Support NeoGAF

[aliengmr]

She sued the child because he was at fault and the law in that state required it. It was purposely to make the insurance company cover her medical bills.

But what about her insurance?

 

[MHWilliams]

But what about her insurance?

Probably not covering three surgeries? Hell, for most people it won't even cover most of one.

 

[HeySeuss]

But what about her insurance?

Normally insurance companies will pass the buck if they know someone else will ultimately be responsible for paying the bill. If you've ever had a workers comp claim it's basically the same thing. Your insurance will refuse to pay because it's workers comp related, then eventually workers comp will deny the claim and then the person is left with a pile of unpaid bills that they need to get a lawyer to get paid.

 

[Pizoxuat]

She was most likely trapped in insurance hell. If she had insurance at the time of the incident, they probably refused to pay because they found out that the incident happened at someone else's house, making them liable in the eyes of the insurance company to pay. When they passed the bills on to the homeowner's insurance, that company refused to pay more than $1, forcing her to sue since her own insurance still insisted that the kid was liable.

This trap occurs all the time. It just usually doesn't become viral news.

 

[Brakke]

So the aunt has alienated herself from her family, now has court fees to pay on top of the supposed $100k+ medical bills, and doesn't have anything to show for it.

What on earth was she thinking?

No, she didn't alienate herself from her family.

"Just a few weeks ago, Connell said, she took the boy out shopping for his Halloween costume."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/

Why did this case turn everyone into clowns?

 

[neobiz]

Blood may be thicker than water but it ain't got shit on money.

 

[Citadelofmythoughts]

Why did this case turn everyone into clowns?

Classism + sexism = right and left having a feeding frenzy

 

[Wolfe]

Please stop trying to spin this as some battle against an insurance company. You know why the kid's insurance didn't want to pay? Because the claim was bullshit.

Try reading the CNN link, that's exactly what happened, no spin necessary.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

But what about her insurance?

Some insurance clauses require you try all other available avenues before they'll cover you. This includes legal action.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

You did not read the quotes I posted or what mre and others said. From here with corroboration with a third party expert.

It's nice that she wasn't trying to make her nephew's family pay for her medical bills out of pocket, but that certainly doesn't make her claim valid or excuse her behavior. Had she actually won her suit it could have made it more difficult or more expensive for her brother (in law?) to get homeowners insurance in the future. It still would have been a judgment against her nephew which could show up on his background checks, although maybe not given his age. And the insurance company could turn around and sue the dad or refuse to pay, arguing that the aunt and the nephew's family were conspiring to defraud them. "She's hurt so whatever way she can get the money is OK" isn't a great way of looking at things.

Luckily she didn't win. But even after losing she has wasted court resources better spent on people actually wronged.

 

[Ganhyun]

No, she didn't alienate herself from her family.

"Just a few weeks ago, Connell said, she took the boy out shopping for his Halloween costume."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/aunt-nephew-lawsuit/

Why did this case turn everyone into clowns?

Because pretty much everyone who saw the article or read it here on GAF couldn't get past the title and knee-jerked to it. Then when people tried to give accurate information it was mostly ignored because its easier to just knee-jerk and look morally superior.

I'm kind of confused. What's going on here?

The story in OP makes aunt seem vindictive, but then I see new posts about how the family is still all good because maybe Aunt and family felt they were trapped by technicalities of insurance and legality of payment?

The aunt is not at odds with her family. They understood it was to make the insurance company pay. But, as the actual story doesn't get views or headlines, it wasn't originally talked about that way.

 

[Kieli]

I'm kind of confused. What's going on here?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Blood may be thicker than water but it ain't got shit on money.

Water refers to water of the womb.

 

[slabrock]

Man, the op needs a major update. So many people aren't bothering to actually read the thread.

 

[whatsinaname]

I'm kind of confused. What's going on here?

People reaching for pitchforks and posting before reading all the other posts. Righteous Indignation always feels so good.

 

[MHWilliams]

It's nice that she wasn't trying to make her nephew's family pay for her medical bills out of pocket, but that certainly doesn't make her claim valid or excuse her behavior. Had she actually won her suit it could have made it more difficult or more expensive for her brother (in law?) to get homeowners insurance in the future. It still would have been a judgment against her nephew which could show up on his background checks, although maybe not given his age. And the insurance company could turn around and sue the dad or refuse to pay, arguing that the aunt and the nephew's family were conspiring to defraud them. "She's hurt so whatever way she can get the money is OK" isn't a great way of looking at things.

Luckily she didn't win. But even after losing she has wasted court resources better spent on people actually wronged.

"This is the only way to get any money to pay for her exorbitant medical bills" is the correct way to look at it.

Your option is... just suck it up?

 

[HeySeuss]

"This is the only way to get any money to pay for her exorbitant medical bills" is the correct way to look at it.

Your option is... just suck it up?

127k bootstraps baby! 'Murica!

 

[Angry Grimace]

It should be.

Just because you lose doesn't mean your case is obvious bullshit.

“From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.”

“Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would.” But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough.”

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

"This is the only way to get any money to pay for her exorbitant medical bills" is the correct way to look at it.

Your option is... just suck it up?

The price of medical care and insurance is certainly a problem. But her being in a tough spot financially doesn't magically make her claim not bullshit. And filing a bullshit claim still negatively affects other people, even if she wasn't looking to actually collect six figures from a 12 year old.

By the way, the general reaction here of "Oh an insurance company would be paying? Nevermind she's fine to sue gotta get paid somehow" is exactly why you can't tell the jury about the insurance policy. Too many people just stop there and don't even bother to figure out whether or not the insurance company should be paying, as shown by the last couple pages of this thread.

 

[aliengmr]

Normally insurance companies will pass the buck if they know someone else will ultimately be responsible for paying the bill. If you've ever had a workers comp claim it's basically the same thing. Your insurance will refuse to pay because it's workers comp related, then eventually workers comp will deny the claim and then the person is left with a pile of unpaid bills that they need to get a lawyer to get paid.

Probably not covering three surgeries? Hell, for most people it won't even cover most of one.

So why not say any of that?

I guess what I am getting at is there seems to be a lot missing from her side of the story. She explained the process by which she had to sue, but not the reason for doing so in the first place.

 

[bengraven]

called her nephew a “very loving, sensitive” boy who still needs to be held accountable.

This is what gets me. "Still needs to be held accountable".

Regardless of the aunt's defense force, an 8 year old kid needs to be responsible for being excited to see his beloved aunt?

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Just because you lose doesn't mean your case is obvious bullshit.

“From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.”

“Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would.” But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough.”

Note that the passages you quoted say absolutely nothing regarding the underlying negligence claim and whether or not it was bullshit.

 

[JzeroT1437]

Woman is from NYC. Horrible people come from this place.

 

[Cat Party]

It's nice that she wasn't trying to make her nephew's family pay for her medical bills out of pocket, but that certainly doesn't make her claim valid or excuse her behavior. Had she actually won her suit it could have made it more difficult or more expensive for her brother (in law?) to get homeowners insurance in the future. It still would have been a judgment against her nephew which could show up on his background checks, although maybe not given his age. And the insurance company could turn around and sue the dad or refuse to pay, arguing that the aunt and the nephew's family were conspiring to defraud them. "She's hurt so whatever way she can get the money is OK" isn't a great way of looking at things.

Luckily she didn't win. But even after losing she has wasted court resources better spent on people actually wronged.

This is all true. I guarantee the kid's family's insurer had a reservation of rights to be able to potentially deny coverage should the aunt have won the case. Oh, and of course the aunt's attorneys were going to get 30-40% of that money anyway.

 

[lednerg]

I'm kind of confused. What's going on here?

The New York Post.

 

[Jeremy]

She's doing a legendary bizarre interview on TODAY right now

 

[Wolfe]

This is what gets me. "Still needs to be held accountable".

Regardless of the aunt's defense force, an 8 year old kid needs to be responsible for being excited to see his beloved aunt?

It's the insurance company they're trying to hold accountable.