance company is not forcing her to sue.