Actually, I bet creating a fraudulent FB page violates FB’s terms of service agreement. AS I recall from a previous artice published in IJ (about employers asking job applicants for their FB username and password), violating the TOS is a federal offense. Not that I want to encourage a string of frivolous litigation, civil or criminal, due to “he said/she said” online teenage drama, but in the most heinous of cases, such as this, where real, lasting damage is caused, are there potential grounds for federal prosecution?
Take real life, add “on the internet” and run a fear story. Be afraid! Be very afraid! NEWS FLASH: 14 year old girls can be really, really ridiculously mean to each other. And now they can do it on teh Interwebz! So be afraid at this brand new and never before seen thing, namely tweenage girls being bratty to each other. Better call all the lawyers and clog up the courts with “she was oh-so-mean to me on the interwebz” lawsuits!
That is not any news flash about kids being cruel. But now the bullies are even more effective at destroying someone’s reputation and sense of selfworth. The tools they have to spread lies are viral. The damage is quicker, deeper and longer lasting. I would sue too for defammation of character too. that will fix those brats.
This cyberbullying is just a symptom of the decay in the American family. Children are being forced by absent parents to fend for themselves before they have the emotional ability to cope with stressors of day to day life. These absent parents either want to be friends with their kids or are too busy arranging their own alternative lifestyle escapes from reality to be parents. For us to create more stringent criminal laws to deal with this class of offense makes NO sense. these offending children and their parents need to be sent to an encounter camp where they will be “reprogramed” (for lack of a better term) to behave and interact with society appropriately instead of labeling them with a criminal history.
Anon- there’s been no decay- bullying has always happened, it’s just that now we’re recognizing the serious long term effects it can have on a child’s development and with the advent of social media bullying has become more public than ever.
While I’m uncomfortable with lawsuits and I’m afraid it could sprout a cottage industry for unscrupulous attorneys, clearly we need to send a message to teens and parents that bullying is unacceptable.
Bullying has been around forever, sure–but now, with social media being so prevalent, and with the simplification of many programs to alter/create disturbing images–it is far easier to destroy someone now than it was even 15 years ago.
While I do think that people need to spend more time teaching their children to not be influenced by other people–the perfidy of cyberbullying is definitely a very difficult thing to overcome.
I would bet that the parents being sued do not have the proper liability insurance in place to defend against the lawsuit. They are now responsible for the child’s actions. Here is a title to search for on YouTube – “Social Media Liability Risk”
It explains how the standard Homeowner policy will NOT respond to a Libel defamation claim. Other coverage needs to be added.
How do you add coverage for something that is immoral or against public policy? Cyberbully coverage? I would like to see the insuring agreement and exclusions on that one.
“We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because your little brat intentionally took it upon themselves to publish via internet media demoralizing lies with about another kid.”
I will give a sublimit of 100K with a deductible of 100K, defense within limits and 100K in letter of credit.
When people’s bank accounts are on the line, they will keep their children in line.
I am not very good at sarcasm. I will just try to answer the coverage question.
Regardless of moral issues or public policy, an injury did occur (if it is eventually upheld from the lawsuit) and the bully is responsible for it. The ISO personal lines form number is HO 24 82 (04 02) – PERSONAL INJURY. I will not quote the form. The reader can search for a copy. It clearly provides coverage for an insured in cases or Libel, Slander, etc. where the home policy does not. So yes, coverage is available for this situation. But as all insurance geeks know, the policy gives but then takes away. There are exclusions for intentionally causing personal injury and for knowingly publishing false information. This is where the lawyers get involved to sway the judgment. (Did the bully intentionally harm the victim or were they just “teasing”? Did the bully, as a minor child, really have an understanding of their actions? ) The arguments can go on from both sides.
I agree that the bully needs to be punished. But I do not believe that financially destroying a family is a good answer. As an insurance advisor, I would recommend this coverage (or an umbrella policy) as a way to at least have some possible protection. It used to be that only politicians and speakers had a public audience to offend. Now everyone can offend anyone on the public internet.
If you are an agent or advisor, talk to your clients about the social media liability risk.
My apologies to all who disliked. There was nothing malicious in my intent, I was just poking fun at the concept of using insurance to cover intentional injury. In no way did make light of the risk management opportunity for a client.
There’s some weirdness going on in IJ the last few days.
It’s almost like the rabid pitchfork crowd has come to storm the gates of certain comments.
May 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Jim G says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
GL, This perfectly illustrates the need for personal injury coverage. Your comments were meant to poke fun but for many readers, the intent was lost. We can easily see how one person’s joke could be construed as an attack by someone else.
I have a friend who likes to poke fun at his Facebook friends. Some of his comments are embarrassing. If an employer were to look over a Facebook page and read his comments about their employee, they might not get the joke and the employee might not get the promotion. The jokester would then a libel lawsuit defendant.
May 2, 2012 at 2:18 pm
NG says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Both my parents were independent insurance agents. They never said, “You’ll put out an eye!” They said, “You’re going to get us sued.” Did that stop me? Not much.
I do some volunteer work with young men and women who leave high school absolutely traumatized over the horrible ways they are treated by their peers. With video cams, it’s even worse than I ever imagined. There are times when I’m just stunned by the sheer brutality of these “children.” I don’t see it getting better without the support of parents and administrators. Nor do I see litigation declining. I think this is a trend worth noting.
I think INSURANCE Companies must extend the Libel and Slander endorsement to cover this kind of “non intentional” damages because is not the insured person (parents) the ones that are cyberbullying to another guy but their sons. We as insurance agents and defendants of our client’s interests, have the duty of find a coverage to protect them of loosing everything in a sue like this kind.
CD, I agree. Example: The standard home policy excludes business liability coverage (as it should) because it is a personal policy. However, it does allow business liabiility coverage for family members in the house under the age of 21 running a part-time business.
I would like to see a similar exception for minors as it applies to intentional acts for slander, libel, etc. Even though parents should take responsibility to teach their children not to engage in such activity, it is hard to enforce when peer pressure is involved.
Company guidelines where I work do not allow for cell phone usage and company computers will not allow for usage of any social media sites period! Here is a novel idea for schools……do not let students use cell phones or social media while on school grounds. It may not stop bullying……but I am sure would help schools aviod being caught up in the new fad of bullying litigation.
At the school where my kids attend, social media sites (and non-educational sites) are blocked and cell phones are only allowed in certain areas to call parents. In the lawsuit article, I got the impression that the false FB site was created on a home computer and then viewed by orhers off-campus. Your suggestion is a wise one for any school to follow.
If someone spoofs a web-site or F/B page as another person isn’t that identity theft or wire fraud?
Seems that that would be worthy of criminal action by DA, not simply “being a mean person”.
Actually, I bet creating a fraudulent FB page violates FB’s terms of service agreement. AS I recall from a previous artice published in IJ (about employers asking job applicants for their FB username and password), violating the TOS is a federal offense. Not that I want to encourage a string of frivolous litigation, civil or criminal, due to “he said/she said” online teenage drama, but in the most heinous of cases, such as this, where real, lasting damage is caused, are there potential grounds for federal prosecution?
Take real life, add “on the internet” and run a fear story. Be afraid! Be very afraid! NEWS FLASH: 14 year old girls can be really, really ridiculously mean to each other. And now they can do it on teh Interwebz! So be afraid at this brand new and never before seen thing, namely tweenage girls being bratty to each other. Better call all the lawyers and clog up the courts with “she was oh-so-mean to me on the interwebz” lawsuits!
Except for the fact that cyberbullying leads to increased chances of suicide.
News flash–you’re an idiot.
That is not any news flash about kids being cruel. But now the bullies are even more effective at destroying someone’s reputation and sense of selfworth. The tools they have to spread lies are viral. The damage is quicker, deeper and longer lasting. I would sue too for defammation of character too. that will fix those brats.
This cyberbullying is just a symptom of the decay in the American family. Children are being forced by absent parents to fend for themselves before they have the emotional ability to cope with stressors of day to day life. These absent parents either want to be friends with their kids or are too busy arranging their own alternative lifestyle escapes from reality to be parents. For us to create more stringent criminal laws to deal with this class of offense makes NO sense. these offending children and their parents need to be sent to an encounter camp where they will be “reprogramed” (for lack of a better term) to behave and interact with society appropriately instead of labeling them with a criminal history.
Anon- there’s been no decay- bullying has always happened, it’s just that now we’re recognizing the serious long term effects it can have on a child’s development and with the advent of social media bullying has become more public than ever.
While I’m uncomfortable with lawsuits and I’m afraid it could sprout a cottage industry for unscrupulous attorneys, clearly we need to send a message to teens and parents that bullying is unacceptable.
Bullying has been around forever, sure–but now, with social media being so prevalent, and with the simplification of many programs to alter/create disturbing images–it is far easier to destroy someone now than it was even 15 years ago.
While I do think that people need to spend more time teaching their children to not be influenced by other people–the perfidy of cyberbullying is definitely a very difficult thing to overcome.
I would bet that the parents being sued do not have the proper liability insurance in place to defend against the lawsuit. They are now responsible for the child’s actions. Here is a title to search for on YouTube – “Social Media Liability Risk”
It explains how the standard Homeowner policy will NOT respond to a Libel defamation claim. Other coverage needs to be added.
How do you add coverage for something that is immoral or against public policy? Cyberbully coverage? I would like to see the insuring agreement and exclusions on that one.
“We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because your little brat intentionally took it upon themselves to publish via internet media demoralizing lies with about another kid.”
I will give a sublimit of 100K with a deductible of 100K, defense within limits and 100K in letter of credit.
When people’s bank accounts are on the line, they will keep their children in line.
I am not very good at sarcasm. I will just try to answer the coverage question.
Regardless of moral issues or public policy, an injury did occur (if it is eventually upheld from the lawsuit) and the bully is responsible for it. The ISO personal lines form number is HO 24 82 (04 02) – PERSONAL INJURY. I will not quote the form. The reader can search for a copy. It clearly provides coverage for an insured in cases or Libel, Slander, etc. where the home policy does not. So yes, coverage is available for this situation. But as all insurance geeks know, the policy gives but then takes away. There are exclusions for intentionally causing personal injury and for knowingly publishing false information. This is where the lawyers get involved to sway the judgment. (Did the bully intentionally harm the victim or were they just “teasing”? Did the bully, as a minor child, really have an understanding of their actions? ) The arguments can go on from both sides.
I agree that the bully needs to be punished. But I do not believe that financially destroying a family is a good answer. As an insurance advisor, I would recommend this coverage (or an umbrella policy) as a way to at least have some possible protection. It used to be that only politicians and speakers had a public audience to offend. Now everyone can offend anyone on the public internet.
If you are an agent or advisor, talk to your clients about the social media liability risk.
Wow I did not get expect to see such a response.
My apologies to all who disliked. There was nothing malicious in my intent, I was just poking fun at the concept of using insurance to cover intentional injury. In no way did make light of the risk management opportunity for a client.
I wouldn’t apologize.
There’s some weirdness going on in IJ the last few days.
It’s almost like the rabid pitchfork crowd has come to storm the gates of certain comments.
GL, This perfectly illustrates the need for personal injury coverage. Your comments were meant to poke fun but for many readers, the intent was lost. We can easily see how one person’s joke could be construed as an attack by someone else.
I have a friend who likes to poke fun at his Facebook friends. Some of his comments are embarrassing. If an employer were to look over a Facebook page and read his comments about their employee, they might not get the joke and the employee might not get the promotion. The jokester would then a libel lawsuit defendant.
Both my parents were independent insurance agents. They never said, “You’ll put out an eye!” They said, “You’re going to get us sued.” Did that stop me? Not much.
I do some volunteer work with young men and women who leave high school absolutely traumatized over the horrible ways they are treated by their peers. With video cams, it’s even worse than I ever imagined. There are times when I’m just stunned by the sheer brutality of these “children.” I don’t see it getting better without the support of parents and administrators. Nor do I see litigation declining. I think this is a trend worth noting.
I think INSURANCE Companies must extend the Libel and Slander endorsement to cover this kind of “non intentional” damages because is not the insured person (parents) the ones that are cyberbullying to another guy but their sons. We as insurance agents and defendants of our client’s interests, have the duty of find a coverage to protect them of loosing everything in a sue like this kind.
CD, I agree. Example: The standard home policy excludes business liability coverage (as it should) because it is a personal policy. However, it does allow business liabiility coverage for family members in the house under the age of 21 running a part-time business.
I would like to see a similar exception for minors as it applies to intentional acts for slander, libel, etc. Even though parents should take responsibility to teach their children not to engage in such activity, it is hard to enforce when peer pressure is involved.
Company guidelines where I work do not allow for cell phone usage and company computers will not allow for usage of any social media sites period! Here is a novel idea for schools……do not let students use cell phones or social media while on school grounds. It may not stop bullying……but I am sure would help schools aviod being caught up in the new fad of bullying litigation.
At the school where my kids attend, social media sites (and non-educational sites) are blocked and cell phones are only allowed in certain areas to call parents. In the lawsuit article, I got the impression that the false FB site was created on a home computer and then viewed by orhers off-campus. Your suggestion is a wise one for any school to follow.