Midwest News
Viewing comments for:
Minn. Boy Sues Parents over Injuries Sustained in Accident
Midwest News January 8, 2007
Amy and Ted Harrison Sr. are being sued over a car crash that left their son permanently disabled, and they hope they lose the case now before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The plaintiff is their ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: RE: Stop to think... | Probably not- Bob, Genny | Jan 15, 2007, 4:02 pm |
| RE: RE: Stop to think... | Doug | Jan 15, 2007, 2:07 pm |
| RE: Stop to think... | bob laublaw | Jan 15, 2007, 2:04 pm |
| RE: Stop to think... | Genny | Jan 15, 2007, 2:01 pm |
| Stop to think... | Probably not going | Jan 15, 2007, 12:28 pm |
| faulty system | Gina | Jan 10, 2007, 2:02 pm |
| A final thought | Jack | Jan 10, 2007, 10:13 am |
| RE: TO ALL | MN Girl | Jan 9, 2007, 10:49 am |
| Son suing parents | Robert Moon | Jan 9, 2007, 8:51 am |
| TO ALL | Rose | Jan 8, 2007, 4:22 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Questions for Adjuster. | Adjuster | Jan 8, 2007, 2:38 pm |
| RE: RE: Questions for Adjuster. | bob laublaw | Jan 8, 2007, 2:35 pm |
| RE: Questions for Adjuster. | Adjuster | Jan 8, 2007, 2:21 pm |
| Objection your Honor! | Exadjuster | Jan 8, 2007, 1:58 pm |
| Higher Premiums | CJ | Jan 8, 2007, 1:39 pm |
| Parimutual standard setters | Steve R | Jan 8, 2007, 1:38 pm |
| Money | Ray | Jan 8, 2007, 1:27 pm |
| RE: Questions for Adjuster. | Bulldogg | Jan 8, 2007, 1:10 pm |
| Questions for Adjuster. | Claims-Ignorant | Jan 8, 2007, 1:09 pm |
| RE: New Scam | Adjuster | Jan 8, 2007, 12:51 pm |
| why not? | bob | Jan 8, 2007, 12:50 pm |
| New Scam | Jack | Jan 8, 2007, 10:59 am |
| Back to article | ||


Subject: Stop to think...
We also know the insurance system is a fair cry from being unknowing dupes. The last conference I attended sponsored by an insurance company there was the head of claims speaking. He admitted straight out the carrier routine policy was to automatically decline the majority of claims. So who's the sinner and who is the saint? Neither.
$100,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money to us in the insurance world, but to someone that will as long as he lives require special (and blame the medical industry for this) over priced medical care and specialized equipment in order to have some semblance of a life, it can mean a few more months of quality care. This boy will never have a family, never be able to run, ride a bike or be able to dance. All things we take for granted. Do you really think the parents get off on doing this? How would you feel to look at your child on a daily basis knowing you might have screwed up? Scam no, the parents don't benefit from the suit, they get to have the whole wound reopened and made public.
The lawyer, well I have been a fan of limiting the percentage the attorney is allowed to collect for a long time. It would cut down substantially on the number of frivolous law suits. Blame the Bar for that one, for not watching the kids.
Geez is the child an insured- hell yes. Insurance companies have been paying claims for infant involved car related accidents for eons. So to say that they shouldn't be considered as an insured, is ludicrous.
Bottom line insurance company should have settled immediately and subrogate against the negligent driver's carrier. Court costs would be minimized and they wouldn't run the chance of a jury coming back with higher pay out.
Final word to Bob Laublaw, omg are you so apathetic as not to have one iota of caring for these peoples' hardship? I hope I never get into a situation that I would require your assistance in a medical emergency, you would probably walk away saying it wasn't your problem. Talk to the wizard maybe he will give you a heart.