Would you sue your 8-year old nephew or niece for $127,000 for accidentally breaking your wrist

[Nye Bevan]

while greeting you excitedly at their birthday party?

This woman did.

A human resources manager from Manhattan is suing her nephew over a leaping greeting from the then-8-year-old that left her with a broken wrist, according to reports.

Jennifer Connell, 54, believes little Sean Tarala, now 12, should have known better than to jump into her arms as a means of welcoming her to his birthday party in 2011, ctpost.com reported Monday.

Connell, of E. 73rd St. on the Upper East Side, is seeking $127,000 in damages for suffering a broken wrist when the two fell to the ground in the rough reception, according to the site.

.....

Sean was outside playing with a brand new bike he had received for his birthday. The excited boy dropped his new set of wheels and ran toward his aunt to greet her, shouting, “Auntie Jen, Auntie Jen.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/aunt-sues-nephew-12-breaking-wrist-greeting-article-1.2394889

I just can't imagine suing an 8-year old kid who was so pleased to see me that they accidentally hurt me. Even if the injury made it "difficult to hold my hors d'oevres plate" at parties, as this woman claims in her lawsuit.

[yardwork]

1. Let me guess. His family is wealthy.

[KamaAina]

62. I'm thinking East 73rd between Fifth and Park.

As opposed to Mom and Republican Stepdad's building, which backs onto 73rd between 1st and 2nd, three blocks -- but light-years -- away.

[Gormy Cuss]

73. His family lives in Westport CT so chances are good.

Odd that she's suing him rather than his father. Odder still that she's pursuing this even after his mother died last year. It may be a ploy for an insurance payout but it's still some serious family dysfunction.

[pnwmom]

86. Or has a good homeowners policy? Still, this is awful. n/t

[eShirl]

152. mother's life insurance policy?

[BlueJazz]

2. "difficult to hold my hors d'oevres plate" I keep repeating that phrase and can't stop thinking..

..I woke up this morning in Bazarro-Land.

[Orrex]

46. It also makes it hard for her to gesture derisively at street urchins

Oh this poor woman!

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Have YOU ever tried to put a diamond-encrusted bracelet on over a cast?

It simply isnt done, dear.

[Whiskeytide]

3. Agree it sounds kind of bad...

... But it's a claim that will be covered by home owners insurance (assuming they had it) and the boy will not have to pay anything. That's what you have the insurance for.

Likely she (or her lawyers) has tried to negotiate a settlement but the ins co has balked because "yeah, right. So you're gonna sue your nephew".

I'm a little troubled by the hors d'oerve claim (just sounds bad) - but medical bills and maybe lost earnings could be legit, and again that's what the ins is for.

[LiberalArkie]

60. A human resources manager without health insurance? Or is she just going for an

additional payout?

[jberryhill]

67. A home owner without homeowner's insurance?

The health insurance company will not pay if they believe the homeowner's insurance should pay.

This is Westport, CT we are talking about here. Average home price is $1.6M.

[LiberalArkie]

69. Her health insurance has probably already paid her, her insurance is trying to recoup

their loss. Yea, Westport... I feel their pain and suffering living in such a run down area.

[geek tragedy]

4. Probably suing so that the homeowner's insurance

will pay out.

[GoCubsGo]

6. Yeah, but she still wound up dragging the poor kid to court.

There's got to be a better way than suing the kid.

[jberryhill]

14. No, there isn't a better way

Because we don't have universal health insurance, then these types of suits are required by insurers.

What you have here is a dispute between a health insurance company and a homeowner's insurance company over who has to pay.

[Nye Bevan]

16. If she only wanted her medical bills paid, this would have been finished 4 years ago.

Do you think that every little accident where someone incurs medical expenses results in a jury trial with any kid involved being forced to appear in court? Any medical bills would have been paid by her medical insurer who would have then settled the claims with the homeowner's insurer (subrogation), or if she didn't have medical insurance she would have just sent the bills to the homeowner's insurer directly for reimbursement. No, this is more about her wanting a 6-figure sum because it now supposedly hurts to hold her hor d'oevre plate at parties.

[jberryhill]

20. "would have then settled the claims with the homeowner's insurer"

...because someone brought their magic settlement wand and waved it at them?

You are correct that in the ordinary course, these things get settled.

Once in a while, they don't.

And, yeah, faced with a large potential downside in the form of an "if you don't ask, you don't get" civil complaint, settlement might come around right quick.

[catbyte]

38. You're right about that. Even with today's exorbitant costs, a broken wrist isn't $127K.

She sounds like a real piece of work.

[jberryhill]

49. What is the projected future cost of physical therapy?

Does the article say?

[catbyte]

53. In my area of the country, a PT appointment is $120 without insurance. That's a lot of PT for a

broken wrist. PT also doesn't go on forever, either. At least I've never heard of it being an ongoing thing except under extreme circumstances. This just sounds like it's about more than straight insurance, but what do I know?

[NobodyHere]

126. “I was at a party recently and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvres plate”

Well with that kind of pain and suffering...

[redwitch]

140. My sister's broken ankle:$25,000 surgery

That doesn't include PT. And she didn't need multiple surgeries.

[ieoeja]

43. I have told my friends that if they get hurt on my property and insurance won't help then: "sue me".

I will happily testify against myself in their favor.

[jberryhill]

45. Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner

[procon]

99. That's exactly what happened between my dad and one of his grandkids.

The kid got a bad cut from a power saw he was using in my dad's garage, but his homeowners insurance denied the claim. My dad had to testify that he was negligent allowing his grandson to use the equipment and not providing supervision. Dad "lost", the insurance co paid up, and there was some happy redistribution of wealth all around after the bills were paid.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. That's the vile part.

Insurance companies need to FOAD.

[jberryhill]

113. Indeed they do

But instead, they pimp out these "news stories".

[Nye Bevan]

7. "In court Friday, the boy, now 12 years old, appeared confused as he sat with his father...."

In court Friday, the boy, now 12 years old, appeared confused as he sat with his father, Michael Tarala, in the Main Street courtroom. The boy’s mother, Lisa Tarala, died last year.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/8-year-old-boy-on-trial-for-exuberance-6566757.php

Insurance or no, I would not put a nephew of mine through that experience.

[jeff47]

59. That's an easy claim to make when you don't have to pay the medical bills. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

119. I too...

"Insurance or no, I would not put a nephew of mine through that experience..."

I too often pretend I know what I'd do in situations I've never experienced.

[GoCubsGo]

5. I thought this was from "The Onion" at first.

What the hell is wrong with this woman?

[jberryhill]

15. Nothing is wrong with this woman

What is wrong is the way we pay for injuries in this society.

The health insurance company won't pay unless the homeowner's insurance company covers whatever happened.

What is wrong with our society is that we don't have universal health coverage, so when something like this happens, the patients are caught between two insurance companies pointing fingers at each other.

[GoCubsGo]

22. She could have sued the kid's father instead.

He's the one carrying the homeowner's insurance, not the kid.

[jberryhill]

33. His father didn't injure her

"Who owns the insurance" is not how one establishes liability under the policy.

[catbyte]

40. I can't believe that a broken wrist would cost $127K. It didn't say anything about

multiple surgeries or complications resulting in her broken wrist costing that amount of money.

[Goblinmonger]

155. You'd be wrong

I have done medical specials for attorneys and what things cost are jaw dropping. If she had to have surgery, $127K is not anything special.

[GoCubsGo]

41. He owns the property where his minor child,

for whom he is responsible, injured her. If it was his dog that knocked her down and broke her arm, should she sue the dog?

[jberryhill]

44. His property didn't cause the injury...

...a family member on his property caused the injury.

In the case of a dog, the dog owner is liable. The dog is property. Under the 13th Amendment, the child is not property.

There may be a failure to supervise claim in the filing, since this thread is based on a news article. However, the primary liability when a person injures another person is with the person who caused the injury. If it is a minor child at the home of the insured, then the insurance covers the incident, but that doesn't turn into "dad broke her wrist". In order to show whether or not it is a covered incident, then it needs to be established who broke her wrist.

[GoCubsGo]

52. Yes, the insurance should cover the claim if it is a minor child.

But, the policy is in the name of the adult, not the minor child. So, the owner of the property should be sued, not the minor child. That was my point. You don't need to drag a child into court and sue him to establish that he broke her wrist. Nobody is denying that the kid broke her wrist. If it's a "failure to supervise" claim, then it's on the father, not the kid.

[jberryhill]

55. That's not how law works

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.

"Failure to supervise" is secondary liability. That is where some person had a responsibility to prevent some other person from injuring you. However, you can't get at secondary liability without establishing the fault of the person primarily responsible for injuring you.

This entire class of news story is a common trope here at DU. Everyone loved this one too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29young.html?_r=0

The homeowner's policy, if it is typical, covers the policyholder and the entire family for injuries caused by anyone in the family.

The legal system does not operate on determining "fault" by people who didn't cause injuries, simply because they pay the premiums on an insurance policy.

It just doesn't work that way.

[Ms. Toad]

200. Dora and the grocery cart. February 1991 multistate bar exam.

Questions 67 & 68.

. . . guess I've been sorting multiple choice questions too long. Pretty pathetic that my first thought when I opened the thread was, "Goodie! Another fact pattern variation!

[avebury]

79. The injury occurred on the father's property therefore I would see no

problem with the aunt going after his homeowner's insurance for any out of pocket costs not covered by any insurance the aunt might have. The broken wrist might have also resulted in lost wages if she was not able to work for any length of time.

[jberryhill]

82. That is correct

But you don't sue insurance companies. You sue people who are covered by the insurance - in this instance a member of the household who caused the injuries.

People on this thread are reacting as if there is some kind of emotional conflict between the aunt and her nephew.

That's just a plain idiotic assumption.

Imagine that you are driving a friend to the grocery store, and she is injured in a car accident and misses a month of work.

Now, imagine that your auto insurer claims that she wasn't hurt that bad, and doesn't compensate her for the lost wages.

Are you going to get personally upset with your friend when, in order to get that compensation from the insurance company, your friend files suit against you?

No. Why would you get upset? Anything your friend wins is going to be paid by the insurance company.

THAT'S WHAT THE PREMIUMS YOU PAY ARE FOR.

[pnwmom]

89. This isn't a workers comp case. Health insurers don't make exceptions for accidents

like this. The article doesn't say anything about her insurer battling with the boy's father's insurer -- that's probably not what is happening.

She shouldn't be suing her nephew.

[jberryhill]

91. Who cares where she lives?

The incident took place at the Westport, CT home of her nephew.

Okay, I'll count you as another "people should pay premiums for homeowner's insurance that doesn't pay claims".

[pnwmom]

92. Yes, I realized that and changed the post. But you seem to be among the group who thinks

health insurance shouldn't pay accident claims.

This isn't workers comp. Otherwise health insurance is supposed to pay for things like broken wrists.

[jberryhill]

94. Health insurance isn't going to pay jack if there is insured liability elsewhere

The homeowner's carrier is obviously refusing to reimburse the health insurer.

[pnwmom]

96. The other equally likely possibility

is that this woman didn't have health insurance so she's going after her nephew instead.

I have never been asked on any accident claim of me or my children to state anything other than if it was a work-related claim. The insurer never asked whose property we were injured on.

[jberryhill]

97. That's possible too, but what is this "going after" nonsense?

If the homeowner's insurer would pay the claim, then there wouldn't be a reason for a suit.

People are acting like the kid is going to be thrown in stocks and chains and forced into pauperage.

That's not what's going on here.

I realize that most DUers would tell a family member to go get bent if the homeowner's policy didn't cover consequential damages from injuries on their property. So I guess I'm in a distinct minority of people who would want to see my insurer pay my sister's claim if she was injured on my property.

[kcr]

142. How is it that you seem to know exactly what's going on based on no evidence?

People are "acting like" this kid was a defendant in a lawsuit because he was. You are merely assuming the reason was because the plaintiff was suing on behalf of her insurance. Unless you're privy to some other information and you're choosing not to reveal it, you don't know for sure. It is quite possible she simply sued on her own behalf.

[jberryhill]

143. Psst... I'll tell you a secret...

The kid doesn't have $127,000, and no plaintiff's attorney is working for 30% of his lunch money.

[kcr]

146. You know this kid personally? n/t

[yardwork]

153. His mother died last year.

I'm wondering if he inherited money from his mother, and the aunt saw a way to get a settlement. The injury occurred four years ago.

[Ms. Toad]

201. I have received at least 3 inquiries from the subrogation department of my health insurance.

I, or someone in my family, was treated for something they thought they could go after someone else's insurance for. Of the 3 I recall, they likely suspected one was work-related and the other two either car- or home- related. In each case, they asked about multiple potential sources of deep pockets (including worker's comp, home, and car insurance).

Although a few doctors are pro-active (we fired the one that was - in part because I'm not about to pay for medical care up front and try - personally - to recover it from someone else's insurance), most are the result of an internal insurance audit, and come via mail or phone call a year or so after the claim.

[pnwmom]

202. If you were this woman and you got such a claim

wouldn't you simply have replied that it was an accident and no one's fault?

That's what I've said in a couple of comparable situations involving me or my child.

[Ms. Toad]

203. My description of what happened would have been in my medical record.

If the health insurance company reviews it and determines it was likely there was negligence involved, my choice would be between paying more than $100,000 out of pocket and providing the accurate information to the insurance company identifying the child, who is already in the medical record, absent identifying information.

I understand how the legal system works, so I am careful how I phrase things up front. That allows me to tell the insurance company to go pound salt. This mother likely wasn't. So what could - with a little forethought - have been described so it was clear there was not negligence (as it appears the jury determined) was likely described in a way that made it appear there was negligence. Once something that looks like negligence by another party is in the medical record it is much more challenging to back off from it.

[pnwmom]

204. Yes, I've always had my guard up, too. But this woman's testimony

just sounds so lame. What jury would give a major award based on that story?

And someone else posted a link showing that the insurance company actually offered to settle. This should have ended then.

[Ms. Toad]

205. In order for her to have her medical bills paid,

either the homeowner's insurance company has to pay - or there has to be a legal determination that the child was not negligent. That's what the case is about.

The only settlement offer I saw was $1. But with medical bills of $127,000 the settlement offer would have had to be around $180,000 to cover her out of pocket costs. (loss + attorney's fees).

I ran into that when my car was totaled. I diligently negotiated with the insurance company for 2 things: to have my car repaired, and to have my medical bills paid. Although I had pain & suffering (and considerable inconvenience) I was not seeking anything for that. Because the repair cost was close to the value of the car, they wanted to total it. When they refused to budge, I was forced to get an attorney involved. The moment I had to get an attorney involved, the settlement price went up 30% for pain and suffering; 40% if it went to court - because my attorney had to be paid in addition to what I needed to cover my out of pocket costs. They ultimately ended up more than doubling their costs by forcing me to get an attorney involved.

Same thing here. If the child was negligent (meaning the homeowner's insurance was on the hook), once it forced the involvement of an attorney, the settlement number jumped far higher than than the actual bills. Once the homeowner's insurance company denied liability, the only way to ensure the aunt wasn't stuck with bills she couldn't pay was to obtain a legal determination the child was not negligent. At that point, the health insurance company is back on the hook. That is what has now happened.

How the insurance game is set up is not the aunt's fault. She was forced to choose between eating the out of pocket costs (even though she has health insurance) and suing her nephew (to establish his parent's insurance has to pay the bills).

It isn't about a major award, it is about who is obligated to pay her medical bills. Her health insurance determined the nephew was negligent - and refused to pay. The nephew's parents'' insurance determined the nephew was not negligent. It took a court case to settle the dispute between the two insurance companies so that the aunt, who was seriously injured, wasn't left holding the bills that one of insurance companies should have been obligated to pay.

[pnwmom]

207. Well, this has been an education and a good warning to keep up my policy

of never giving anyone verbal rope to hang me (or my friends, relatives, or other innocent parties) with!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

208. Yep. People keep crying about why is she asking for amounts a over her actual medical bills.

Because the price of poker went up dramatically when the attorney got involved. He has to get paid on top of actual bills otherwise she is still a loser.

The real loser here is the attorney who took the case on contingency. He got bupkis.

People forget that in the McDonald's case, the family initially tried to go it without an attorney and asked for her out of pocket and co pays of about $10k. When they hired an attorney, the attorney offered to settle for, iirc, $80k. When it went to trial, the jury hammered the defendant McDonald's.

[kcr]

136. Since when? n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

144. Since insurance companies have become more aggressive in laying off.....

.... expenses on the other guy's policy.

It's been the trend for some time. It's always been in the insurance contracts but now insurance carriers are more aggressive.

I had an emergency room visit. I received an affidavit in the mail and had to swear my visit was not the result of an accident. And if the visit was do to an accident, did it take place at work or in someone's home.

Also, if you file a lawsuit, your health insurer will find out about it. There are cross reference services tagging lawsuits against claims.

[kcr]

145. That's not what the post I was responding to claimed

I'm not claiming that insurance companies never try to get other insurance to pay claims.

[jberryhill]

178. It is simply knowing how these things work

Honestly, when my car engine makes a funny noise, I don't know what it is. A mechanic can hear the noise, and know, immediately, what is wrong with the car, or at least have a really good hunch.

When a lawsuit makes a funny noise, lawyers can do the same thing.

Check it out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-12-year-old-says-insurance-claim-rules-forced-her-hand/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

[kcr]

197. Check it out

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Boy-gets-his-cake-and-can-eat-it-too-6571044.php

From the article:

But a number of local lawyers questioned why Connell hadn’t simply named the boy’s father as a defendant and claimed she was hurt in his Westport yard, making him eligible to collect on insurance. After all, when Connell went to Norwalk Hospital shortly after the March 18, 2011, incident, she told doctors and nurses she had fallen and injured her wrist — with no mention of the boy’s alleged participation.
“It is odd,” Bridgeport lawyer Frank Riccio II said about naming a minor as sole defendant in a civil case. “I’ve never seen it done before. Normally you would sue the homeowner.”

[jberryhill]

179. You are confused

I don't know why you are dragging workers comp into this.

The simple matter is that the injury happened on property involving a resident family member of someone with a homeowner's liability insurance policy.

Health insurers DO make exceptions for this, and you will learn this very promptly if you are in an auto accident (which is the most common setting for suits of this type).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-12-year-old-says-insurance-claim-rules-forced-her-hand/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

[yardwork]

175. You were right. The aunt said this to the NYTimes today.

She said that the insurance company forced her to word the lawsuit this way. She's just trying to get her medical bills paid by the insurance company.

You were absolutely right. This truly is an indictment of our health care system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-12-year-old-says-insurance-claim-rules-forced-her-hand/?tid=pm_national_pop_b

[jberryhill]

176. It's not about being psychic

Insurance companies set this shit up.

THEN, on top of that, how do you think one, out of thousands of lawsuits going on every damned day, is catapaulted to breathless coverage in the popular media?

Do you think it is because intrepid reporters are combing through lawsuits in courthouses and finding the "interesting" ones?

No.

It is because of influential people with media friends who have a fucking agenda.

And DU laps it up every god-damned time.

Experienced attorneys can smell this a mile away.

[yardwork]

177. Complete with quotes that make the plaintiff sound evil.

[pnwmom]

181. She has employer related health insurance. So why is she trying to get this covered

on her homeowners?

If she just wants them to pay out-of-pocket, why is she asking for $127K?

[pnwmom]

180. But why is she trying to get her homeowners policy to pay for her medical bills?

Who does that?

She has employer related health insurance, so at the most she'd be trying to get the insurer to pay for her deductible and other uncovered costs.

How could they add up to $127K?

[PeaceNikki]

183. Her insurance company was only willing to pay $1 of her medical bills.

The injury happened in Connecticut, and under that state’s law, filing the claim obliged Connell to take the responsible party—who happened to be 12—to court.

http://gawker.com/aunt-didnt-want-to-sue-nephew-lawyer-says-insurance-c-1736551054?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Also, one can easily get up to $127k in medical bills with an injury like that.

[pnwmom]

184. Her HOMEOWNER"s policy. But she had health insurance through her employer.

Who asks their homeowners policies to pay their medical bills?

At the most, she would have had some out-of-pocket cost after her health insurer paid. But that wouldn't amount of $127,000.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/14/aunt-who-sued-her-nephew-for-127000-wasnt-looking-for-money-lawyer-says/

[PeaceNikki]

185. Not her homeowner policy, her medical insurance wouldn't pay because it was an accident

on someone else's property.

Fuck, it's not rocket science.

[pnwmom]

187. Her attorney said it was her HOMEOWNER's policy. I gave you the link.

“From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance,” the law firm said in a statement. “Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice … Her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict.”

[PeaceNikki]

188. You are misreading it. The CASE was about getting the KID'S homeowner policy to pay

because her MEDICAL insurance wouldn't.

[pnwmom]

189. Please show me a single article where it says her health insurance

wouldn't pay for this injury.

[PeaceNikki]

190. Oh, ffs.

Every time you use medical insurance they send a form asking what happened and who they can sue so they don't have to pay.

[jberryhill]

186. She's had two surgeries so far

People keep saying "broken wrist", as if that is always the same thing. The wrist is a complicated and delicate joint. A "broken wrist" can mean a LOT of different things, and in this instance it has been two surgeries so far. What did you pay for your last orthopedic surgery in Manhattan?

And it is obvious you have never been in a situation where your health insurer has decided that someone else's insurance - be it auto insurance or homeowner's insurance - is responsible for the bills arising from your injury.

When this happens to you, and it is not rare, this will all be extremely clear to you.

I assume you have auto insurance, right?

I assume you know your policy limits, right?

Let's say you have coverage in the amount of $200,000 for "personal injury".

What that means is that if you run me over on the sidewalk, while posting to DU on your smartphone at the wheel, then my ambulance trip, visit to the hospital, and so on is not going to be paid by my health insurance. The expenses from my injuries are going to be paid by YOUR auto insurance.

My health insurer is going to refuse to pay because that's what you are paying your auto insurance premiums to cover under the rubric of "personal injury". Your auto insurance is the PRIMARY insurer in that situation.

Now, what happens is that, before you hit me, I had a problem with my hip - a minor one. When you ran me over, you broke my hip. What your auto insurer is going to do - and they can do this - is get my records, find that pre-existing hip problem, and then claim that my hip problems were not caused by the accident.

That forces me into a situation where I have to sue you. Not your insurance, not my insurance, but YOU. Your auto insurance company will pay for your defense.

The outcome of the lawsuit will be:

1. You are liable for my injuries, which means your auto insurance pays.

OR

2. You are not liable for my injuries, which means my health insurance will pay.

That's how this shit works. It is how it has worked for years. She couldn't get her medical bills paid because it arguably fell under the coverage of the nephew's father's homeowner's insurance, which includes coverage for personal injuries on his property.

[PeaceNikki]

192. Yup. I hope the person you replied to reads this because they are clearly not up to speed

on the bullshit insurance companies pull to get out of paying out claims.

[TeddyR]

129. I may have missed something

But do you have a link stating that health insurance wouldn't cover her injuries?

[Goblinmonger]

156. Happens all the time

If one gets hurt at work, the health insurance will deny the claims because workers comp carrier should be paying the costs even if the employer is denying the workers comp claim. I've worked for an attorney on this. I've had to call the health insurance and tell them they need to pay because workers comp won't. I have to send multiple documents and statements multiple times to try and get the health insurance to cover claims that workers comp isn't going to until a judge tells them to. And a judge won't tell them to until the end of healing for that injury.

And, yes, this isn't a workers comp claim. Same thing. You haven't received a form from your health insurance asking if an injury was the result of an accident? If it is and they know there is another carrier, they can, and will, deny payment on those claims because someone else might. The good companies will make the payments and put a lien on that amount of money in case you actually get a settlement. Know how hard it is to get an insurance company to settle?

[pnwmom]

182. But she wasn't hurt at work, so workers comp rules don't apply.

All she had to tell her insurance company was that it was an accident and NO ONE'S FAULT. Because it wasn't. She was just as much "at fault" as the 8 year old, because , according to her own testimony, she was trying to "catch" him when she fell.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

191. Well you should have testified in court as an expert witness.

[pnwmom]

194. The Court ruled that the boy wasn't at fault without my help. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

196. It's probably for the best.

You might have gone in to court blathering about "her homeowner's policy" and everyone in court, like this thread, would be like WTF?

[Goblinmonger]

193. I already addressed the workers comp issue.

So she gets to determine fault now? If she says it was an accident, they will likely ask for details. They will determine fault. And if you think that an insurance company isn't going to expect a homeowners med pay policy to cover those payments instead of them, you're kidding yourself. Some companies are cool. Some are assholes. We have no idea which of those are at play here. The case was for medical bills among other things, so it doesn't look like her health insurance policy was paying the bills.

You know people pay homeowner's insurance premiums for a reason, right? So that if someone, even someone you are related to, gets hurt on your property, there is coverage for those injuries.

[pnwmom]

195. Yes, as the insured, she did. I and my children have had accidents.

And a couple times the insurer wanted to know what happened. And I said, truthfully ,that it was an accident and no one's fault.

And that was the end of that.

I think it's most likely she was trying to get the parents' homeowners to pay for her out-of-pocket health costs. And then some.

[LibertyLover]

8. Sadly, not the first time this sort of suit has happened

It's been a while, so I don't remember all the details, but a number of years ago I was in law school (only did one semester and realized that it wasn't for me) and studying torts. One of the cases we read had to do with, IIRC, a woman suing a young child for pulling her chair over, stating that the child knew or should have known that doing so would result in injury to her. The jury found in her favor too.

[vankuria]

9. I wouldn't

The nephew who is 12 now had to testify in court and is the only defendant in the case, according to the article I read in the New York Daily News, the aunt is claiming he should've known better when he jumped on her when he was 8 yrs. old. The nephew also just recently lost his mother, there is no way I'd put one of my nieces or nephews through that. No amount of money would be worth wrecking a life long relationship, obviously this boy loved his aunt very much and was overly happy to see her. The aunt is selfish and she'll lose the relationship she had, I hope it's worth it to her.

[jeff47]

64. It's good you have the money to cover all possible medical bills.

'Cause your health insurance isn't going to pay those bills in this kind of accident. The health insurance plan is going to insist you sue the homeowner so that the homeowner's insurance pays.

[RobinA]

72. Is This a New Thing?

I broke my elbow at a skating rink. My insurance company sent me a letter asking me if my injury was due to negligence by a third party. I said no. They told me that if I did sue somebody and collected I had to pay them back for my medical expenses. End of story.

[jeff47]

77. Not at all. It's been around for a long time.

The difference between your situation and this one is the person who actually caused the injury. I presume you fell down at the skating rink. You caused the injury. That makes a much tougher case to make the skating rink's insurance pay.

In this case, the kid caused the injury. That's a much bigger opening for the health insurance to make the homeowner's insurance pay.

[vankuria]

163. The article states the nephew is the only defendent in this case

If she's suing to get medical bills reimbursed why not sue the homeowner who owns the insurance policy or the insurance company directly? The defendant being 12 yrs. old obviously has no assets.

According to the most recent article the jury voted in favor of the nephew, that he didn't owe her a penny.

[jeff47]

164. Yes, the nephew is the one who caused the injury.

So he's the defendant. If the aunt had won the case, the nephew would be ordered to pay. And then insurance kicks in. Since he's one of the minor children in the house, he's covered by the homeowner's insurance.

why not sue the homeowner

The homeowner didn't cause the injury.

or the insurance company directly

The insurance company didn't cause the injury.

[tblue]

10. That's just nuts

Why hurt a little kid?

[gollygee]

11. Is she suing him or is her insurance company suing in her name?

Because that can happen and they can do it without you wanting them to do it.

If she personally is suing him, then yeah that sucks.

[peacebird]

12. The child is the only one being sued, the "Aunt" is despicable.

[gollygee]

13. I hope she loses and has to pay his court costs

How horrible do you have to be to sue a kid over an accident, that happened due to love? She had trouble holding her hors d'ouvres plate. Poor baby.

[TBF]

19. She is suing to get the insurance company to pay -

it is absolutely amazing to watch people here on DU pummel the individual - and in doing so support the insurance companies and their endless games to avoid paying claims.

Smh.

[jberryhill]

35. +Zillions

The other thing that is sad to watch is how a civil lawsuit is perceived as some sort of grand emotional event.

You go in, you say what happened, you leave. Jury decides. Insurer pays or doesn't pay. End of story.

[TeddyR]

130. Where do you see she's suing to get the insurance company to pay?

I see a story that says she's suing for pain and suffering, and the med insurance only covers the med bills. Am I missing something?

[TBF]

131. Think about this -

who would pay these sorts of injuries? This is a fight between her health insurance company and the homeowner's insurance company. Neither want to pay (maybe they don't believe her story - who knows - a 50 lb. 12 year old is not very big at all).

[Lancero]

173. It's amazing to watch people here...

Justify the emotional suffering a 12 year old child, who just lost his mother, is being put through, because the insurance company refuses to pay.

It can be worded either way, and both statements are entirely correct.

[TBF]

174. I agree that capitalism is the bigger issue -

in a more people-oriented system we wouldn't have these problems.

[jberryhill]

17. It's about insurance

I wish to God people would take a moment to understand why these things happen.

If you are injured in some kind of accident on someone's property, then one of several things is going to happen.

In the most common scenario, you have health insurance and they have homeowner's insurance. Your health insurer is not going to pay your medical insurance if they decide the incident was within the scope of their homeowner's insurance (or is going to seek reimbursement from their homeowner's insurance). The homeowner's insurance is going to say it wasn't a covered incident.

In order to sort out whether the health insurer or the homeowner's insurer picks up the tab, if they can't come to an agreement, then there is going to have to be a lawsuit to determine whether it should or should not have been covered by the homeowner's insurance.

The people are just pawns in this situation.

The actual problem is that we don't have universal health coverage. If we did, a whole shitload of lawsuits disappear.

[Nye Bevan]

21. So why does she complain in the lawsuit about how it "hurts to hold my hors d'oevre plate"?

As I mentioned above, her medical bills would be paid pretty much automatically. No insurance company is going to engage in a 4-year court battle over medical bills for a broken wrist. This is more about the aunt looking for a big payday at the expense of her little nephew being hauled into a courtroom.

[jberryhill]

23. Does it hurt or not?

Okay, so the attorney who was hired to put the screws to the other insurance company was supposed to say, "We won't claim every possible injury, just some of them."

I don't know these people. Does she need ongoing physical therapy?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

65. The lawyer wrote the complaint, not the aunt.

And I agree, it sounds awful. But the aunt isn't controlling the lawsuit; the insurance companies' lawyers are.

[riderinthestorm]

25. +1. I'm guessing most DUers haven't been privy to an insurance battle

over whose going to pay a medical bill.

It's not common but unfortunately it happens more than one would like. I saw it happen between two friends. Their insurance companies couldn't agree on a settlement so it went to court.

They remained friends even as the insurance companies pitted them against each other.

Health care reform can't come soon enough.

[kcr]

137. And a lot of DUers, and other people on the internet

are jumping to the conclusion that this is an insurance battle with no evidence that this is so.

[snooper2]

34. I disagree, she may just be an asshole, they come in all colors, shapes, and sizes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/aunt-sues-nephew-12-breaking-wrist-greeting-article-1.2394889#

[Human101948]

63. Notice the source of this story...

Not exactly a progressive liberal publication.

They want you to think that the woman is a greedy insensitive money grubber. That serves the right wing mantra of tort reform. Of course, when the same right wingers go to court it is absolutely justified and essential.

[jberryhill]

18. Can you imagine both insurance companies denying your claim?

At the bottom of this is a health insurer and a liability insurer, who can't agree on who is going to cover the injuries.

So, in that situation, you would just pick up the tab yourself, regardless of the fact that you and the property owner are both paying insurance premiums ostensibly to cover your injuries?

That's what you would do? Just pay the premiums AND cover your own medical expenses?

It's good to have that sort of pocket change, I guess.

[Nye Bevan]

24. "I feel terrible about this, the insurance companies are forcing me to do this....

.... so I get my medical bills paid"

said the aunt at no time, ever.

[riderinthestorm]

27. Uh, you'd be wrong about that.

Until we have health care reform, I'm absolutely sure this has happened before.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. It happens all the time.

It's ALL about the insurance. Because in most states direct actions against the insurers are not allowed (you don't sue the insurance company; you sue whoever bought the insurance), the named insureds and the injured persons have to be parties and the claims are brought in their names. But this and many cases like it are fights between insurance companies. The kid is a named defendant in this case because he caused the injury (even accidentally) and his actions were presumably covered by his parents' homeowners' insurance, which, of course, doesn't want to pay up - nor does the health insurer. The kid effectively just a witness, since he, personally, is not going to have to pay no matter what happens. This sort of Kabuki theatre goes on all the time. These cases usually don't get as far as a trial - most tort claims are never tried - so we don't hear about them. But the reason they happen at all is (a) because we don't have a sane health care system, and (b) insurance companies are assholes. The aunt isn't an asshole. She's trying to get reasonable compensation for her injuries, and because we have a stupid system this is the only way she can do it.

[jberryhill]

50. Precisely /nt

[jberryhill]

29. Well, you must have had a longer conversation with her than I did

Because I certainly never spoke to her.

The last time I got selected for jury service, I had to spend three pointless days listening to a lot of horse shit over whether someone had a pre-existing condition because someone was hurt in a car accident and had ongoing problems.

In the jury room, before the proceeding was over, the other jurors kept saying, "I don't get it, she works over at X and they have really good health insurance. Isn't all this covered?"

There is, of course, a rule against discussing insurance in civil cases.

Here's everything you need to know about this case:

"when she arrived at her nephew’s Westport, Conn., home."

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. And yet, you're the one claiming you know this is about insurance companies

when they're not mentioned in the article (or the ctpost one it's based on) at all.

Here's everything you need to know about this case: "when she arrived at her nephew’s Westport, Conn., home."

Are you saying that everyone in Westport has dangerous children who should be sued? What have you got against Westport that you dismiss it out of hand like that?

[jberryhill]

47. Because the article is based on a civil filing...

...and, by rule, you can't mention insurance coverage in these kinds of suits.

Look up property values and income in Westport, and then ponder the lower limits on homeowner's coverage there.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/15/connecticut-gold-coast-life-afford

I guarantee you that the coverage limits on the homeowner's policy in Westport, CT are much higher than the coverage limits on PT for the health insurance policy.

On edit: Here....

http://www.realtor.com/local/Westport_CT/home-prices

Average Home Price

Westport Connecticut United States
$1,598,000 $269,900 $203,604

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Exactly. That's because in most cases direct actions against insurers

are not allowed. The lawyers in this case will be hired and paid by the insurance companies, who control all of the litigation strategy and decide whether and for how much to settle. If you ever get sued for some kind of accident you have to notify your insurance company, who will then undertake your defense (unless they decide to deny coverage altogether, and that's a whole 'nother can of worms). But you will not have a damn thing to say about how any of it happens. You're just along for the ride. Read your policy...

[Orrex]

68. Does the eight-year-old have that sort of pocket change?

What will ba accomplished by suing the child?

[jberryhill]

75. The child is a family member of the homeowner's insurance policy holder

What is accomplished by suing the child is determining whether the child is at fault for the injuries.

1. If the child is at fault, the homeowner's policy pays.

2. If the child is not at fault, the health insurance policy pays.

Another way of putting "what is accomplished by suing the child" is "to determine which insurance company pays".

This is a significant outcome, to the insurance companies, as the types of compensable injuries can differ markedly.

Under outcome #2, she gets her medical expenses covered within the limits of whatever her policy covers - treatment, PT, etc.

Under outcome #1, the homeowner's insurer reimburses the health insurer, and may also provide compensation for a wider range of treatment (she has ongoing pain and claimed disability), along with other varieties of loss (did she play the piano, give great handjobs, whatever).

And, yes, if she is single, and that is her masturbating hand, then the loss may be more significant than is apparent from the article.

These types of lawsuits, which are a frequent trope on DU, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the relationships or emotions among the parties or their ability to pay. They are pissing contests between insurance adjusters.

Once more, with feeling... the home is in Westport, CT, which is some of the most expensive real estate on the east coast, and one can bet that the coverage limits are higher than the health insurance policy.

[Orrex]

83. Hey, I like that analysis.

Not as flashy as "aunt sues nephew," but you give lots of good info.

[SheilaT]

26. Some years back my mother tripped in my garage

and broke a non-weight bearing bone in her foot. After being treated, she filed a claim against my homeowners insurance so that her out of pocket expenses would be covered. The insurance adjuster was very confused, as we have the same last name, but they paid. She would never have gotten to the point of suing, and if necessary I'd have reimbursed her on my own. But because it was a trip and fall, homeowner's insurance covered it.

Not sure that there would be any insurance at play in this case, but it is ludicrous that the aunt is suing.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Yep, medical bills are paid absolutely routinely in cases like this.

Most of the time the health insurer will pay in the first instance, and then if they see that the claim is something that might result from an injury they will send you a letter asking for more information so they can "subrogate" the claim to the homeowner's insurer if there is any liability there. In this case the homeowner's insurer will just pay the medical insurer behind the scenes. If there is no medical insurance then the injured party would just send their bills to the homeowner's insurer, who will pay them more or less automatically; paying for the treatment of a broken wrist is vastly less expensive than paying the legal expenses of a 4-year court battle and forcing a little kid to appear in court.

[jberryhill]

32. "the homeowner's insurer will just pay the medical insurer"

...because they hand out money like water.

If she's got ongoing PT issues, then it may be a little more than a "broken wrist", and the homeowner's insurer is balking.

[TwilightGardener]

28. It's called "an accident". That woman is deranged.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. That's what insurance is for!

Accidents happen all the time - in cars, in people's homes. That's why you buy insurance - to protect your own assets and compensate someone who was injured in an accident. I hardly think it's "deranged" to try to get your medical bills paid.

[jeff47]

61. And the two insurance companies are fighting over who pays.

The woman's health insurance does not want to pay, claiming the homeowners insurance should pay.
The kid's (parent's) homeowners insurance does not want to pay, claiming the health insurance should pay.

The way to make one of them actually pay is via a lawsuit. It's fucked up, but it's the fucked up system under which we live.

[CreekDog]

31. do you think it's reasonable for her to have made a claim on the family's insurance?

if so, what if they don't pay?

[deathrind]

37. Greed knows,

No boundaries...

[ileus]

42. Our lawsuit lottery lifestyle strikes again.

[jberryhill]

51. No, our lack of comprehensive universal health coverage strikes again

[Orrex]

48. But will she be invited to Sean's 13th birthday?

[jberryhill]

80. Why not?

The assumption that there is some sort of ill-will among the parties here is juvenile.

If someone I loved was injured on my property, and my insurance company was balking at claimed damages, why would I get upset if that injured loved one brought a suit in order to force my insurance company to pay?

I don't have some kind of emotional investment in whether my insurance company pays claims, and if they don't pay claims then, yes, someone has to do what's needed in order to establish liability so that the claim gets paid.

Why do so many people here assume this is some sort of emotional thing among the parties?

[Orrex]

84. Dude, you're harshing my punchline.

[dem in texas]

56. Girl Broke her wrist at my house years ago.

I used to be a Campfire girl leader and had a group of girls at my house. They were playing out on the patio and one fell and broke her wrist. Her mom told me not to worry, it was probably her daughter's fault. The mom had already taken her daughter to the doctor and got the wrist treated. That was about 40 years ago, boy times have changed.

[jberryhill]

58. Yes, times have changed...

These days, the girl's health insurer would refuse to pay, and would demand your homeowner's insurance company to pay.

If your homeowner's insurance company balks, then you all have to go to court in order to figure out which insurance company is going to pay.

[jeff47]

66. This is a battle between two insurance companies.

The health insurance does not want to pay if they can make the homeowners insurance pay. So the health insurance will refuse to pay the bills until you sue the homeowner.

I broke my own shoulder recently. The health insurance plan sent me a form I had to fill out that basically was asking "is there anyone we can make you sue to pay for this?"

That's what's happening here. The lawsuit is to establish liability, so that the health insurance can make the homeowner's insurance pay the bills.

[Nye Bevan]

76. Again. Insurance companies routinely pay normal medical bills without 4-year court battles

and jury trials. And if all this woman was seeking was her medical bills then she would say so. The problem is, she wants a lot more.

[jeff47]

81. And insurance companies routinely refuse to pay normal medical bills without 4-year court battles.

Both are routine.

And if all this woman was seeking was her medical bills then she would say so. The problem is, she wants a lot more.

You're objecting to putting the kid through a trial. That happens whether it's only medical bills or medical bills plus "pain and suffering".

There's no particular reason the aunt can't share the proceeds. And there's no evidence in the article that the aunt, the kid and the kid's parents are actually angry at each other.

There's a claim against the homeowner's insurance, whether it's just medical bills or medical bills plus pain and suffering. Might as well get the homeowner's insurance to pay on pain and suffering too.

[Nye Bevan]

85. "Might as well get the homeowner's insurance to pay on pain and suffering too."

That's it, right there. If all she wanted was her medical bills reimbursed this would have been finished and settled 4 years ago. But because she decided to go for a "pain and suffering" jackpot she decided to force his nephew (who recently lost his mother) into a courtroom.

[jberryhill]

90. "force this nephew"

Oh, please, the drama.

I'd hate to think that you'd be okay with your insurance company refusing to pay a loved one for lost wages as a consequence of an accident happening on your property.

People pay good money for insurance, and they expect it to pay claims. If my aunt fell down my steps and was injured, I would want my insurance company to pay her claims. That's what the premiums are for.

And if my insurance company didn't pay her claims, I can't see where it would be a problem for me to go to court, and answer questions about what happened.

This is not some Perry Mason drama where a sweaty lawyer is going to be screaming accusations and pointing a finger at a frightened child in a witness box while scary music swells in the background.

Taking a math test in school is more traumatic than answering questions in court, and nobody is going to win points with the jury by badgering a 12 year old.

Dad's been paying out the wazoo for liability insurance for years - for JUST THIS PURPOSE. It happened, and the insurer is not paying. You think he's upset that his sister (or sister in-law) wants his insurance company to pay her claim?

[Nye Bevan]

93. How much in "lost wages" do you think there would be for a HR manager with a broken wrist? (nt)

[jberryhill]

95. I dunno, let's ask a court

That's what they are there for.

[Nye Bevan]

100. Come on. Can we get real here?

Yes, she broke her wrist. Probably a couple of thousand in medical bills, x-rays, some rehab at $120 a pop. All told probably less than $5000, almost certainly less than $10,000. Maybe she took a couple of days off work, but she's a HR manager so "lost wages" were probably zero.

Her health insurer (and yes, she almost certainly had health insurance) covered her bills and then sent her a "subrogation" letter (as they do for all injuries of this nature) asking how and where it happened, so that they (the insurance company) could get reimbursed by the appropriate party (if possible). At this point dollar signs danced in her eyes and she got the idea of suing for "pain and suffering" (after all, she does still get some twinges when holding the hor d'oevre plate).

What we don't know is if there is genuine bad blood between her and her brother-in-law or if they cooked up the lawsuit together with a tacit agreement to split the 6-figure "pain and suffering" award. Either way, the insurance company was having none of it. They would be perfectly happy to pay the real medical expenses and the rehab, but they weren't going to meekly write a six-figure check for "pain and suffering" which she is probably either inventing or greatly exaggerating. So she chose to engage in a 4-year legal battle culminating in dragging her nephew into court.

[jberryhill]

108. "dragging her nephew into court"

Again with the Perry Mason-like depiction of what's involved in going to court and answering questions.

Do you attend many trials? It's as boring as watching paint dry. There is nothing traumatic about having a 12 year old answer questions about this event, which he probably doesn't recall that well anyway.

Does this child get called on by the teacher to answer questions in school? Does this child take tests in school? This is less stressful than that.

Unless there are other cases scheduled for that day, there's not going to be some crowded room with strangers ooh-ing and aah-ing over the dramatic twists of this mundane case.

He will, however, spend less time in that court than he would otherwise spend in school for the day. When I was twelve, that kind of thing counted as a "bonus".

The kid is not going to be doing anything for four years. He's going to be deposed for - I would guess at the outside - an hour and a half. That's not even going to happen at a court. It will happen at a lawyer's office or at his home.

That's the sum total of his pre-trial involvement. Then there will be various pre-trial motions, which aren't going to involve his participation in any way. There is an outside chance the case won't settle and he'll be called back to testify on the stand for - again - a length of time I could not imagine going beyond 30 minutes tops.

If someone in my family was injured on my property, had lost wages, and had ongoing pain or disability, I would want them to get paid for their claim. If my insurer wouldn't pay, then I'd want that family member to get paid. That's what I pay the premiums for.

Now, the only way that is going to happen is if they get a lawyer on contingency and sue me, in order to get the insurer to pay. I'd be fine with that. However, since the lawyer is getting 30% of the take, then I certainly hope they establish liability in the range of some 30% above what both me and my injured family member think is reasonable.

You are making this into something that it is not. The insurance companies and the "tort reform" touting right wingers thank you for your service.

[Nye Bevan]

116. OK, I admit it. You are right. This is a *great* experience for the kid.

And his family is wonderful. In later life they will reminisce very happily about how he got out of school for the day to sit in a courtroom watching her testify against him.

[jberryhill]

120. He doesn't have to sit there for that

Why on earth would he have to even be in the room?

And, again, you make it out as some kind of accusatory thing.

It's not entirely clear where the accident happened, and there may be an issue of just where and how the mechanics of this thing went down - on the property or just off of it.

But in order to say, "He came running at me and I fell down injured" doesn't involve any sort of moral animus of the type you think is necessary to a lawsuit.

In fact, it can be quite sweet, "When I got up, he apologized and said, 'I'm sorry Auntie, it was all my fault' because he is such a lovely boy."

That right there will do it.

Nobody's character is on trial in this situation. Just the mechanics of who did what.

[LanternWaste]

122. Almost as great an experience as surgery and physical therapy.

"This is a *great* experience for the kid..."

Almost as great an experience as surgery and physical therapy.

(six of one, half a dozen of the other... and both as petulantly irrelevant as the other)

[jberryhill]

209. And then he got to go on the Today show with his aunt!

Sean, who sat next to his aunt during their Today show appearance, said that he understands why Connell did what she did. "She'd never do anything to hurt the family or myself," he said. "She loves us."

http://www.people.com/article/aunt-who-sued-nephew-wrist-injury-appears-today-show

[Goblinmonger]

157. Less than $5000? You're kidding, right?

As to the subro letter, you are assuming that her insurance company is a bastard company. Because if they are, they could deny payment based on their contract. Plenty have that provision.

"They would be perfectly happy to pay the real medical expenses and the rehab...." I'd love to live in the world you do. Insurance companies are NEVER happy to pay any expenses and will do whatever they can to do so.

And, when they send that subro letter, they will include as many charges as they can that are even close to the injury so that they get as much money as they can. I can't tell you the number of times I have had to call insurance companies and get them to remove thousands of dollars because they charges they are including are for a right knee injury and the injury in the case is left knee. In that instance, I had to get a signed statement from the doctor stating which appointments were right knee before the insurance company would remove them from the lien. "Perfectly happy..." Bullshit.

[jeff47]

104. I have carpal tunnel. I couldn't work yesterday because I couldn't use a computer.

A broken wrist would make me unable to work at all for quite a while.

[jeff47]

102. Can I borrow your time machine?

If all she wanted was her medical bills reimbursed this would have been finished and settled 4 years ago

Based on.........?

Were you operating under the assumption that insurance companies like to pay out? Or that it is impossible to settle the "medical bills" part separately from the other claims?

[Nye Bevan]

105. Insurance companies don't especially like paying $10,000 or so for medical bills for a broken wrist,

but they will do so when presented with the bills and the appropriate circumstances.

What they hate doing, and will fight against, is paying an extra $100,000 for "pain and suffering" because it apparently hurts to hold a platter of hors d'oevres.

[jeff47]

106. And again, you do realize that the medical bills part can be settled separately, right?

So if it's only about the other claims, why didn't the oh-so-eager-to-settle insurance company settle the medical bills part?

[jberryhill]

110. You put all the cards on the table when you file

When you file, you have no idea what you might eventually wind up with.

What you are saying is that the attorney should engage in malpractice, and waive potential damage claims, because the numbers in a civil filing are "too large".

Okay, so we have an utter lack of concern for injured family members, support for stingy insurance companies, and a desire for attorneys to shirk their legal duties to clients. Anything else?

[jberryhill]

112. This reply says it all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7256367

[jberryhill]

87. They don't pay lost income

There is a lost wages claim here, a pain and suffering claim, and probably a bunch more stuff on the table that medical insurance does not pay.

So, Nye, answer me this:

Your best friend comes to your house, slips on the floor, breaks her arm, and loses a month's wages recuperating from her injuries.

You ring up your homeowner's insurance company, report the incident, and your friend puts in a claim for those wages.

Your insurance company then says, "Your friend is a malingerer, and we aren't paying the claim."

What do you do then? Just say to your friend, "Sorry, my insurer is run by dicks. Sucks to be you."

Fuck no.

You tell your friend, "Get the best lawyer in town, sue me, and get those bastards to pay."

The assumption seems to be that you think a lawsuit is some sort of infliction of emotional trauma. You really can't see, in the context that I just described, that you and your friend are going to have a lot LESS hard feelings if she brings the suit and gets paid by your insurance company than if you just tell her she's fucked?

You really can't see that?

[Nye Bevan]

88. Here's what I wouldn't do.

I wouldn't argue for any course of action that would require a confused 12-year old child to appear in court as a defendant.

And by the way, how much "lost income" do you think a human resources manager would forego from having a broken wrist?

[Shrike47]

70. What I see in this thread is an argument between the lawyers and the civilians, who don't get it.

Non-lawyers don't understand that emotions do not play a role in the decision to sue, since the decision is made by an insurance company.

Going to law school makes you look at things differently.

I loved it, myself.

[Nay]

103. Yep. As a former insurance adjuster, I roll my eyes at all the

civilian stuff; what I expect, though, is that the civilians become enlightened once the relevant facts and discussions disclose how the insurance works, how insurance companies vie with each other over who will pay, etc.

What is disheartening is to read a thread like this and realize that a sober and clear explanation by experts in the subject do not stop the emotional yammering about the poor kid, the asshole aunt, etc. The aunt may indeed be an asshole who's trying to milk her brother's insurance, but we sure don't know that. It is 90% likely that the insurance companies are acting like corporations who want the other bunch to pay.

[GusBob]

125. The verdict is in

the jury agrees with the yammering types

[Nay]

135. Weeeeelllllllll, guess I'm not surprised. I haven't followed this case to the

end, so I don't know if the woman is being a jerk or just needed to make one of the ins companies do its duty, but many of us were making the point that she may have a decent legal reason to sue.

What's really unfortunate is that the reporters don't EVER report the whole story, so no one is ever educated well on any subject of discussion. How can you form an opinion when you are never filled in on all the aspects?

[kcr]

139. Ha!

Good on that jury.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. And yet, we're told that these insurance companies can't even be named in this

That a health insurance company can refuse to do their basic job (ie pay up when the insured needs treatment), can order the person to take their own family to court, rather than do another basic part of their job (ie negotiate with another insurance company, if they think that a family has insurance against a child being over-exuberant), and while paying out no money, and telling the family to sue itself, they also get to pretend it's got nothing to do with them, and that a report about it apparently can't mention the existence of the insurance companies?

That's a fucked-up system. The reporting of the case has to pretend there aren't insurance companies involved, and make up crap about the boy being unhappy, when really this is about the failure of 2 insurance companies to do their basic function and negotiate? When the decision is made, by judge or jury, do the reports have to pretend they didn't talk about the insurance companies too? Do they have to lie about the situation all the way through?

[bluestateguy]

71. This woman will never get another job again

In the future, a simple google search will show this frivilous lawsuit and employers will avoid her like the plague.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

98. No: people who understand the workings of insurance

and the legal system will know exactly what happened, which has been explained in detail elsewhere in this thread. This is a battle between insurance companies, over which the named parties have no control.

[abelenkpe]

134. She's 54 with medical problems

And employers provide healthcare (instead of a sensible single payer system) so yeah you're probably right. Doubt she needs a job though. Too busy balancing hors d'oeuvres

[Turbineguy]

78. Sure, I want

the world to know I'm an asshole and besides, I can use the dough.

[yeoman6987]

101. No! Never. I wouldn't sue a family member for anything ever no matter the age

[jberryhill]

111. Let me see if I understand what you are saying....

If your brother comes over to your house and helps you out with some yardwork, then if his leg gets cut off by a lawnmower and your homeowner's policy didn't pay out, you would say to your brother "sucks to be you" instead of wanting him to file a suit to get your insurance company to pay?

Why do you pay homeowner's insurance premiums? For what conceivable purpose?

Read this reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7256367

[yeoman6987]

115. I said I wouldn't sue. My brother may feel differently.

[jberryhill]

118. Okay, but if it was your leg and his insurance policy

...then it would be foolish not to sue, and should something like this happen in your family, the dynamics will be apparent.

Let's say it is your leg and his insurance policy.

He pays the premiums so that people, including you, will be compensated for injuries which happen on his property.

A lawsuit is not an emotional exercise. People who like each other sue each other all of the time, in order to allocate coverage among insurance companies.

The situation is not "I am trying to get $100k out of my brother for losing my leg", it is "My brother and I are trying to get his insurance company to do what they are supposed to do."

[yeoman6987]

121. Yeah maybe you are right

I would just hope it didn't get messy.

[jberryhill]

123. These types of actions don't tend to get very messy

The insurance company has a responsibility to its underwriters and share holders not to pay claims unless it is established that they have to.

No emotional animus between the parties is required. What they actually have to look out for in these situations is whether the insured is a bit too eager to have the company pay out.

About the only thing they want to guard against is you and your brother engaging in some kind of fraud - i.e. the accident didn't really happen the way you and he described it, and you are both colluding to bilk the insurer.

So, yeah, they'll happily have the both of you put under oath to testify. If your stories match, then they are going to pay.

[OriginalGeek]

168. You lost a leg!

that's gonna be messy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

172. Not necessarily.

https://m.

[lame54]

107. I'd make her my butler

[Codeine]

162. That's gold, Jerry! Gold! nt

[Initech]

114. Can you really sue for a poorly made decision?

[WinkyDink]

117. Of course. It's a medical issue for the insurance companies, not his piggy-bank.

[GusBob]

124. I heard on the radio, the verdict is in (no link) the jury didnt give a penny

and rightfully so. screw her.

[Nye Bevan]

128. LOL. Jury deliberated for 25 minutes before coming to a unanimous verdict.

Common sense prevails.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/13/aunt-sues-12-year-old-nephew-who-broke-her-wrist-with-a-careless-hug/

[GusBob]

132. But, but, the insurance companies,,,,

Who will weep for them ?

[jberryhill]

133. Nobody is going to weep for them

The homeowner's insurer is the winner here.

[Goblinmonger]

161. Thank god the insurance company kept its money. n/t

[valerief]

127. Freakin' amazing. Loved this part:

Manhattan, where Connell lives, is crowded, she testified. And her third-floor walk-up on the Upper East Side poses challenges for her now.

It gets worse.

“I was at a party recently, and it was difficult to hold my hors d’oeuvre plate,” Connell said, according to the news account.

[RiffRandell]

141. No sympathy from me. nt

[PeaceNikki]

147. She did NOT sue her nephew.

It's not her nephew. It's her cousin's kid. He just CALLED her Auntie.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/
"The boy refers to Connell as his aunt, although she said he is the son of her cousin. "

[Nye Bevan]

148. He should have addressed her as "First Cousin Once Removed".

But I guess "Auntie" cuts down on the syllables.

[PeaceNikki]

149. OK, but still not aunt-nephew. Regardless of what he called her.

[Nye Bevan]

150. Maybe she will sue him for another $100k for mischaracterizing their relationship. (nt)

[kcr]

151. Well, no wonder he was so negligent

That explains it

[bluestateguy]

165. She lost the lawsuit

which is good.

I'm guessing the boy and his father won't be inviting her to social events in the future, unless she signs a waiver.

[PeaceNikki]

166. According to CNN, they remain very close.

As many have stated, this is about insurance bullshit, no more, no less. I am not joining in the internet mob mentality vilification of her.

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.

"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN.

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.

"It's amazing the power that the Internet has that something can go viral, completely out of context," she said. "I'm certainly not trying to retire to some villa in the south of France. I'm simply trying to pay off my medical bills."

[Renew Deal]

154. Does it have to do with insurance?

It probably has nothing to do with the kid.

[Goblinmonger]

158. I likely has everything to do with insurance

This article reeks of something put out by the insurance company to cover the fact that they wouldn't pay the bills they should have. Just like they did with the McDonald's coffee spill and thousands of other instances where they want it to look like it is greedy people abusing the court system rather than insurance companies not paying what they accept premiums to cover.

[Act_of_Reparation]

159. That was my thought as well.

Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in the McDonald's case, suffered horrendous injuries. She received third degree burns on six percent of her body, and was hospitalized for 8 days while she underwent skin grafting. She required at-home assistance for three weeks and was partially disabled for a period of about two years.

But no one ever talks about that.

[hughee99]

160. Thus ensuring her nephew will never be that excited to see her again. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

167. On the contrary, they remain close.

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.

"I adore this child. I would never want to hurt him. He would never want to hurt me," she told CNN.

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.

"It's amazing the power that the Internet has that something can go viral, completely out of context," she said. "I'm certainly not trying to retire to some villa in the south of France. I'm simply trying to pay off my medical bills."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

170. And that should be the end of this silly thread. I said should...

[hughee99]

171. Do you think she's been tackled in excitement since? n/t

[pinboy3niner]

169. $127K? Is that all I can get out of him?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

198. I suspect it's pro-forma to collect from the parent's homeowner's insurance

I've seen suits like this before. Husbands suing wives who were at the wheel in a car accident, for example. As a general rule, they are "business, not personal."

[LiberalElite]

199. No, I wouldn't but what I knew of this as of yesterday was based on the extremely

edited version of events fed to us by the MSM. It had to do with insurance, not simply that she couldn't carry an hors d'oevres plate.

[U4ikLefty]

206. Damn right I would!!!

I'll sue for his bike and PlayStation too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

210. as it turns out, you were wrong (again)

[Nye Bevan]

211. The jury deliberated for 25 minutes before unanimously deciding not to award her a penny.

Meaning that engaging in a multi-year legal battle, dragging her nephew into a courtroom, and becoming the most hated person on social media was all for naught. With this in mind I would very respectfully venture to suggest that those who were "wrong" were whoever advised her to file this ill-advised lawsuit.

[tammywammy]

214. Not all for naught, now her health insurance will pay for it.

That's the whole point. Her health insurance denied the claim saying the homeowners insurance was liable. Now they've gone to court and it was decided the nephew wasn't negligent, so the homeowners insurance isn't liable making the health insurance pay for the claim.

She cannot sue the insurance company, she had to sue the nephew, who accidentally hurt her, so they would find him specifically not negligent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

215. Lol. You really don't get this.

[DefenseLawyer]

212. It would appear most people don't know how insurance companies work

But, as Thomas Jefferson once said, "haters gonna hate"

[Nye Bevan]

213. Do you count all of the jurors among the "haters"

given that they unanimously ruled against the aunt after deliberating for 25 minutes?

[DefenseLawyer]

216. That's different issue

The jurors decided whether she was entitled to damages, as they would have in any civil trial. The issue for the jury was not to decide if "you're a jerk for naming your family member in a lawsuit"

[Spirochete]

217. No

I'd sue him for 250,000, then settle out of court for 127,000.