Pennsylvania Court Rules Parents' Homeowners Policy Covers Shootings by Son
East News • February 23, 2006
An insurance company might have to pay $1.8 million if the lone survivor and relatives of five other victims of a shooting spree win lawsuits against the attacker's parents, the Pennsylvania ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders.
Posted On: February 24, 2006, 3:42 am CST
Posted By: Othello Orson
Comment:
As a person with 30 years insurance experience (outside USA) this confuses the hell out of me!
Some points of curiosity:
1. They say the parents were liable for their son under the policy. Why?
Surely in the USA parents cease to be responsible for the actions of their children as soon as their children become adults?
Even if an insurance policy (and I can't find the Donegal wording on the "net") states it covers anyone normally residing in the home, that would not make any one adult liable for actions of another, resident, adult i.e. if the "insured" is referred to as "you" any adult covered under the policy would be separately covered as "you" and therefore any exclusions against illegal acts by "you" would be excluded against the individual adult.
Conversely, other than as may accrue by marriage, the liability for any acts of one adult (you) would not fall on any other adult, there would be no cross liability.
2. Xenophobia is not a mental illness otherwise most people on the planet would be considered as mentally incompetent to some degree.
3. If it took a medical team (and I assume expert medical advice was called for) to draw the conclusion the person was mentally ill and not merely xenophobic how could the parents know?
4. What is the legal right of a parent to remove an item from an adult who has not been officially declared incompetent to own it i.e. can a 40 year old call the police and report a 60 year old for taking his belongings? Can an adult son be held liable for stealing a parents car?
5. If this person was so plainly dangerous (that his parents could be held liable) why would you expect the parents to take the risk of confiscating his firearm?
6. Until such time as the parents are declared the legal guardian of a mentally incapacitated adult how can they have any legal responsibility for them?
7. Where does the parents responsibility end? Does every parent in the USA need to obtain a psychology degree before giving birth and monitor their children through adulthood?
8. Given that the removal of a gun would also be only a hiccup in delaying a truly mental person to what extent were the parents liable? Take the gun? Knock him out? Drug him? Tie him up?
9. Does this mean also that the government accepts legal liability as soon as the phone call is made to claim mental instability of a third party?
It appears to me, unless the judges admit that their finding was based on grabbing a fistful of dollars from an insurer "because they were there", this must go beyond insurance i.e. any parent (and perhaps friend or flat mate) who has contact with a possibly mentally unstable adult offspring is responsible for their actions, be they a mass murderer, compulsive thief, arsonist, etc., etc.
It is an extremely dangerous conclusion to draw that an unqualified person (or parent) can be held liable for monitoring and determining the mental health of any another person with whom they have regular contact.
On the other side of the coin, what protection is there if the parents drew the wrong conclusion and their son was not mentally incapacitated?
What if their actions in restraining the person were considered negligent or illegal?
With regard to each murder being a separate occurrence, I must read the finding on this one. Based on my experience, the concept of finding that the parents were liable for each murder as each was a separate occurrence, seems so incongruous it sounds more like a Marx's brothers finding.
If the parents are to be held liable for more than one occurrence then they must be held liable for more than one act of negligence i.e. how can they be held negligent for not taking the gun away several times or reporting the mental incapacity more than once when it is clear taking the gun away once or having the person declared incompetent once would have put a stop to all murders?
If this is not, and each murder was a separate occurrence, then they should be liable for only the first occurrence i.e. after the first murder the State would become responsible for negligently failing to remove the weapon or failure to restrain the mentally incapacitated person, not the parents.
They were either negligently liable or not negligently liable, but only once.
It appears to me the judges, in their eagerness to arrange for some cash to change hands, overlooked the broader ramifications of the decision.
I hope there is an appeal for everyone's sake.
Subject: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders.
Some points of curiosity:
1. They say the parents were liable for their son under the policy. Why?
Surely in the USA parents cease to be responsible for the actions of their children as soon as their children become adults?
Even if an insurance policy (and I can't find the Donegal wording on the "net") states it covers anyone normally residing in the home, that would not make any one adult liable for actions of another, resident, adult i.e. if the "insured" is referred to as "you" any adult covered under the policy would be separately covered as "you" and therefore any exclusions against illegal acts by "you" would be excluded against the individual adult.
Conversely, other than as may accrue by marriage, the liability for any acts of one adult (you) would not fall on any other adult, there would be no cross liability.
2. Xenophobia is not a mental illness otherwise most people on the planet would be considered as mentally incompetent to some degree.
3. If it took a medical team (and I assume expert medical advice was called for) to draw the conclusion the person was mentally ill and not merely xenophobic how could the parents know?
4. What is the legal right of a parent to remove an item from an adult who has not been officially declared incompetent to own it i.e. can a 40 year old call the police and report a 60 year old for taking his belongings? Can an adult son be held liable for stealing a parents car?
5. If this person was so plainly dangerous (that his parents could be held liable) why would you expect the parents to take the risk of confiscating his firearm?
6. Until such time as the parents are declared the legal guardian of a mentally incapacitated adult how can they have any legal responsibility for them?
7. Where does the parents responsibility end? Does every parent in the USA need to obtain a psychology degree before giving birth and monitor their children through adulthood?
8. Given that the removal of a gun would also be only a hiccup in delaying a truly mental person to what extent were the parents liable? Take the gun? Knock him out? Drug him? Tie him up?
9. Does this mean also that the government accepts legal liability as soon as the phone call is made to claim mental instability of a third party?
It appears to me, unless the judges admit that their finding was based on grabbing a fistful of dollars from an insurer "because they were there", this must go beyond insurance i.e. any parent (and perhaps friend or flat mate) who has contact with a possibly mentally unstable adult offspring is responsible for their actions, be they a mass murderer, compulsive thief, arsonist, etc., etc.
It is an extremely dangerous conclusion to draw that an unqualified person (or parent) can be held liable for monitoring and determining the mental health of any another person with whom they have regular contact.
On the other side of the coin, what protection is there if the parents drew the wrong conclusion and their son was not mentally incapacitated?
What if their actions in restraining the person were considered negligent or illegal?
With regard to each murder being a separate occurrence, I must read the finding on this one. Based on my experience, the concept of finding that the parents were liable for each murder as each was a separate occurrence, seems so incongruous it sounds more like a Marx's brothers finding.
If the parents are to be held liable for more than one occurrence then they must be held liable for more than one act of negligence i.e. how can they be held negligent for not taking the gun away several times or reporting the mental incapacity more than once when it is clear taking the gun away once or having the person declared incompetent once would have put a stop to all murders?
If this is not, and each murder was a separate occurrence, then they should be liable for only the first occurrence i.e. after the first murder the State would become responsible for negligently failing to remove the weapon or failure to restrain the mentally incapacitated person, not the parents.
They were either negligently liable or not negligently liable, but only once.
It appears to me the judges, in their eagerness to arrange for some cash to change hands, overlooked the broader ramifications of the decision.
I hope there is an appeal for everyone's sake.