Woman sues nephew for $127K after she fell at his 8th-birthday pa (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

And again - if I have to say it again - there's no way I would have taken this case based on the facts I know. But that doesn't make it a case that's completely ridiculous.

 

[matttyl]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

 

[Henry Ford]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.

Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

 

[El Floppo]

From her attorneys' website:

"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."

"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."

Her injuries were so horrible she couldn't hold a tray of food at a party for god's sake.

And lol at their client's been though enough. Their stupid client was the one who kept the whole thing going. And there's no way her medical bills were $127k for two wrist surgeries. The fact that the jury took so little time to sweep away the case speaks volumes about the case's reasonableness.

She was offered a dollar for her medical bills. She had no choice but to sue the homeowners insurance, and since you can't name them as a defendant. But, everyone always knew you were hardly on top of your intellect game so why expect anything different today.

This and Mr. Ford's posts assume there is a reasonable basis for holding a 8 year old liable in tort for jumping into his family member's arms. That causes me to raise my eyebrows but it could be that there is some sort of authority supporting that proposition, in which case I fully agree with you guys. If there's not, then we're closer to the "frivolous" side of the ledger.

Well, sure. Jumping into people's arms can cause injury. Whether or not that person is related to you doesn't actually change whether or not that person gets injured. It's negligent to launch yourself into someone else's arms without warning because of the aforementioned possibility of causing injury. Connecticut law holds that an 8-year-old can be held liable for negligence, but that there's a lower standard of care. The standard is:

"That care which an ordinary prudent child of the same capacity to appreciate and avoid danger of injury would use under similar circumstances" or "such care as may reasonably be expected of children of similar age, judgment, and experience" where judgment is considered the ability to "discretion to heed and power of self control."

So the question for the jury was twofold:

What is the capacity to appreciate and avoid danger of injury of this child based on his age, intelligence, and experience; and

Was launching himself into his 50-year-old aunt's arms consistent with that capacity?

Sounds like the jury decided. But those are complex questions, and could have come out the other way.

Floppinho is 8.

sounds like I better just lock him up now to avoid any future lawsuits.

 

[NCCommish]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Most homeowners policies have liability limits of $100,000 and go up in increments from there like $300,000, $500,000 and up. Very doubtful $127,000 was the liability limit.

 

[Henry Ford]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable.

When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

 

[Henry Ford]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Most homeowners policies have liability limits of $100,000 and go up in increments from there like $300,000, $500,000 and up. Very doubtful $127,000 was the liability limit.

Again, depends on the policy. Some set the liability limit at the same as the home value or contents value.

 

[El Floppo]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable.

When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

neuro science says 8yo brain <> adult brain... particularly with decision-making.

so charging them as adults... IMO... wrong. that shouldn't exclude them from punishment, just not the same as an adult.

 

[Doug B]

Different state, though. Young minor defendants (elementary school age and down) in a civil case are super-rare down here, right?
BTW: what, roughly, is the age where a lawyer would tell a plaintiff "C'mon, you can't sue a [blank] year old!". Or is there no hard line?

Bump. Thinking civil cases here kind of like in the OP, not criminal cases.

 

[Henry Ford]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable.

When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

neuro science says 8yo brain <> adult brain... particularly with decision-making.

so charging them as adults... IMO... wrong. that shouldn't exclude them from punishment, just not the same as an adult.

I don't think they should be charged as adults either. That doesn't mean they should never be charged.

 

[Henry Ford]

Different state, though. Young minor defendants (elementary school age and down) in a civil case are super-rare down here, right?
BTW: what, roughly, is the age where a lawyer would tell a plaintiff "C'mon, you can't sue a [blank] year old!". Or is there no hard line?

Bump. Thinking civil cases here kind of like in the OP, not criminal cases.

Oh, sorry. In Connecticut, I think it's 5.

 

[NCCommish]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable. When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

We aren't talking fixing Mr.Johnson's window. We are talking about sentencing a child as an adult. We both know from life and experience,which science backs up, that child is going to be a completely different person by the time they are an adult. I know and science backs me up that children don't think through decisions and take bad actions because of it. Because that part of the brain is underdeveloped in young children. So should there be punishment? Of course. But that punishment needs to be different for a child than it is for an adult.

 

[El Floppo]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable.

When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

neuro science says 8yo brain <> adult brain... particularly with decision-making.

so charging them as adults... IMO... wrong. that shouldn't exclude them from punishment, just not the same as an adult.

I don't think they should be charged as adults either. That doesn't mean they should never be charged.

did somebody say an 8yo shouldn't ever be charged?

 

[James Daulton]

For real Henry Ford, are you the chick's attorney?

 

[matttyl]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?

Just asking for a friend.

My opinion wouldn't change - but my opinion from the start is that the health insurance should have paid for her medical treatment from the start, subject to it's deductible and such. If her deductible and such was too high, that's on her. If she didn't have health insurance, that's on her, too. Accident happen, and that's why you have insurance.

 

[SWC]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

right on bromigo now you are on my page if it was the health insurnce company that did wrong they would have sued them and they did not and if it was the bo code thing they would have said that but they did not so it is probably just some yahoos out to make a buck the nonamerican way but a bunch of blue collar roll up there sleeves and get r dun factory workers on the jury shut them down take that to the bank

 

[Doug B]

I mean, I know it seems crazy. But I feel like I've heard of instances where kids 8 and younger are still responsible for their actions in some ways.

Charged, charged, and them charged again. Do any of these kids ever get convicted as an adult?

 

[matttyl]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.

Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Then the case would have been against the health carrier, not the homeowner's policy.

 

[B-Deep]

chicken parm you taste so good

 

[Henry Ford]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.

Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Then the case would have been against the health carrier, not the homeowner's policy.

No, not necessarily. I agree that it probably should have been, but that doesn't mean it would have been.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Most homeowners policies have liability limits of $100,000 and go up in increments from there like $300,000, $500,000 and up. Very doubtful $127,000 was the liability limit.

Again, depends on the policy. Some set the liability limit at the same as the home value or contents value.

Not very often on a homeowners policy.

 

[Henry Ford]

I mean, I know it seems crazy. But I feel like I've heard of instances where kids 8 and younger are still responsible for their actions in some ways.

Charged, charged, and them charged again. Do any of these kids ever get convicted as an adult?

I hope not.

 

[Henry Ford]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Most homeowners policies have liability limits of $100,000 and go up in increments from there like $300,000, $500,000 and up. Very doubtful $127,000 was the liability limit.

Again, depends on the policy. Some set the liability limit at the same as the home value or contents value.

Not very often on a homeowners policy.

Mine is.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Do you know what the UB codes were in this case?

 

[matttyl]

Then the case would have been against the health carrier, not the homeowner's policy.

No, not necessarily. I agree that it probably should have been, but that doesn't mean it would have been.

Why? Peter didn't pay, so we'll sue Paul?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

i just read an article by marketwatch that said her own health insurance paid her bills but not all of them so i bet her only unpaid bills were copays and deductibles and maybe some bs fakeout medicine if she tried to do that basically all of the stuff about subrogation and whatever just appears to be wrong and she just thought she could make a buck and her attorneys and her went to far down the road of we will try this watch out pay us or else and got their keesters handed to them by the jury of normal people take that to the bank

Why do you bet that? Isn't it as likely that they paid the emergency treatment, saw the UB codes and refused to pay for later treatment?

Again, then the lawyer's statement would have been that the case was about getting the medical insurance company to pay - not the homeowner's.

But the case wasn't about the medical insurance company paying. They sued the homeowner's insurance company.

Right, which is why I assumed from the start that the medical insurance company did pay - and she was going after the homeowner's for more.

The question mark here, in my opinion, is what "more" is. If she sued over a $1000 deductible, I think she and her lawyer are idiots. If she sued because her health insurer refused all treatment after the initial, then I think it's a very different case.Also, I'm guessing $127,000 is the limit of the homeowner's liability policy.

Most homeowners policies have liability limits of $100,000 and go up in increments from there like $300,000, $500,000 and up. Very doubtful $127,000 was the liability limit.

Again, depends on the policy. Some set the liability limit at the same as the home value or contents value.

Not very often on a homeowners policy.

Mine is.

Of course it is.

 

[Henry Ford]

Mine is.

Of course it is.

Ah, good. I'm glad we got here. It makes things so much easier.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

 

[Henry Ford]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?Just asking for a friend.

Yeah actually it is. If that child has that capacity I hope someone does a study because he would be an anomaly. Why don't we let 8 year olds drive? Vote? Sign binding contracts? Buy guns? Because they are not capable of making decisions and taking into account the long term consequences of those decisions. They are not rational. They act out of misunderstood emotion. No child that age should ever be tried as an adult. They are essentially brain damaged. Lots of science out there saying just that.

There's a difference between someone not reasonably being able to understand consequences in the scientific and real-world sense and in the legal sense. Just like the actual definition of seriously mentally disturbed in a scientific and real-world sense doesn't fit the definition of legally insane. We hold kids responsible for things all the time. We punish them, teach them, reward them, get them to take actions and refuse to take actions based on those teachings. We don't just excuse everything an 8-year-old does and not hold them accountable.

When you're raising an 8-year-old and he breaks a window, do you get him to go over to the person's house and apologize and offer to pay for the window? Or do you just let it go? Because hey, he's only 8. He's not responsible. No, maybe he's not thinking about the possibility of breaking the window when he hits the baseball. But he should be, and he has the capacity to understand that baseballs break windows sometimes.

neuro science says 8yo brain <> adult brain... particularly with decision-making.

so charging them as adults... IMO... wrong. that shouldn't exclude them from punishment, just not the same as an adult.

I don't think they should be charged as adults either. That doesn't mean they should never be charged.

did somebody say an 8yo shouldn't ever be charged?

They're saying they shouldn't be responsible for negligence. That's a significantly bigger jump than "shouldn't ever be charged with a crime" in my opinion.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.

My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

Maybe it's not hooked to contents, it just happens to be the same. Regardless, it's $125K. I don't think that's such a crazy number.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

Yeah, they don't require me to be more than that. But homeowner's is weird here because of hurricanes. Might be the reason.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

Yeah, they don't require me to be more than that. But homeowner's is weird here because of hurricanes. Might be the reason.

Yes, being in a hurricane prone area affects building and contents insurance requirements but I never heard of it allowing low limits of underlying liability for a personal umbrella policy.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

Yeah, they don't require me to be more than that. But homeowner's is weird here because of hurricanes. Might be the reason.

Yes, being in a hurricane prone area affects building and contents insurance requirements but I never heard of it allowing low limits of underlying liability for a personal umbrella policy.

Maybe it's just because I have terrible insurance companies because I know they'll all try to screw me over anyway.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

Yeah, they don't require me to be more than that. But homeowner's is weird here because of hurricanes. Might be the reason.

Yes, being in a hurricane prone area affects building and contents insurance requirements but I never heard of it allowing low limits of underlying liability for a personal umbrella policy.

Here: like this, but not in Florida.

"Personal umbrella coverage is now available to customers whose primary residence is in Florida and who have a minimum homeowners liability limit of $100,000."

Probably because my insurer is based in Florida.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Also, some of that will be the med-pay coverage.

Which is usually $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 but I am sure you have some whacky limit as well.

$2,000.My homeowner's liability including med-pay is exactly $127,000. Which is why I made the comment in the first place.

It is very rare to see a liability limit on a homeowners policy for $125,000. Do you have a personal umbrella policy too? Many insurance carriers require a minimum limit on the homeowners of $300,000.

Yeah, they don't require me to be more than that. But homeowner's is weird here because of hurricanes. Might be the reason.

Yes, being in a hurricane prone area affects building and contents insurance requirements but I never heard of it allowing low limits of underlying liability for a personal umbrella policy.

Here: like this, but not in Florida. "Personal umbrella coverage is now available to customers whose primary residence is in Florida and who have a minimum homeowners liability limit of $100,000."

Yes,that is an exception as RLI says. They normally require $300,000. Here is a good read on why the insurance market in Florida is such a mess and it isn't just because of hurricanes.

http://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/Backgrounder_PIPPropInsur_LehrerLehmannFeb12.pdf

 

[El Floppo]

nice chat.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes,that is an exception as RLI says. They normally require $300,000. Here is a good read on why the insurance market in Florida is such a mess and it isn't just because of hurricanes.

http://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/Backgrounder_PIPPropInsur_LehrerLehmannFeb12.pdf

Not to derail this thread further... say I've had my umbrella policy since before I bought my house. What are the chances that I managed to screw up buying my homeowner's policy and invalidate my umbrella coverage?

 

[Henry Ford]

nice chat.

Thanks, but now I'm having an anxiety attack.

 

[El Floppo]

nice chat.

Thanks, but now I'm having an anxiety attack.

because you want to burn 8yos on the electric chair?

 

[Henry Ford]

nice chat.

Thanks, but now I'm having an anxiety attack.

because you want to burn 8yos on the electric chair?

Probably.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Yes,that is an exception as RLI says. They normally require $300,000. Here is a good read on why the insurance market in Florida is such a mess and it isn't just because of hurricanes.

http://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/Backgrounder_PIPPropInsur_LehrerLehmannFeb12.pdf

Not to derail this thread further... say I've had my umbrella policy since before I bought my house. What are the chances that I managed to screw up buying my homeowner's policy and invalidate my umbrella coverage?

Your umbrella policy list the underlying limits on it for your other policies. Call your agent if you are worried which I doubt you are. ;-)

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes,that is an exception as RLI says. They normally require $300,000. Here is a good read on why the insurance market in Florida is such a mess and it isn't just because of hurricanes.

http://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/Backgrounder_PIPPropInsur_LehrerLehmannFeb12.pdf

Not to derail this thread further... say I've had my umbrella policy since before I bought my house. What are the chances that I managed to screw up buying my homeowner's policy and invalidate my umbrella coverage?

Your umbrella policy list the underlying limits on it for your other policies. Call your agent if you are worried which I doubt you are. ;-)

Already on the phone.

 

[Zow]

Its interesting how quickly people advocate insurance fraud as a solution to a difficult situation.

As I stated, this thread is painful.

 

[Zow]

Serious question: if this woman were a stranger who the kid jumped at to hug (for whatever reason - mistaken identity, thought it was cute when meeting a new person, whatever) and knocked down, would your opinion change?

Is he still 8? Does he still not have the mental capacity to consider long term outcomes of his actions?

Is that the case with 8-year-olds? Do we not hold them responsible for any of their actions as a result?

Just asking for a friend.

Yay Arizona

 

[Clifford]

I've got no problem with this, but the post I was replying to was making the case that some people had been proven wrong by the verdict.... But nobody's been proven wrong here.

Some of the lawyers in this thread, through the fine legal points they were making, were giving an apparently shameless appearance of rooting very hard for the aunt. Between the lines: that the aunt was the "good guy" and the kid was "slime".

But as I said ... apparently. On the surface in a nuance-free dialog. Since the law, in this case, works way counter to non-legal-trained common sense, pointing out that the aunt's case was legit exactly equaled "rooting hard for the aunt." To the lay person.

Satisfaction, to the lay person, is the judge, bailiff, and 12 jurors laughing the aunt out of court ... and the same thing happening every time she appeals.

But ... since this seems to actually have been a battle between insurance companies ... meh, I dunno. A pox on both houses.

This is pretty much what always happens when discussing the law with a lay person.

Why do you hate freedom?

 

[SWC]

i can not believe that so many of you jagalopes support the aunt pretty sad day brohans take that to the bank

 

[Henry Ford]

i can not believe that so many of you jagalopes support the aunt pretty sad day brohans take that to the bank

I don't think anyone at all actively supports the aunt