East News
Viewing comments for:
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 | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| Subrogate against the Bar Association | Bill | Feb 28, 2006, 12:36 pm |
| Court ruling against parents home policy for murders | stat guy | Feb 28, 2006, 7:23 am |
| RE: RE: Shootings | Snake-in-the-grass | Feb 28, 2006, 7:02 am |
| RE: RE: RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | brian | Feb 27, 2006, 10:45 pm |
| RE: By this logic | An Observer | Feb 27, 2006, 3:26 pm |
| RE: Shootings | Dave from Arizona | Feb 27, 2006, 3:21 pm |
| RE: RE: Chris. Ruling against parents home policy for murder | Chris | Feb 25, 2006, 11:29 am |
| RE: Chris. Ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Othello Orson | Feb 24, 2006, 9:27 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for mur | joe in claims | Feb 24, 2006, 3:13 pm |
| RE: RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders | der writer!!!! | Feb 24, 2006, 11:24 am |
| RE: Court ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Chris | Feb 24, 2006, 7:08 am |
| Court ruling against parents home policy for murders. | Othello Orson | Feb 24, 2006, 3:42 am |
| RE: RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | Chris | Feb 23, 2006, 4:46 pm |
| RE: Coverage A Exclusion??? | Brian | Feb 23, 2006, 4:35 pm |
| Coverage A Exclusion??? | CPCU Guy 2006 | Feb 23, 2006, 3:55 pm |
| RE: Shootings | Dirk | Feb 23, 2006, 3:49 pm |
| RE: Son was shot | Richard Heagle | Feb 23, 2006, 1:23 pm |
| RE: RE: Negligence | Chris | Feb 23, 2006, 1:23 pm |
| Son was shot | beenthere | Feb 23, 2006, 12:48 pm |
| RE: Negligence | LLCJ | Feb 23, 2006, 12:37 pm |
| RE: Courts | Bill K | Feb 23, 2006, 12:32 pm |
| Negligence | debbie | Feb 23, 2006, 12:28 pm |
| RE: You're not stupid! | You are not stupid | Feb 23, 2006, 12:26 pm |
| By this logic | LLCJ | Feb 23, 2006, 12:23 pm |
| Ahead of the curve | A Product Manager | Feb 23, 2006, 12:14 pm |
| You're not stupid! | Richard Heagle | Feb 23, 2006, 11:53 am |
| Shootings | Confused | Feb 23, 2006, 8:24 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: Shootings
I do know in Arizona we have what is known as "The Family Purpose Doctrine" and the tennacles are huge as it relates to civil liability.It is not only the parents who could be responsible for their grown children who live with them, it also makes the parent responsible when the parent(s) provide substantial support if the grown child (40 year old) does not live with them.
What is even more bizzare is in Arizona the adult child can be held responsible for the parents actions if the adult child provides substantial support to the parent(s).