Aunt Unsuccessfully Sues 12-Year-Old Nephew for $127K After Hug Broke Wrist

[alfred russel]

Ah, I thought you meant the more common definition of "to use a situation so that you get benefit from it, even if it is wrong or unfair to do this"

In the first situation, I would say that is fair. But not in your hypothetical.

[crazy canuck]

Ah, I thought you meant the more common definition of "to use a situation so that you get benefit from it, even if it is wrong or unfair to do this"

In the first situation, I would say that is fair. But not in your hypothetical.

In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?

[alfred russel]

In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?

In the first case, the plaintiff is pursuing an award that is grossly disproportionate to the damages.

[crazy canuck]

In your view, what is the different between the two fact patterns - ie what makes it unfair to claim against insurance for which premiums were paid in the first but not the second situation?

In the first case, the plaintiff is pursuing an award that is grossly disproportionate to the damages.

The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?

[Maximus]

This is what happens when you do away with corporal punishment. Little monsters!

We don't know how big she is.

[alfred russel]

The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?

It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.

Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket.  Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.

[crazy canuck]

The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?

It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.

Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket.  Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.

So it seems your real beef is with the way tort awards are made in the US.  What does that have to do with this woman?

[grumbler]

Perhaps I would understand better if I knew what you meant by the word "exploiting".  Should the father pay out of his own pocket or should he benefit from the insurance for which he paid premiums and which covers this type of liability?

I'm kinda confused (which isn't hard when it comes to the law), but what does the father have to do with this?  That's why I asked why the son (a minor) was being sued rather than the father.  If the son is a minor and incapable of committing a tortious (is that a word) act, why isn't the father, the one responsible for the son's actions, and the policy-holder, being sued?  It just seems weird and the jury clearly found it so.  Having just completed jury duty and having seen one of these "sue the one with the policy" cases from the other side, I just found it kinda strange.

[Admiral Yi]

In a related vein, Ralph Nader, famous Lebanese-American, has opened a Tort Museum in his hometown in Connecticut.

[sbr]

The article seems rather short on the sort of facts one would need to make that determination. But assuming your legal judgment is correct, if that is what a court would award why would it be unfair or wrong (the definition you are now using) to make the claim?

It isn't a legal judgment, it is an ethical one.

Jury trials are notorious for jackpot justice. You file a big enough claim, you've bought a lottery ticket.  Only it isn't against a pool of money of other lottery buyers, it is against some other party's assets that didn't sign up to play. And that other party has to spend a bunch of time and money to defend themselves.

You don't think the insurance company signed up to play when they started accepting premium payments?

[alfred russel]

So it seems your real beef is with the way tort awards are made in the US.  What does that have to do with this woman?

Just because the law enables immoral conduct doesn't make the immoral behavior acceptable.

[crazy canuck]

Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the  the premium payments?

[DGuller]

Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the  the premium payments?

So what?  Because insurance company implicitly priced in all kinds of fraud into premiums means it's okay to commit that fraud?

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps I would understand better if I knew what you meant by the word "exploiting".  Should the father pay out of his own pocket or should he benefit from the insurance for which he paid premiums and which covers this type of liability?

I'm kinda confused (which isn't hard when it comes to the law), but what does the father have to do with this?  That's why I asked why the son (a minor) was being sued rather than the father.  If the son is a minor and incapable of committing a tortious (is that a word) act, why isn't the father, the one responsible for the son's actions, and the policy-holder, being sued?  It just seems weird and the jury clearly found it so.  Having just completed jury duty and having seen one of these "sue the one with the policy" cases from the other side, I just found it kinda strange.

It's hard to know for sure from the facts in the OP.  It appears the son was the defendant and the father was not involved at all.  As a matter of general principle it doesn't matter who owns the policy - ie who pays the premium.  What matters is who is defined as an insured.  Here it looks like one of the people insured under the policy was the son.  Dependants are normally insured under general liability home insurance policies.  If that is what happened there would be no need to claim against the father.

Sometimes what occurs is the insurance limit is not sufficient to cover the damages and so the parents are also sued to get at their other assets. But the case is different against them.   

[crazy canuck]

Do you think the insurance company didn't consider the applicable legal liabilities when setting the  the premium payments?

So what?  Because insurance company implicitly priced in all kinds of fraud into premiums means it's okay to commit that fraud?

Is there any evidence this claim was fraudulent?