Claims Examiner,
I can appreciate your stance on this one, but it wholly wrong. First off, criminal and civil court definitions of the age of majority are independent of each other. Fortunately for us, those two systems still operate independently and don’t consult with each other when they consider cases. Under your reasoning, a person cleared of criminal negligence in criminal court should also be cleared of civil negligence in civil court, two very different things with very different underlying standards of proof. I can give you hundreds of examples where there would have been a serious societal injustice resulting from these two systems approaching issues from the same vantage point. I was also shocked that a claims adjustor wouldn’t understand the concept of vicarious liability. Had that same 16 year old driven a car supplied by his parents into a family of four, just about any injured party would be out from blood. No one has more control over a minor’s behavior than the parent. The attitude that it’s not the parent’s fault has become so American, but so wrong on legal, moral and social grounds. You can’t even begin to convince me or anyone on this board that a 16 year-old is truly a functioning adult. I was still being grounded for grades when I was 16, but then again, my parents were willing to take responsibility for my development and any problems I caused others.
Julia Eaton, Dan Eaton’s mother, said she and her husband had done all they could for their son, including getting counseling at a mental health center.
“We don’t feel like we were negligent,” Julia Eaton sid. “We had our son going to what we thought was a competent mental health service.
Julia Eaton, Dan Eaton’s mother, said she and her husband had done all they could for their son, including getting counseling at a mental health center.
“We don’t feel like we were negligent,” Julia Eaton sid. “We had our son going to what we thought was (a competent mental health service- I see you most have not read this part.
Sure, the parent’s said that were doing all they could, but I notice that the kid is out running around. It is obvious that the parents were not excercising sufficient control over the child.
Essentially subrogating against a set of parents in hopes of recovery for a workers comp claim seems like a stretch. It will be an interesting case/claim to follow. I assume (if the parents purchased a homeowner and/or umbrella policy) their personal insurer will answer the litigation. Is anyone aware if this (type of WC recovery) is precedent or is this new?
Obviously some of you have never had children and do not have a clue of how hard it is to raise a “socially correct” child, especially if mental illness enters the picture. I think this insurance carrier is doing the wrong thing. The parents are being punished enough by the way this kid turned out—that alone will break a parents heart.
Right or wrong it would be allowed under the law. Subrogation is our right. We have gone after the wrong doer when they rob the local store and kill an employee. I guess if they were under age it would have to be the parents.
As a single parent of 3 teenagers, I can honestly say that 16 year olds can get out of the house without the parents knowledge. In addition, a child these days has access to weapons, drugs, etc., outside of the home as well. My oldest teenager managed to get Zanex from his friend in school & almost overdose on it. I raise my children correctly, I work hard, I don’t use drugs, I show them morals, respect, legalities, etc. They still manage to make their own choices. Being sued for subrogation by the WC carrier is not fair to the parents. However, their Personal Liability will probably settle the case & this will set presedent for future subros. On the other hand, if the parents are smart, they will hire an attorney to defend them (while not turning in a ho’s claim). A good attorney, will prove they are not responsible for this. Besides, if I remember correctly, there is not one insurance policy out there that covers illegal activities, so how could this work anyway?
As insurers, many of us complain about how everyone thinks they should get paid for every little thing that happens and no one wants to accept any liability for anything. We all remember the famous coffee-spilling case! It seems to me that this WC carrier is now doing the same thing–and they are not even going after the person who actually committed the crime; they are pursuing his parents. Based on his prison sentence, it sounds like he was tried as an adult, but the WC carrier justifies going against his parents because he is a minor. That in itself is a problem–he should be treated as a minor or an adult consistently. But look at the precedent they would set–can you imagine anyone being able to pursue the parents for the liability of the child, no matter how extreme? We are not talking about baseballs through windows here–they are claiming the way the parents raised the child caused him to commit crimes. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think anyone knows for sure how much of a person’s psychological make-up is caused by genetics and how much is caused by the way a person is raised or other outside influences. If some pyschologist testified the person had psychologial issues because he was taunted by bullies in the 3rd grade, would the company then pursue the parents of those bullies??? WC is there to pay for medical expenses when an employee is injured on the job, regardless of how that injury occurred. Sometimes, there is no one to go against for reimbursement–which is why we have coverages like WC for on-the-job injuries and collision and comp for autos, etc. The employer paid them to handle the WC losses, they collected their premium, and they need to accept this is a not a case they can “subrogate” for. They shouldn’t be pursuing these parents.
I’m not sure I understand your postion adirondacker. Why does it matter to you if the injury is compensable from an automobile carrier or a workers compensation carrier?
First, I do not believe I mentioned anything about an automobile carrier. To me, that is a completely different situation, particularly in a “No Fault” state. This case/claim is about loss of income caused, not by bodily injury, but by emotional distress. It’s about a Worker’s Comp carrier seeking recovery from a set of parents who may or may not be negligent for their son’s actions. I’m merely curious if this is standard practice or a precedent-like scenario. I’ve never been involved, thank God, in a subrogation act like this one. My posts on the subject are more quizzical in nature than factual.
Claims Examiner,
I can appreciate your stance on this one, but it wholly wrong. First off, criminal and civil court definitions of the age of majority are independent of each other. Fortunately for us, those two systems still operate independently and don’t consult with each other when they consider cases. Under your reasoning, a person cleared of criminal negligence in criminal court should also be cleared of civil negligence in civil court, two very different things with very different underlying standards of proof. I can give you hundreds of examples where there would have been a serious societal injustice resulting from these two systems approaching issues from the same vantage point. I was also shocked that a claims adjustor wouldn’t understand the concept of vicarious liability. Had that same 16 year old driven a car supplied by his parents into a family of four, just about any injured party would be out from blood. No one has more control over a minor’s behavior than the parent. The attitude that it’s not the parent’s fault has become so American, but so wrong on legal, moral and social grounds. You can’t even begin to convince me or anyone on this board that a 16 year-old is truly a functioning adult. I was still being grounded for grades when I was 16, but then again, my parents were willing to take responsibility for my development and any problems I caused others.
Julia Eaton, Dan Eaton’s mother, said she and her husband had done all they could for their son, including getting counseling at a mental health center.
“We don’t feel like we were negligent,” Julia Eaton sid. “We had our son going to what we thought was a competent mental health service.
Julia Eaton, Dan Eaton’s mother, said she and her husband had done all they could for their son, including getting counseling at a mental health center.
“We don’t feel like we were negligent,” Julia Eaton sid. “We had our son going to what we thought was (a competent mental health service- I see you most have not read this part.
I suppose the mental health care provider will get pulled in.
Sure, the parent’s said that were doing all they could, but I notice that the kid is out running around. It is obvious that the parents were not excercising sufficient control over the child.
Essentially subrogating against a set of parents in hopes of recovery for a workers comp claim seems like a stretch. It will be an interesting case/claim to follow. I assume (if the parents purchased a homeowner and/or umbrella policy) their personal insurer will answer the litigation. Is anyone aware if this (type of WC recovery) is precedent or is this new?
I thought parents were vicariously liable for the actions of their children?
I am familiar with Guard Insurance so it comes as no surprise to me that this lousy carrier comes up with a lousy subrogation theory.
Obviously some of you have never had children and do not have a clue of how hard it is to raise a “socially correct” child, especially if mental illness enters the picture. I think this insurance carrier is doing the wrong thing. The parents are being punished enough by the way this kid turned out—that alone will break a parents heart.
Right or wrong it would be allowed under the law. Subrogation is our right. We have gone after the wrong doer when they rob the local store and kill an employee. I guess if they were under age it would have to be the parents.
Yes, maybe on a wrongful death or other type of punitive recovery, but a WC claim??? To me, that’s the stretch.
As a single parent of 3 teenagers, I can honestly say that 16 year olds can get out of the house without the parents knowledge. In addition, a child these days has access to weapons, drugs, etc., outside of the home as well. My oldest teenager managed to get Zanex from his friend in school & almost overdose on it. I raise my children correctly, I work hard, I don’t use drugs, I show them morals, respect, legalities, etc. They still manage to make their own choices. Being sued for subrogation by the WC carrier is not fair to the parents. However, their Personal Liability will probably settle the case & this will set presedent for future subros. On the other hand, if the parents are smart, they will hire an attorney to defend them (while not turning in a ho’s claim). A good attorney, will prove they are not responsible for this. Besides, if I remember correctly, there is not one insurance policy out there that covers illegal activities, so how could this work anyway?
As insurers, many of us complain about how everyone thinks they should get paid for every little thing that happens and no one wants to accept any liability for anything. We all remember the famous coffee-spilling case! It seems to me that this WC carrier is now doing the same thing–and they are not even going after the person who actually committed the crime; they are pursuing his parents. Based on his prison sentence, it sounds like he was tried as an adult, but the WC carrier justifies going against his parents because he is a minor. That in itself is a problem–he should be treated as a minor or an adult consistently. But look at the precedent they would set–can you imagine anyone being able to pursue the parents for the liability of the child, no matter how extreme? We are not talking about baseballs through windows here–they are claiming the way the parents raised the child caused him to commit crimes. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think anyone knows for sure how much of a person’s psychological make-up is caused by genetics and how much is caused by the way a person is raised or other outside influences. If some pyschologist testified the person had psychologial issues because he was taunted by bullies in the 3rd grade, would the company then pursue the parents of those bullies??? WC is there to pay for medical expenses when an employee is injured on the job, regardless of how that injury occurred. Sometimes, there is no one to go against for reimbursement–which is why we have coverages like WC for on-the-job injuries and collision and comp for autos, etc. The employer paid them to handle the WC losses, they collected their premium, and they need to accept this is a not a case they can “subrogate” for. They shouldn’t be pursuing these parents.
I’m not sure I understand your postion adirondacker. Why does it matter to you if the injury is compensable from an automobile carrier or a workers compensation carrier?
First, I do not believe I mentioned anything about an automobile carrier. To me, that is a completely different situation, particularly in a “No Fault” state. This case/claim is about loss of income caused, not by bodily injury, but by emotional distress. It’s about a Worker’s Comp carrier seeking recovery from a set of parents who may or may not be negligent for their son’s actions. I’m merely curious if this is standard practice or a precedent-like scenario. I’ve never been involved, thank God, in a subrogation act like this one. My posts on the subject are more quizzical in nature than factual.