Minn. Boy Sues Parents over Injuries Sustained in Accident

January 8, 2007

  • January 8, 2007 at 11:59 am
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    $100,000 to be split with an attorney for a net gain to the parents of apx. $40,000. Blood money. If allowed, what would keep other sicko\’s from hurting their own children for monetary gain?

  • January 8, 2007 at 1:50 am
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ah, another way to get in deep pockets. we let spouses sue one another, so I guess we might as well let the kids.
    after all, insurance companies have unlimited assets, and we shouldn\’t be responsible for our own actions, should we?
    oh, isn\’t the kid an \”insured\” under that auto policy? naw, the liber courts have deemed otherwise.

  • January 8, 2007 at 1:51 am
    Adjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The parents won\’t \”get\” any of the money. It will be put in trust for the son and his expenses, which are of course far far in excess of the policy limit. No court in the land will let the parents have any of that money. Sorry, no \”sickos\” here, just a now-disabled child who may be less than fairly compensated for mom\’s negligence.

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:09 am
    Claims-Ignorant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Forgive me, I have limited knowledge of claims.

    It would appear the parent was negligent in the use of the car-seat but what about the cause of the accident? If it was another vehicle which caused it, does it make that party liable for the injuries to the child?

    Also, if the parents \’lose\’ their case as they hope, why must the insurer pay for the negligence of the mother or is that in question as well?

    Thank you for your info. I appreciate it.

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:10 am
    Bulldogg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It\’s scary that my statement about lawyers is now coming true. I used to say, let\’s sue our parents for having us (as children) and placing in the position to have an accident by being born. Then we should sue our grandparents for having our parents, who by their union, had us and placed us in the position of having an accident.

    This notion is so obsurd that its actually coming true. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE IF, AS A SOCIETY, WE ALLOW LAWYERS TO RUN AMUCK LIKE THIS!!!!

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:27 am
    Ray says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Remember, this is a MN accident so there has already be a minimum of $20,000 Medical Expense Coverage from the PIP.

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:38 am
    Steve R says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The insured hopes she loses. What about a collusion defense ? Cooperating with the suing parties may be a valid reason to deny coverage.They already collected from the product manufacturer and the negligent driver. Talk about going for the Trifecta

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:39 am
    CJ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is another way to broaden coverage to pay for losses that were never intended because the case is a real tear jerker. Every time something like this happens the only ones that profits is the trial lawyers who brings these cases and the ones that pay the price is the insured\’s who have to pay the increased premiums to cover situations that should not be included under the contract. The child in this case is an insured under the contract and should receive compensation ONLY under PIP coverages when the parents are at fault. This is what is intended under the contract and why responsible people, like myself, pay for the max PIP limits available from my carrier. This is the coverage that was intended to pay these losses. It\’s not fair that we all have to pay for uncovered losses by irresponsible insureds, greedy trial lawyers and sympathetic juries who feel that it is more important for the damaged party to receive money than it is to uphold a legal contract. People (I am not refering to most of the people that read thses journals) need to keep in mind that insurance companies don\’t pay for losses, insureds pay for losses through the premiums they pay.

  • January 8, 2007 at 2:58 am
    Exadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

    Auto Carriers Attorney: Q. Did you put your son in a car seat befor you left in your vehicle.

    Mrs Harrison: A. Yes sir, but I was NEGLIGENT in placing him in the seat. If I hadn\’t been so NEGLGNET in securing him in the seat, he wouldn\’t have been injured. In fact, as I sit here today, I can honestly say it was my NEGLIGENCE that caused all his injuries.

  • January 8, 2007 at 3:21 am
    Adjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A few answers:

    1. If the parents intentionally sabotage their own defense, the carrier can and likely will file a dec action to deny coverage based on lack of cooperation.

    2. Why \”must\” the carrier pay for mom\’s negligence? Because, in absence of a family exclusion law, they must pay for her negligence which causes damages while operating the vehicle. Is the child also an \”insured\”? I think there is real question whether an infant can be considered an \”insured\” under an auto policy. In any case, the child was not driving and cannot be responsible for his own negligence (if any) because of age.

    3. Yes, its a \”tear jerker\” and the lawyers will likely rake in 30-50% of the amount paid. In real terms, the $100k is meaningless to the child, who likely has expenses of that amount on a yearly basis. In real terms also, the only \”victory\” here is for the trial lawyers, which is why the insurance company is fighting the action.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*