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?
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.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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?
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.