NY - aunt who sued 8yr old nephew over hug loses lawsuit

[Lilibet]

She died after. The suit was filed in March of 2013, the mother passed away in May or June of 2014.

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTCV136033608S

Thanks. I appreciate your research. I had that wrong. What a tough time for the whole family, aunt included. I'm sure if it hadn't been the only way to get her expenses paid she would have dropped it in a New York minute.

 

[1&2&3]

Could it depend on the amount the medical bills total? Could it also depend if the insurance carrier has had multiple claims from that person/family?

Years ago when insurance paid without the hassle of today, I was in a terrible car accident. Someone else was driving. For my medical bills to be paid, we had to sue the policyholder of the car I was in. We were teenagers, the person driving did not own the car therefore, their name was not on the suit. But boy did the dad have a fit as he could not understand the fact he personally was not being sued: we had to sue him to get to his insurance company and nothing he had would be touched.

In one way, it sounds like not much has changed. The aunt's insurance wanted to make sure they did not spend a penny and forced her hand to go after the other party's insurance. IMO.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm not understanding all the hatred for the aunt. It's naive to think that this isn't SOP for injuries. My son was injured in the home as a result of being dizzy and falling. The ER only charged our insurance $35 as it wasn't a major injury and no treatment was required. Our insurance still sent us pages of information to fill out to assure them that no one else could be held responsible for the injury.

That's how it works, why this particular case made the news is beyond me, this happens daily. $127k isn't that much money when considering lost wages. How long was she unable to work due to the injury? 2 surgeries? Doesn't sound like she asked for anything outside of what she needed to cover her losses.

It became a hot story because a reporter for a local CT paper cherry picked the facts of a boring routine lawsuit and wrote a sensationalized hit piece about a greedy clueless aunt suing a motherless little boy for hugging her too hard.

The reporter should be ashamed but likely is instead happy about the world wide attention. And that poor boy....the hate directed at the aunt he loves likely has almost certaintly caused him far more pain and confusion than being involved in what was a trivial lawsuit.

 

[Hope4More]

Could it depend on the amount the medical bills total? Could it also depend if the insurance carrier has had multiple claims from that person/family?

Years ago when insurance paid without the hassle of today, I was in a terrible car accident. Someone else was driving. For my medical bills to be paid, we had to sue the policyholder of the car I was in. We were teenagers, the person driving did not own the car therefore, their name was not on the suit. But boy did the dad have a fit as he could not understand the fact he personally was not being sued: we had to sue him to get to his insurance company and nothing he had would be touched.

In one way, it sounds like not much has changed. The aunt's insurance wanted to make sure they did not spend a penny and forced her hand to go after the other party's insurance. IMO.

The concept of insurance companies & subrogation has been explained many many times in this thread, and yes, according to the aunt's attorneys, if she wanted her med bills covered she had to sue, and she had to sue the boy.

It really isn't very complicated.

 

[Indy Anna]

Until reading the explanations about the suit here, I didn't realize that people have to sue someone in order to get insurance carriers to pay their medical bills. When a car backed into mine at a bank a few years ago, I had already been under treatment for a neck injury incurred at work but had weaned myself off of the muscle relaxants and pain medication. The impact of the crash aggravated my neck injury. My medical bills had been covered under workers comp up to that point, but the HR Director told me they would no longer pay since it was considered a new injury. The other driver's insurance agent contacted me and when she asked if I was injured, I was forthcoming in explaining to her my situation. She offered to pay my medical bills and also offered me $300 for pain and suffering. (I turned down the latter because I figure pain and suffering are a part of life - at least, they have been for me.) IMO, although most insurance carriers want to avoid paying a claim if they can deflect responsibility for damages elsewhere, they also want to avoid lawsuits. Anyway, I didn't have to sue anyone to get my medical bills paid, but I understand now that it may depend on the insurance company and homeowners insurance may be different.

It may explain what happened between my mother and a neighbor around 15 years ago. She was having a tree trimmed in her backyard because it had some dead limbs. Since some of the limbs overhung the neighbor's yard, over the metal canopy above their porch, the trimmer had the neighbor sign an agreement releasing the trimmer from any responsibility should a limb land on and damage his property. Well, a limb did land on his canopy and damage it, so he sued my mother. I don't remember what happened with that suit - whether they went to court or it was settled out of court - but I do remember that my mother, who already suffered from depression, became very bitter and hostile after that. Perhaps the neighbor only wanted to get my mother's homeowners insurance to pay for the damage and my mother misunderstood.

I know that often insurance carriers are eager to deflect claims to another carrier rather than incur the costs of paying out claims themselves. Sadly, I'm sure most people aren't aware that it is nothing personal when someone sues them for property damage/medical costs for accidents that happen on/involving their property. I would think it would be as simple as contacting the homeowners insurance carrier and filing a claim, just as one would contact an auto insurance carrier in the case of an auto accident to file a claim.

There was another incident a few years ago in which a neighbor's grandson ran into the side of my car with his bike. My neighbor offered to pay. Initially, I didn't think it would be expensive to repair and thought I might even find someone to hammer out the dent free of charge, as a mechanic had once done on a previous car many years earlier. But, as it turned out due to the contours in my current car, auto repair shops quoted $800 - $1,000. So, I submitted the claim to my auto insurance and gave them my neighbor's contact information, and the insurance company paid for the repairs and then subrogated costs from the neighbor. Again, no one went to court but my neighbor was willing to pay for damages. However, it wasn't my neighbor's 5-year-old grandson who was held responsible although he was the one who (accidentally) caused the damage to my car. If a child is taken to court so that a person who has suffered injury/property damage can collect compensation, wouldn't that mean that the parents refused to submit a claim to their homeowners insurance? And, whether submitting a claim to one's own medical insurance carrier or to the property owner's homeowners/auto insurance carrier, there is always an appeals process that may enable a person to fully recover costs. Since this incident has taken so long to go to court, I assume the aunt had filed appeals and taken every avenue to avoid a court case against her young nephew?

 

[al66pine]

My thoughts in red below, in snipped post, w some bbm:

... I didn't realize that people have to sue someone in order to get insurance carriers to pay their medical bills....it may depend on the insurance company and homeowners insurance may be different.
Yes, ins co's liability & therefore willingness to to pay for med treatment (maybe more) for Person X depends on type of ins coverage- med/health ins, HO ins, renters ins, auto ins, etc. among other factors.
I know that often insurance carriers are eager to deflect claims to another carrier rather than incur the costs of paying out claims themselves.
Mos' def.'

Sadly, I'm sure most people aren't aware that it is nothing personal when someone sues them for property damage/medical costs for accidents that happen on/involving their property.
I would think it would be as simple as contacting the homeowners insurance carrier and filing a claim, just as one would contact an auto insurance carrier in the case of an auto accident to file a claim.
The person who may lawfully 'file a claim' w ins co is policy holder(s), not just any random person claiming personal injuries or prop damage, depending on policy types. If the policyholder (or certain fam, etc) is not legally responsible for damage or injury, then ins co is not obligated by law to pay.

When a person sustaining personal injury (med expenses, loss of time from work, reduced ability to conduct ADLs, has pain & suffering) and/or prop damage is -
1- the policyholder, person can 'file a claim vs ins co' and often be paid without ct involvement.In situations where policyholder claims more PI and/or PD than ins co is willing to pay, policyholder my be forced to sue.

2 -not policyholder but is 3rd party - like ^aunt - suffering PI;s, 3rd party cannot sue ins co directly, 3rd party must sue person(s) causing PI & PD., which often triggers ins co involvement, either offering to pay (part) $ for claim, or paying for legal rep.

...neighbor's grandson ran into the side of my car with his bike. My neighbor offered to pay. Initially, I didn't think it would be expensive to repair and thought I might even find someone to hammer out the dent free of charge, as a mechanic had once done on a previous car many years earlier. But, as it turned out due to the contours in my current car, auto repair shops quoted $800 - $1,000. So, I submitted the claim to my auto insurance and gave them my neighbor's contact information, and the insurance company paid for the repairs and then subrogated costs from the neighbor.
Appears ^ your auto ins co paid PD $ to you, then recovered costs from neighbor directly. If your vehicle was on your prop or public space, seems imo that neither neighbor's auto ins nor H/O's ins policy coverage would have applied for any PD caused by a neighbor's g-son/visitor.
If adult neighbor on bike had run into your parked vehicle on your prop, imo, your auto ins co might/would/should hve pd PD $ to you for repair, then recovered (or try to) from neighbor.

Again, no one went to court but my neighbor was willing to pay for damages. However, it wasn't my neighbor's 5-year-old grandson who was held responsible although he was the one who (accidentally) caused the damage to my car.
No opn on what legal outcome w/hv/bn if you/car owner hd sued neighbor or g'child/tortfeasor who caused damage.

If a child is taken to court so that a person who has suffered injury/property damage can collect compensation, wouldn't that mean that the parents refused to submit a claim to their homeowners insurance?
No, not necessarily, imo.

And, whether submitting a claim to one's own medical insurance carrier or to the property owner's homeowners/auto insurance carrier, there is always an appeals process that may enable a person to fully recover costs.
Perhaps ^ you're referring to ins policy term allowing or requiring ins-policyholder and ins co to initially try to resolve the claim/dispute thru mediation, before policyholder files in court. This provision may be present in diff types of ins. Not like judicial 'appeals process.'

Since this incident has taken so long to go to court, I assume the aunt had filed appeals and taken every avenue to avoid a court case against her young nephew?
Injury event at nephew's b-day party was Mar 2011; aunt's petition was filed in ct Feb 2013; MSM reported on trial & jury verdict in mid-Oct 2015.
In considering when to file lawsuits, atty's want to have a sense of how extensive the PIs are, & total $ amt of med exp, whether there is perm damage, or full recovery, etc. So initial filing 23 mo after injury is not necessarily 'long time' imo.

~ 2 1/2 yrs. or ~30 mo. between initial filing and verdict rendered by jury. Depending on that particular ct's docket, and atty's interactions, and discovery process ~30 months may or may not be 'long' time.

^JM2cts and would be glad to read opn, with corrections, from legal professionals here.

 

[nrdsb4]

The concept of insurance companies & subrogation has been explained many many times in this thread, and yes, according to the aunt's attorneys, if she wanted her med bills covered she had to sue, and she had to sue the boy.

It really isn't very complicated.

If this is standard practice in Connecticut, and not complicated, I wonder why the jury chose to give her $0 dollars. Seems puzzling for what is supposedly a common scenario and so very cut and dry.

 

[Indy Anna]

My thoughts in red below, in snipped post, w some bbm:


^JM2cts and would be glad to read opn, with corrections, from legal professionals here.

Thank you for your explanations, al66pine. Just to clarify, when I spoke of submitting a claim to the home/auto owner's insurance, I meant the policyholder contacting the carrier and submitting the claim. Sorry I wasn't clear.

I am mostly familiar with medical insurance. Also, I'm somewhat familiar with auto insurance from personal experience. Wasn't sure how much homeowners is similar/different.

 

[Hope4More]

If this is standard practice in Connecticut, and not complicated, I wonder why the jury chose to give her $0 dollars. Seems puzzling for what is supposedly a common scenario and so very cut and dry.

Because: what was atypical was the age of the person being sued

Because: no reasonable jury would have held a child that young accountable for negligence, especially since the "negligent" act was a hug.

Because: cut and dry in general doesn't make it so for that specific jury, who no doubt weren't made aware of all the legal intricacies of the involved insurance policies & companies.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Ita also likely why she said she can't pick up hors d orves... She was being sarcastic because the whole thing was stupid.

 

[krkrjx]

I do not think its odd that an 8 yr old would jump on an aunt he loved. My son is 8 he is only a few inches shorter then me. I have to remind him of his size often or he would jump on me. He has no delays. He is just a normal child. I've seen kids of all ages running out the school at a family member they were excited to see many times.

Not sure I know a 12 yr old who would not be confused in the courtroom while being sued. Lawsuits on kids are not that common and the accident happened 4 years ago. I'm even confuse at some of the comments she is quoted saying like “I live in Manhattan in a third-floor walk-up so it has been very difficult,” she said. “And we all know how crowded it is in Manhattan.” If that is quoted right then I would be scratching my head wondering why does it hurt her hands to walk up steps. (Note: I have not seen any videos showing the boy and how he was acting in the courtroom only heard reporters saying he looked confused)

I do not agree with this woman suing a child but it seems she has some unpaid medical bills out of this accident. I wonder why she does not have her own health insurance to pay them but who knows with these things sometimes. At any rate, I think she should have named the homeowners' insurance as a defendant if covering outstanding co-pays is her only motive for the suit.

As for her weird comments, they are likely being taken out of context. Perhaps she has been on some pain meds that affect her ability to climb three flights of stairs as swiftly as she could pre-injury. And the crowded Manhattan statement probably was said as an explanation for why she has not moved to a more accessible dwelling.

IDK, as I said I don't agree with naming a minor child on a lawsuit and even if state laws require that wording there should be nothing to prevent the plaintiff from naming a co-defendant...the insurance company.

A friend of mine is currently involved in a lawsuit because she was injured on someone's property and has a certain degree of permanent disability as a result. Her suit names all possible parties; the defendant's insurance company is a co-defendant and my friend's insurance is named as involuntary plaintiff. But the defendant named in her suit is the homeowner, not his tenant.

In this particular case, I am surprised the defendant is not the homeowner rather than his/her minor child.

 

[LinasK]

Ita also likely why she said she can't pick up hors d orves... She was being sarcastic because the whole thing was stupid.

And her sarcasm, or not backfired on her bigtime! If I was on that jury it would have highly offended me. If she'd said I can't walk up and down a flight of stairs because I can't hold onto the hand rails, or carry a bag of groceries, or dress myself- I might've had sympathy for her, hor d'oeuvres I think NOT!!!:snooty:

 

[LinasK]

I do not agree with this woman suing a child but it seems she has some unpaid medical bills out of this accident. I wonder why she does not have her own health insurance to pay them but who knows with these things sometimes. At any rate, I think she should have named the homeowners' insurance as a defendant if covering outstanding co-pays is her only motive for the suit.

As for her weird comments, they are likely being taken out of context. Perhaps she has been on some pain meds that affect her ability to climb three flights of stairs as swiftly as she could pre-injury. And the crowded Manhattan statement probably was said as an explanation for why she has not moved to a more accessible dwelling.

IDK, as I said I don't agree with naming a minor child on a lawsuit and even if state laws require that wording there should be nothing to prevent the plaintiff from naming a co-defendant...the insurance company.

A friend of mine is currently involved in a lawsuit because she was injured on someone's property and has a certain degree of permanent disability as a result. Her suit names all possible parties; the defendant's insurance company is a co-defendant and my friend's insurance is named as involuntary plaintiff. But the defendant named in her suit is the homeowner, not his tenant.

In this particular case, I am surprised the defendant is not the homeowner rather than his/her minor child.

I highly agree with this post!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

None of this is new. This is how insurance has worked for decades. It was the same when my aunt had to "sue" my father (aka get medical payments from his insurance company) 20 years ago. My father joked about being "sued" by his sister in law. It's not malicious or mean or greedy--it's how the process works! Those casting aspersion on the aunt in this case are completely working off emotions and misconceptions and simply don't know or otherwise refuse to accept reality.

The aunt needs to have medical expenses related to this accident covered. That's what this is about. The insurance company legally requires the person who caused her injury to be named. Thems the rules, like it or not. If you wanna be angry then do and at the appropriate entity, which is the insurance company and their specific requirements!

 

[nrdsb4]

None of this is new. This is how insurance has worked for decades. It was the same when my aunt had to "sue" my father (aka get medical payments from his insurance company). My father joked about being "sued" by his sister in law. It's not malicious or mean or greedy--it's how the process works! Those casting aspersion on the aunt in this case are completely working off emotions and misconceptions.

The aunt needs to have medical expenses related to this accident covered. That's what this is about. The insurance company requires the person who caused her injury to be named. Thems the rules, like it or not. If you wanna be angry then do and at the appropriate entity, which is the insurance company and their requirements!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

So again, if this is so commonplace in this state, why did the jury give the plaintiff absolutely nothing? And why, if this is just always how it's done, did the aunt need to go into how the child "should have known" the consequences of his actions (which due to his age, should be in dispute-foreseeing consequences of actions doesn't take place until later in development) rather than just noting he was the cause of her injuries?

People keep insisting that this is ROUTINE in this state, in which case it should have been just as routine for the jury to rule in the plaintiff's favor. Why didn't they?

 

[Hope4More]

NDRSB..


i answered you in post #129.

 

[Hope4More]

I do not agree with this woman suing a child but it seems she has some unpaid medical bills out of this accident. I wonder why she does not have her own health insurance to pay them but who knows with these things sometimes. At any rate, I think she should have named the homeowners' insurance as a defendant if covering outstanding co-pays is her only motive for the suit.

As for her weird comments, they are likely being taken out of context. Perhaps she has been on some pain meds that affect her ability to climb three flights of stairs as swiftly as she could pre-injury. And the crowded Manhattan statement probably was said as an explanation for why she has not moved to a more accessible dwelling.

IDK, as I said I don't agree with naming a minor child on a lawsuit and even if state laws require that wording there should be nothing to prevent the plaintiff from naming a co-defendant...the insurance company.

A friend of mine is currently involved in a lawsuit because she was injured on someone's property and has a certain degree of permanent disability as a result. Her suit names all possible parties; the defendant's insurance company is a co-defendant and my friend's insurance is named as involuntary plaintiff. But the defendant named in her suit is the homeowner, not his tenant.

In this particular case, I am surprised the defendant is not the homeowner rather than his/her minor child.

Her attorney has stated it is impermissible in CT to sue home insurance co's directly.

 

[Lilibet]

So again, if this is so commonplace in this state, why did the jury give the plaintiff absolutely nothing? And why, if this is just always how it's done, did the aunt need to go into how the child "should have known" the consequences of his actions (which due to his age, should be in dispute-foreseeing consequences of actions doesn't take place until later in development) rather than just noting he was the cause of her injuries?

People keep insisting that this is ROUTINE in this state, in which case it should have been just as routine for the jury to rule in the plaintiff's favor. Why didn't they?

BBM

Murder cases are routine and the juries vary in their verdicts. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. We don't know why the jury reached its decision in this case. But just because this process is the routine way it's done in CT that doesn't mean the jury can't reach its own decision, as it should. They don't rubber stamp a case. They are charged with looking at the evidence and making a decision. In her case, they ruled against her for their own reasons.

I'm sure the aunt had to make a good faith effort during the lawsuit to make her case, which would explain her comments that the child "should have known." She can't go to court and say or imply "I'm just going through the motions. I hope I lose." If she did that, I doubt her own insurance would pay her when she lost the case. She did what she had to do so that her bills would be covered by one of the insurance companies. As it turned out, I'm almost positive her own insurance would pay once she lost. But she had to jump through the hoops for that to happen. I'm sure she hated having to sue this young boy, but the alternative would be to get nothing. According to links upthread, she and the boy are on good terms. It wasn't personal. It was business, thanks to the insurance laws in CT.

I simply cannot understand the harsh unreasoning criticism/demonization of this woman in the press and on SM.

JMO

 

[DryHeat]

This my first post/reply on WebSleuths so please be gentle. :blushing:

This is case really bothered me for a week or two after I first read about it. So I did some sleuthing trying to find out more facts on the case and how insurance works so here is what I found. But first I have to say:

1. All insurance whether it is health, auto, or homeowners can be a headache to deal with and even if you the best policies in the world you are left with bills that you have to pay. For example deductibles, co-pays and such.

2. I do have sympathy for the "Aunt" and especially the little boy and what they have had to go through the past few years.

3. The story was sensationalized and the Internet Social Media did rush to judgement. The problem was almost every single story reprinted the same things over and over without ever asking pertinent questions most of us had.

4. My personal opinion is that she got bad legal.

However...

i think the biggest question that everyone was asking was did she have health insurance? Why didn't they pay? Did they force her to sue to recoup medical costs?

Only on an article by MarketWatch did I find at least part of the answer as the author actually contacted and spoke with one the partners of the 2 partner law firm. The partner said she did have health insurance but it did not cover all the costs associated with the injury. He declined to name the insurer or say how much was actually covered.

Most of us know that we would have to cover, especially with 2 surgeries, deductibles, co-pays with any doctor or therapy visits and pharmacy. So, yes getting sick or having an accident can be expensive even with health insurance I get that.

Gawker(I know not the best journalism) found out that the dad's homeowners policy was with Traveler's insurance...they actually used one of their contracted lawyers to defend the boy in the suit. On Traveler's website I looked at their standard HO policy that includes Liability protection and found that all their policies come with a Guest Injury clause or Medical Injury pay clause(almost all policies have this so does mine) that if guest that you invited is injured for any reason no matter who's at fault they cover that injury up to $1000 or if the homeowner increases it even more. That $1000 is their minimum. Now did she use that? Did the Dad make the claim? I assume,but couldn't find if there was a time limit from date of injury. If she used this could she not make a claim for more? I don't now.

So, did her medical Insurance force her to sue? I can't know for sure but Probably Not. I spoke with a friend in the insurance biz and this is what they told me. Please keep in mind Workers Comp and Auto Accidents are handled a different way. Health insurance will ask you if you have had an accident where it happened or if someone was at fault. Why? Because of course they want the other insurance to pay and save them money. It's called Subrogation and it happens behind the scenes. Because you or your company has a contract with the health insurance company they have to pay your medical bills per contract no matter what happened. But, health insurance will then go to the other party's companies insurance to reimburse them behind the scenes. That is also in your health insurance contract too. Sometimes they don't agree and the health insurance company will take the other insurance to court on your behalf. But the suit would read XYZ Health on behalf of Insert name. Not how Aunt's suit reads, this why I think it wasn't her health insurer forcing her to do this.

Obviously, the Aunt needed more so she or the dad made a claim to the Dad's Homeowners Liability coverage to cover costs. Now, the Liability part doesn't just pay out because she was injured on the property. There has to be some form of negligence on the part of dad(and/or anyone who lives permantly on the property.) So Traveler's did not see this as a negligent act of the boys loving hug and refused to pay. Rightfully so I think. It was an accident! Aunt and her lawyers didn't agree so they filed suit. They can't sue Traveler's as it is not her insurance company. Traveler's is doing what it's supposed to do which is protect the dad and son from being sued for liability which is what the policy is for. If Aunt wants to press the issue she has to file suit against the boy because he is the one who "caused her injury through a negligent act" and have a jury decide if that's the case. Traveler's offered her a $1(I saw some reports say it was her insurance that did this but it wasn't) to settle and probably show that it performed and acted it's best on behalf of its client the boy and his dad. My opinion, Traveler's knew they had no case and that is why they went and took this case to trial and Not offer a bigger settlement.

Jury agreed that the boy wasn't negligent.


So, did the Aunt have to sue? My opinion is no she didn't have to sue and it was a weak case.

Sorry to be so long worded! And thank you for letting me vent.

 

[Zuri]

Welcome Dry Heat!!! Great first post! You sure did a lot of homework/sleuthing on this case and I agree there was a rush to judgement against the aunt, the way the info was relayed to the public. There was obvious journalistic bias, only reporting statements and facts that could be misconstrued in many different directions.

IMO, I can see how this case played out like it did. I hold no ill will against the aunt, and frankly I am more annoyed with the Insurance company because they do this kind of thing all the time, hoping to wear you down.