[h=2]2. What are the civil remedies available against an adult perpetrator?[/h]
Homeowners Insurance
Homeowners insurance provides insurance coverage for members of the household who injure or kill people. Homeowners insurance covers the actions of their insured regardless of whether the acts take place in the home or out on the street. (Homeowners policies generally exclude coverage for deaths or injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. However, these are often covered by automobile insurance.)
As a general rule, if an adult intentionally and willfully kills another person, insurance will not cover this act. Virtually all homeowners' insurance policies contain an 'intentional act exclusion'.
Under the intentional act exclusion, insurance coverage will not cover harm caused by an insured if the insured acted with a specific intent to injure the victim. Republic Insurance Co. v. Fiedler, 178 Ariz. 528, 875 P.2nd 187 (App. 1994) Normally, whether a perpetrator has the intent to injure is a question of fact for a jury. However, in Arizona, a conclusive presumption of intent to injure arises when the insured commits an act that is 'virtually certain to cause injury.'
For example, Arizona courts have conclusively held that sexual molestation by an adult of a minor is conclusively presumed to be an intentional act and excluded from insurance coverage. This holding was made despite expert testimony of psychologists that a pedophile did not subjectively intend to hurt his victim. Twin Cities Fire Insurance Co. v. Doe, 163 Ariz. 388, 788 P.2d 121 (App. 1991)
[h=2]3. Compensation for crimes committed by juveniles[/h] Sadly, more and more violent crimes are committed by juveniles. However, unlike adults, when a juvenile 14 years or younger commits what appears to be an intentional act, the parents' homeowners insurance may provide coverage for the harm that their child causes.
In USAA v. DeValencia, 190 Ariz. 436, 949 P.2nd 525 (App. 1997) the court was faced with a situation where a 14 year old child sexually molested another child. As previously noted, if an adult had done this, it would be conclusively presumed that there was a subjective intent to injure and there would be no insurance coverage. However, because of the age of the perpetrator, the court concluded that there was a question of fact as to whether the child subjectively intended to injure the victim and homeowners insurance might be required to provide coverage. Other issues arise when a juvenile has committed an offense.
Finally, under the Family Purpose Doctrine, a parent who furnishes a vehicle for the use or convenience of the family is liable for the negligence of the family member who is using the vehicle.
http://www.glicksmanlaw.com/CM/Custom/Survivors-Guide.asp
my heart goes out to them all!!
You're welcome!
