gardenmom5 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The aunt lives in a third story walk up in NYC (probably a rental) while her cousin has purchased a home that is worth $800k. Having lived in Norwalk, CT (one of the neighboring towns), the salaries are NOT much higher and there has to be some money somewhere to afford a house that expensive. It's irrelevant that it's not "much" house, what's relevant is that their purchase of a $800k house after the housing crash when mortgage underwriting became stricter shows that the family has money/assets and I'm guessing Auntie hurt herself and saw a way to get some of it. entitled little princess if she thinks she should get a cut of her sister's family's assets. there's a reason one of the 10 commandments is thou shalt not covet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Glad to see she's getting appropriate attention. The story made our local news this morning - with a picture of her and comments from the newscasters (about the case - not her looks). Bet they didn't count on that, but it sure seems fitting in this case. :coolgleamA: Hopefully it will help deter others who might be so inclined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/ "This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case," she said. "Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded." Connell said that an individual, not an insurance company, had to be named as a defendant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valley Girl Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Here's where I'm confused: In the first article linked, the woman says she didn't say anything about the injury at the party because she didn't want to upset her nephew. In the link Rough Collie posted, the article says the woman suffered a fracture. If she broke her arm, how did she get through the party without anyone knowing she was injured? Is the fact that she supposedly had to sue to get the homeowner's insurance to pay for her medical bills related to the fact that she did NOT indicate she was hurt at the time? This whole thing is just weird. I feel so sorry for the kid. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Well, I will say I hate that thing about insurance that requires people to sue others whom they otherwise would never think of suing. I do believe you can have a fracture and not realize it's a fracture until later. I can understand not wanting to say anything at the child's birthday party. The amount she's asking for doesn't sound crazy. But did she have to whine about messing up her social life and holding her plate of hors d'ouvres? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 It's a weird, distasteful case, but it doesn't seem fair that the lawyers who are behind these kinds of cases never get subjected to the Internet mob. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I can see that I'm in the minority opinion, but I don't see that what she did was so horrible. This apparently happened long before the boy's mother's death, so that issue is moot. She's not suing for a huge amount of money, just enough to cover her medical bills from the injury. This was a case of insurance. Injured partys' insurances sue homeowners' insurances all the time. There is really nothing unusual about that. If the fact that Connecticut disallows the plantiff/defendant to be the insurance company and persons must be named instead, then I don't understand what all the fuss and uproar is about. Honestly, given the circumstances and had I been in her shoes, I likely would have done the same thing. I wouldn't have because there wasn't a good case for negligence. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 If my niece or nephews tackled me with enthusiasm at their birthday party and I am injured I am not going to sue. Period. It was an accident. I would hope the family might help with bills if I didn't have the money to cover my medical care but I would not sue. The child did not attack me with malicious intent. The child was showing love and affection, albeit in a perhaps overly exuberant way. Suing is divisive and harmful to the family and especially the child's emotional state. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. But it sounds like she got advice from her insurance to take this route and did not see it as attacking her nephew, just as going through the legal process of getting compensated for her medical bills. I wouldn't have done it if I were in her shoes but I can see how being advised to take this route would seem logical to many, without any ill-intent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I can see that I'm in the minority opinion, but I don't see that what she did was so horrible. This apparently happened long before the boy's mother's death, so that issue is moot. She's not suing for a huge amount of money, just enough to cover her medical bills from the injury. This was a case of insurance. Injured partys' insurances sue homeowners' insurances all the time. There is really nothing unusual about that. If the fact that Connecticut disallows the plantiff/defendant to be the insurance company and persons must be named instead, then I don't understand what all the fuss and uproar is about. Honestly, given the circumstances and had I been in her shoes, I likely would have done the same thing. I would have eaten the costs myself rather than sue a child who accidentally hurt me because he wanted to hug me. It's not like anyone forced her to sue. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hopefully it will help deter others who might be so inclined. It won't - because they never see themselves in the misdeeds of others. My brother got very nasty (and I MEAN *very* nasty in the way only death brings out.) after our mother died. He didn't understand why I then cut off contact with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I wonder I'd she tried holding the plate in the other hand? 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I don't understand the excuse. Does the insurance company pay if she sues the kid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I think that's what she's saying, that the insurance company will pay if she sues. Sometimes your own insurance won't pay if they think you ought to sue someone else. Given the new info, I can imagine she went to her cousin (the dad) and said, cuz, I have these bills and the insurance company won't pay unless I sue your kid. Otherwise it's out of pocket for me. What do you think? And the dad understanding the reason and not taking it personally. Then whoever is in court seeing the auntie whine about hug damages decides she has a news story. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I think that's what she's saying, that the insurance company will pay if she sues. Sometimes your own insurance won't pay if they think you ought to sue someone else. Given the new info, I can imagine she went to her cousin (the dad) and said, cuz, I have these bills and the insurance company won't pay unless I sue your kid. Otherwise it's out of pocket for me. What do you think? And the dad understanding the reason and not taking it personally. Then whoever is in court seeing the auntie whine about hug damages decides she has a news story. If someone wanted to sue my child, to drag her into a courtroom to be questioned and called "careless and negligent" in front of a bunch of people simply for giving someone a hug, there's no way I'm not taking that personally. And if it was just a formality for the insurance company, why did the jury dismiss the case so quickly? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 If someone wanted to sue my child, to drag her into a courtroom to be questioned and called "careless and negligent" in front of a bunch of people simply for giving someone a hug, there's no way I'm not taking that personally. And if it was just a formality for the insurance company, why did the jury dismiss the case so quickly? Maybe now that she lost the case, her own insurance will pay the medical bills? Maybe they refused to pay at first because they said the home insurance was primary. I've had my health insurance refuse a bill because car insurance was primary. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 And if it was just a formality for the insurance company, why did the jury dismiss the case so quickly? In some states, the jury is not permitted to be told there is insurance coverage. "1. The vast majority of defendants in personal injury cases have liability insurance, but the fact that a defendant has insurance which will cover plaintiff's damages is almost always kept secret from the jury." http://www.hallinjurylaw.com/not_told.html We don't know enough about this case to figure out what happened. I looked at the docket, and nothing important on it is linked to a document. I gave a cursory glance at Google results to see if CT juries are informed about coverage during trial, and couldn't find anything from a reliable source that was not a law firm's website. Don't have time to research this further. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I can see that I'm in the minority opinion, but I don't see that what she did was so horrible. This apparently happened long before the boy's mother's death, so that issue is moot. She's not suing for a huge amount of money, just enough to cover her medical bills from the injury. This was a case of insurance. Injured partys' insurances sue homeowners' insurances all the time. There is really nothing unusual about that. If the fact that Connecticut disallows the plantiff/defendant to be the insurance company and persons must be named instead, then I don't understand what all the fuss and uproar is about. Honestly, given the circumstances and had I been in her shoes, I likely would have done the same thing. Huh, I did not know that. Reminds me of this thread, about homeowner's insurance and not taking it personally if someone "goes after" insurance to pay for an injury. IIRC (I haven't reread the whole thread), the general consensus was that that's the way insurance works, whether we like it or not. So, I wonder if this is the way CT law works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 This insurance thing is freaking me out. My health insurance won't cover a broken arm until I sue my nephew??? What the hell? Can't the insurance companies deal with it without asking me to sue my own family? Anyway, the social life and hors d'ouvres comments were over the top. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Wow, and I thought my aunt was hard on 9 year old Sylvia. At least we didn't get sued! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 This insurance thing is freaking me out. My health insurance won't cover a broken arm until I sue my nephew??? What the hell? Can't the insurance companies deal with it without asking me to sue my own family? Anyway, the social life and hors d'ouvres comments were over the top. From what I read, it sounds like it has more to do with state law than the insurance company. In another state it might not have to happen that way if you try to get the homeowner's insurance to cover your injury. Still, I can't imagine going after a relative (especially a child) like that, even if that's the only way to get the expenses covered. I wonder why her insurance wouldn't cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 From what I read, it sounds like it has more to do with state law than the insurance company. In another state it might not have to happen that way if you try to get the homeowner's insurance to cover your injury. Still, I can't imagine going after a relative (especially a child) like that, even if that's the only way to get the expenses covered. I wonder why her insurance wouldn't cover it. Assuming she had health insurance, if she had won, it is likely that her health insurance company would have gone after her to be repaid from the proceeds. Also, there are other damages: lost wages, pain and suffering, deductibles. I noticed that the news stories covered frivolous damages ... like not being able to hold a plate ... but there may have been more serious effects from her injury that we do not know about. The woman is still close with the boy and his father. The insurance company paid for the defense costs: legal fees and associated expenses. So for whatever reason she decided to sue, I think the parents agreed that she should do it. "The boy refers to Connell as his aunt, although she said he is the son of her cousin. The family remains close. Just a few weeks ago, Connell said, she took the boy out shopping for his Halloween costume." http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/ I think this story was irresponsibly sensationalized by the media. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I think this story was irresponsibly sensationalized by the media. I agree right down to the quotes they chose to include—and the public fell for it hook, line, and sinker. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 That's what I'm thinking, too. This is actually a rather mundane and ordinary insurance maneuver that some reporter got ahold of and sensationalized. There's actually nothing much going on here. Actually it is unusual, as if her insurance company was pushing the issue they would have been party to the suit, and they would have started action sooner. Her suit was also asking for pain and suffering, which has nothing to do with a third party insurer being involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 This insurance thing is freaking me out. My health insurance won't cover a broken arm until I sue my nephew??? What the hell? Can't the insurance companies deal with it without asking me to sue my own family? Anyway, the social life and hors d'ouvres comments were over the top. What health insurance companies generally do is request information to see if another insurer may actually be responsible for the damages. If so, they will ask the injured party to sign over their rights to any medical damages collected. They can also contact the insurer and negotiate a separate settlement. Example: Years ago DH was in a minor car accident. He had a slight neck injury. He went to see our physician, who sent him for PT. We contacted the the other driver's insurance coverage, but they claimed the accident was not serious enough for neck injury and would only pay for chiro visits. The claim amount on our end was small, and DH had no interest in a pain and suffering claim (he did offer to settle for medical only and they refused). He continued treatment through our health insurance, and after looking at the facts they started a subrogation claim against the insurance of of the other driver. DH got his treatment, our health insurance provider got paid by the car insurance company, and we did not have to retain an attorney. Interesting ending: the car insurance company contacted DH over a year later and asked to settle his outstanding pain and suffering claim. We had never pursued anything, but they offered him a check to allow them to close the claim out. We added them to the list of insurance companies we will never do business with as they did nothing but cost themselves money with how they handled the matter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpyTheFrog Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Could a broken wrist really cost $127,000 to fix? That seems hard to believe, even if that amount includes lost wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Could a broken wrist really cost $127,000 to fix? That seems hard to believe, even if that amount includes lost wages. If there were two surgeries involved the medical bills will mount up. Pain and suffering awards often run from 2-5x the medical bills, so along with lost wages the total seems about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 If my niece or nephews tackled me with enthusiasm at their birthday party and I am injured I am not going to sue. Period. It was an accident. I would hope the family might help with bills if I didn't have the money to cover my medical care but I would not sue. The child did not attack me with malicious intent. The child was showing love and affection, albeit in a perhaps overly exuberant way. Suing is divisive and harmful to the family and especially the child's emotional state. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. You would pay $130,000 out of pocket to avoid suing? I mean, of course it was an accident, but that is what insurance is for. If a car skidded on ice, ran into your car, and you broke your hip.... you wouldn't get that car's insurance company to pay for your medical bills, because it was not intentional? I would. I think it'd be crazy not to. Again, this is what largely insurance is for: to cover medical costs when there is an accident. The newspaper's pulled quotes about her swank address and difficultly holding plates are parties were pure, nasty sensationalism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 If this was purely to collect insurance to cover medical bills, it's a no brainer that she need to jump through this hoop. 130,000 is quite a bit of money for a broken hand though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The reason she lost the suit is that she did not have a strong negligence claim. It really doesn't matter what the medical bills were if the child/parent were not at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 You would pay $130,000 out of pocket to avoid suing? I mean, of course it was an accident, but that is what insurance is for. If a car skidded on ice, ran into your car, and you broke your hip.... you wouldn't get that car's insurance company to pay for your medical bills, because it was not intentional? I would. I think it'd be crazy not to. Again, this is what largely insurance is for: to cover medical costs when there is an accident. The newspaper's pulled quotes about her swank address and difficultly holding plates are parties were pure, nasty sensationalism. Health insurance is for when there is an accident. Homeowner insurance is for when there is an accident caused by negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 yeah that's pretty crazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 So, did the insurance company also suggest she mention her inability to carry the canapes ? Honestly, just no. What a screwed up system. I hate Go Fund me but I'd do that to cover my medical costs before I'd sue a child. In fairness, I am fairly certain that her insurance company was not involved, and her suit was for more than medical bills. She did have to name the child as the defendant to go after the homeowner insurance, but I have seen nothing indicating her insurance company made her sue him. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What health insurance companies generally do is request information to see if another insurer may actually be responsible for the damages. If so, they will ask the injured party to sign over their rights to any medical damages collected. They can also contact the insurer and negotiate a separate settlement. Example: Years ago DH was in a minor car accident. He had a slight neck injury. He went to see our physician, who sent him for PT. We contacted the the other driver's insurance coverage, but they claimed the accident was not serious enough for neck injury and would only pay for chiro visits. The claim amount on our end was small, and DH had no interest in a pain and suffering claim (he did offer to settle for medical only and they refused). He continued treatment through our health insurance, and after looking at the facts they started a subrogation claim against the insurance of of the other driver. DH got his treatment, our health insurance provider got paid by the car insurance company, and we did not have to retain an attorney. Interesting ending: the car insurance company contacted DH over a year later and asked to settle his outstanding pain and suffering claim. We had never pursued anything, but they offered him a check to allow them to close the claim out. We added them to the list of insurance companies we will never do business with as they did nothing but cost themselves money with how they handled the matter. Thank you. That was informative. It still shocks me that insurance companies must use the courts rather than established procedures to figure out what went wrong, and that the onus would fall on an individual who was paying for insurance to sue. When I was in a car accident I refused to sign anything medical until I got myself into a safe car because my car was super cheap and all but irreplaceable (beater Corrolla). I don't consider it wasting money that they came back to me asking if I had left open the medical form due to pain and suffering. It was the only card I had, as a newly divorced single parent with savings dwindling, to ensure that I would get the vehicle I needed to safely care for my family. They know that people without personal lawyers and access to cash hold their forms as leverage and it would be naive not to approach it that way. Do people really just forget to sign? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 In fairness, I am fairly certain that her insurance company was not involved, and her suit was for more than medical bills. She did have to name the child as the defendant to go after the homeowner insurance, but I have seen nothing indicating her insurance company made her sue him. Why did the child have to be named? Because he "caused" the accident? I thought usually the parents were sued. That is where all the wrath is coming from, because the suit was against the boy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Why did the child have to be named? Because he "caused" the accident? I thought usually the parents were sued. That is where all the wrath is coming from, because the suit was against the boy. That stood out to me as well but was explained as a quirk of CT law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'm sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. So, there are two possible insurance companies involved, her health or the parents homeowner's. I get that. I'm guessing her health insurance refused to pay because they said the homeowner's insurance should pay. But then what? The honeowner's refused saying it was the kid's fault? So she has to sue the kid and if she wins, she gets money from him and if she loses, then the homeowner's insurance will pay? Or if she wins the homeowner's insurance pays? Or if she loses, her health insurance will pay? And why the drama of "social isolation," etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Thank you. That was informative. It still shocks me that insurance companies must use the courts rather than established procedures to figure out what went wrong, and that the onus would fall on an individual who was paying for insurance to sue. When I was in a car accident I refused to sign anything medical until I got myself into a safe car because my car was super cheap and all but irreplaceable (beater Corrolla). I don't consider it wasting money that they came back to me asking if I had left open the medical form due to pain and suffering. It was the only card I had, as a newly divorced single parent with savings dwindling, to ensure that I would get the vehicle I needed to safely care for my family. They know that people without personal lawyers and access to cash hold their forms as leverage and it would be naive not to approach it that way. Do people really just forget to sign? I don't think so. It is rare that insurance companies actually end up in court over a subrogation claim. In our case, the wasted money was because DH had offered to waive all pain and suffering claims if medical claims were fulfilled. The medical claim actually wasn't going to be large but he was going with what his physician recommended and not what they wanted. The settlement on the vehicle damage was separate and settled long before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I'm sorry to be dense, but I still don't get it. So, there are two possible insurance companies involved, her health or the parents homeowner's. I get that. I'm guessing her health insurance refused to pay because they said the homeowner's insurance should pay. But then what? The honeowner's refused saying it was the kid's fault? So she has to sue the kid and if she wins, she gets money from him and if she loses, then the homeowner's insurance will pay? Or if she wins the homeowner's insurance pays? Or if she loses, her health insurance will pay? And why the drama of "social isolation," etc.? We don't know what her health insurance company said, and it possible she doesn't have coverage. She said she was suing for the medical bills but normally her health insurance company (if she had it) would pursue their own action against the homeowner policy if it believed the accident was due to negligence. The homeowner insurance was saying it was not an act of negligence, and therefore the child/insurance company were not responsible for any damages. Had she won, the payment would have come from the homeowner policy. The social isolation claim is to inflate the pain and suffering claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I can see that I'm in the minority opinion, but I don't see that what she did was so horrible. This apparently happened long before the boy's mother's death, so that issue is moot. She's not suing for a huge amount of money, just enough to cover her medical bills from the injury. This was a case of insurance. Injured partys' insurances sue homeowners' insurances all the time. There is really nothing unusual about that. If the fact that Connecticut disallows the plantiff/defendant to be the insurance company and persons must be named instead, then I don't understand what all the fuss and uproar is about. Honestly, given the circumstances and had I been in her shoes, I likely would have done the same thing. I'm not sure? I mean, it was an accident. If this happened to me, and not from a family member, a friend, an acquaintance, any child hugging me...why would I sue? Yes, it'd stink to pay the bills, but accidents happen. My son slipped and got a concussion at a friend's house, we had hefty medical bills for it, but the thought of going after her insurance didn't even cross our minds. An accident is an accident. I guess I am just not the "suing" type gal. It really would take a very bad situation (something done to us in purpose) for us to even consider a lawsuit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I wonder if she would have won the case if she'd only asked for out-of-pocket costs and lost wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracefor5 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 In CA, health insurance companies have started asking where an accident happened so that they can recoup some of the expenses. My daughter had two injuries 4 months apart. I got the letter for the second injury. Which was actually just a growth injury no accident. The first one was many many stitches from a cut at her Gym. It was no ones fault. Just a freak accident. The gym was fantastic covering our co-pay, didn't even have to ask them, but it really wasn't there fault. I would hate for my health insurance to go after them. It was just a freak accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 She is a Witch. After she walked out of the courthouse, she rode on her Broom, back to her Den, or whatever the home of a Witch is called. I told my wife and DD about that article. My wife thinks that Witch is now hated by everyone in the USA. I hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I wonder if she would have won the case if she'd only asked for out-of-pocket costs and lost wages. What she asked for shouldn't have been relevant. - there simply wasn't a solid case for negligence here, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 But see, here's the thing: In the example you gave, it is VERY highly likely that your medical insurance would have sued the homeowner's insurance WITHOUT YOU KNOWING (sorry, not shouting, can't italicize - on my phone) in order to recoup the expenses they paid on your behalf. It happens daily, almost automatically, and without insurance holders' knowledge. It happens all the time. All. The. Time. So even though YOU would not sue your family/best friend over an accident, your medical insurance would automatically do it, without your knowledge, in order to recoup the costs incurred from your injury. I think what Connecticut had tried to do is sorta try to get a grip on this situation by ordering that insurance companies aren't allowed to do that anymore, but only individuals. So that's why the aunt was listed as plaintiff and the nephew was listed as defendant. (And yes, it is totally legal to sue a child, even an infant.) Actually it her case it is highly unlikely they would have either asked for reimbursement from the homeowner policy or sued unless there was evidence that the homeowner was negligent. Children slipping when playing usually doesn't meet that standard without further evidence. You are also incorrect regarding your interpretation of insurance law in Connecticut. The article above said that the child had to be named as a defendant. It did not say that insurance companies can not be named as plaintiffs and I cannot find that anywhere in CT law. I do not not know of any state where an insurance company cannot make a subrogation claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I agree right down to the quotes they chose to include—and the public fell for it hook, line, and sinker. And how is that any different from someone else believing the articles claiming it was an insurance thing? It's not like there's any proof either way. If this was just a standard insurance thing and the dad and kid were on board with it, I find it strange they would have hired a lawyer to fight the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 And how is that any different from someone else believing the articles claiming it was an insurance thing? It's not like there's any proof either way. If this was just a standard insurance thing and the dad and kid were on board with it, I find it strange they would have hired a lawyer to fight the suit. The insurance company would hire the attorney and cover the legal expenses. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted October 14, 2015 Author Share Posted October 14, 2015 The aunt's response: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-12-year-old-says-insurance-claim-rules-forced-her-hand/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The aunt's response: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-12-year-old-says-insurance-claim-rules-forced-her-hand/ A "horrific injury." :001_rolleyes: Yes, the trauma she must have endured from being hugged and falling down. And it was so horrific that she attended the birthday party before seeking treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 2 surgeries and I'm sure PT. Not fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 2 surgeries and I'm sure PT. Not fun. No, surgery usually isn't. But I'd save words like "horrific" for injuries that leave you with one part of your body no longer attached to the rest, or things of that nature. Not a fractured wrist. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.