But what about her insurance?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aunt loses lawsuit against 8-year-old nephew who jumped into her arms
- Thread starter flkraven
- Start date
- Status
But what about her insurance?
MHWilliams
Member
Probably not covering three surgeries? Hell, for most people it won't even cover most of one.
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.
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.
This trap occurs all the time. It just usually doesn't become viral news.
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?
Citadelofmythoughts
Banned
Classism + sexism = right and left having a feeding frenzy
Wolfe
Member
Try reading the CNN link, that's exactly what happened, no spin necessary.
SolicitorPirate
Member
Some insurance clauses require you try all other available avenues before they'll cover you. This includes legal action.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
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.
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.
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.
Water refers to water of the womb.
whatsinaname
Member
People reaching for pitchforks and posting before reading all the other posts. Righteous Indignation always feels so good.
MHWilliams
Member
"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
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
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 homeowners 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 homeowners 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 didnt 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
Member
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.
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.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Note that the passages you quoted say absolutely nothing regarding the underlying negligence claim and whether or not it was bullshit.
JzeroT1437
Member
Woman is from NYC. Horrible people come from this place.
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.
The New York Post.
Wolfe
Member
It's the insurance company they're trying to hold accountable.
- Status