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

[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?

Is there any evidence this claim was fraudulent?

The claim was not fraudulent, unless the family conspired to break the aunt's wrist so that she could sue them.  The lawsuit which gave rise to the claim, which was an attempt to win the jury lottery, may very well have been ethically questionable in the way AR described.  It may not be illegal, so it would not be fraudulent, but it would still be a wrong thing to do.  The fact that insurance premium over time adjusts to cover such wrongful lawsuits does not make it any more right.

[crazy canuck]

If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim.  Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?

Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.

[DGuller]

If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim.

As I already said, things that are legal can still be morally in the wrong.  I'm not sure why I even have to point this out, again.

[alfred russel]

If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim.  Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?

Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.

CC, if there was a legal system that gave out lottery prizes, don't you think it would be immoral to pursue them? Eg, what would you say about the man suing his neighbor in Thailand for something minor and winning a massive award?

[DGuller]

Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.

Not really, or at least that's not the entirety of it.  The legal system is a very inefficient mechanism.  There is big variance in results given the same merit of the case, and there are big frictional costs.  Someone who abuses those shortcomings for their gain, by for example filing a meritless case and hoping for variance to go their way, or by hoping to extract a settlement from the other party so that they could save on their legal costs, is an immoral person.

[dps]

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.

The problem with this is that, from the jury's point of view, there was no insurance involved.  And AFAIK, parents are liable for any damages resulting from tort committed by their minor children, rather than the child themselves being liable.  Aside from any ethical considerations, as a practical matter it's not like the typical 8 year old has any assets you could seize to cover damages.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, the jury should not be considering whether their is a collection issue. They should only be applying the law in the context if their fact finding.  Which is why I find it surprising anyone would argue it is immoral for a plaintiff to bring a claim.  DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it.  An astounding claim.

[Eddie Teach]

If there was a corporation involved, $127K would be the settlement offer to avoid facing the jury lottery. As Grumbler suggests, the really outrageous monetary demands in this story are from the medical industry.

[Malthus]

If the claim is not fraudulent then how can it be unfair or wrong to bring the claim.  Do plaintiffs really need to self censor claims the law would otherwise permit?

Like AR your real complaint is that you perceive the American justice system hands out lottery prizes.

CC, if there was a legal system that gave out lottery prizes, don't you think it would be immoral to pursue them? Eg, what would you say about the man suing his neighbor in Thailand for something minor and winning a massive award?

I guess the issue is this - is the "immoral" factor the quantum of the award sought, or the fact that an aunt is suing a 12 year old for a total accident?

If it is the quantum, I guess the question is whether this really represents the costs of her care and other reasonable damages, or an attempt to "milk" a totally minor issue into obtainig a big award.

[DGuller]

DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it.  An astounding claim.

You are misrepresenting what I am saying, yet again.  I'm saying that it is immoral to engage in legal actions that you know are meritless, but that may nevertheless prove fruitful if the legal system's flaws play to your advantage.

[alfred russel]

DG and AF are arguing the state of the US legal system is such that it is immoral to use it. 

That definitely isn't what I'm saying. In fact, you even presented me a hypothetical earlier in this thread and I endorsed using it.