Going from the limited information in the article I had an observation. Not knowing the coverage form in place I went to the PA ISO approved HO form. Here is the definition of an Insured:
5. “Insured” means:
a. You and residents of your household who are:
(1) Your relatives; or
(2) Other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above;
If the guy lived in the parent’s house, he is an insured under this definition.
Here is one of the exclusions under the Liability Section:
1. Expected Or Intended Injury
“Bodily injury” or “property damage” which is expected or intended by an “insured” even if the resulting “bodily injury” or “property damage”:
If any “insured” note not the NAMED INSURED intends the injury, there is no coverage. Am I reading this incorrectly? I don’t see where the court gets there is coverage or a need to defend. I am still debating the single occurrence, as well. Any other thoughts?
I concur and hope this gets to the highest court. Apparently the PA court system is smoking something that I thought was illegal or snorting something.
The issue is not with the son who did the killings the issue (coverage) is the parents negligence. Their supposed negligence was not intentional. Not that I agree but I think that is the reasoning of the court.
On the 2nd read I see what you mean Tom. It becomes an argument of what caused the accident. I think that the deaths were an indirect cause of the parents’ negligence at best. I just hate this whole, you’re going to pay me something! They also argue that the guy was mentally unstable, yet he was convicted of 1st degree murder, and not acquitted for insanity. Seems a little off to me, especially when there was another case fairly similar on IJ.
Did the article say how old this guy was when he committed the murders? If he was 15 yrs old, then his parents could be somewhat responsible to make sure he is taking his medication and doesn’t become a danger to himself or society. If he was 30 yrs old, how is this his parents fault?
I am guessing but the fact that he still lived at home must have been a main factor in finding the parents negligent. Or maybe there is no statute of limitations on negligent child rearing. Some parents should be very afraid!!!!
What amazes me is that the alleged tort is inferred from at least 18 prior years of “negligent” parenting. If that’s the case, as a parent, I’ll never be off the hook and be accountable for my adult children’s actions…I would think twice about procreating altogether…
Or, you can decide that providing aid and comfort to a delusional white supremacist might not be in your or his long-term best interest, despite the fact that he is your 34-year-old son. The true failure is in the large number of mental health professionals who failed to effectively intervene and prevent the violence.
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.
Going from the limited information in the article I had an observation. Not knowing the coverage form in place I went to the PA ISO approved HO form. Here is the definition of an Insured:
5. “Insured” means:
a. You and residents of your household who are:
(1) Your relatives; or
(2) Other persons under the age of 21 and in the care of any person named above;
If the guy lived in the parent’s house, he is an insured under this definition.
Here is one of the exclusions under the Liability Section:
1. Expected Or Intended Injury
“Bodily injury” or “property damage” which is expected or intended by an “insured” even if the resulting “bodily injury” or “property damage”:
If any “insured” note not the NAMED INSURED intends the injury, there is no coverage. Am I reading this incorrectly? I don’t see where the court gets there is coverage or a need to defend. I am still debating the single occurrence, as well. Any other thoughts?
I concur and hope this gets to the highest court. Apparently the PA court system is smoking something that I thought was illegal or snorting something.
The issue is not with the son who did the killings the issue (coverage) is the parents negligence. Their supposed negligence was not intentional. Not that I agree but I think that is the reasoning of the court.
On the 2nd read I see what you mean Tom. It becomes an argument of what caused the accident. I think that the deaths were an indirect cause of the parents’ negligence at best. I just hate this whole, you’re going to pay me something! They also argue that the guy was mentally unstable, yet he was convicted of 1st degree murder, and not acquitted for insanity. Seems a little off to me, especially when there was another case fairly similar on IJ.
Did the article say how old this guy was when he committed the murders? If he was 15 yrs old, then his parents could be somewhat responsible to make sure he is taking his medication and doesn’t become a danger to himself or society. If he was 30 yrs old, how is this his parents fault?
The article does say he is a former attorney. Unless he was a child prodigy that would put him at least 25 at the time of the murders.
I am guessing but the fact that he still lived at home must have been a main factor in finding the parents negligent. Or maybe there is no statute of limitations on negligent child rearing. Some parents should be very afraid!!!!
What amazes me is that the alleged tort is inferred from at least 18 prior years of “negligent” parenting. If that’s the case, as a parent, I’ll never be off the hook and be accountable for my adult children’s actions…I would think twice about procreating altogether…
Or you can take the tax credits you get for your kids and apply that money to the premium costs of a higher umbrella limit.
Or, you can decide that providing aid and comfort to a delusional white supremacist might not be in your or his long-term best interest, despite the fact that he is your 34-year-old son. The true failure is in the large number of mental health professionals who failed to effectively intervene and prevent the violence.