Topic: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what

[Mitlov]

Total straw man argument: nowhere did I claim people should not be held accountable for their actions.  I simply said that that punishment should not be so severe as to follow them for the rest of their lives.  If I had a kid set my house on fire, I would punish him.  But I would not go to him on his 50th birthday ad say "You still owe me $100 000 for burning my house down 38 years ago."

I think you're missing the point of civil litigation.  Criminal law exists to punish.  Civil tort litigation exists so that people who experience financial harm are compensated by those who caused the financial harm through intentional or negligent actions.  It's not about "punishing"--it's about compensation for financial harm that's been inflicted.  Here, there's no question there was an intentional wrongful act.  There's no question that that intentional wrongful act caused significant financial harm.  It only makes sense to me that the person who committed the act is the one, ultimately, who pays for it.  To me, the fact that the business's insurer, not the business itself, is out $10 million is completely irrelevant in the question of whether the arsonist should have a judgment against him for the damages he caused.

[tpl]

IMHO  12 and 15 year olds who commit an offence that could result in someones  death  should be treated as adults.   Any violent offence, arson, dangerous driving, murder, manslaughter etc. 

I appreciate that in the case in point that the Insurance Co will never get its money back and that is just the luck of the game. Had they had rich parents then the Insurance co could have tried to get the money from them and probably would have got something back.

[Mitlov]

IMHO  12 and 15 year olds who commit an offence that could result in someones  death  should be treated as adults.   Any violent offence, arson, dangerous driving, murder, manslaughter etc. 

I appreciate that in the case in point that the Insurance Co will never get its money back and that is just the luck of the game. Had they had rich parents then the Insurance co could have tried to get the money from them and probably would have got something back.

First, we only have the mother's word that she's broke.  That doesn't mean it's true, even though this reporter clearly believes her.  People lie all the time when they're facing a big civil lawsuit.  Let's just not assume it's a proven truth that she has no assets.

Second, one of those two kids could be the next Bill Gates.  Just because the business owner (the business's insurer sues in the name of its insured and stands in their shoes in the eyes of the law) won't get any money in the next year or so doesn't mean they never will.

[initial_D]

Maybe some foolish rich people should adopt those kids and give them the $10 M and pay off that debt. 

[dr_spock]

The insurance co. can still recoup the $10M payout by raising premiums for everyone insured with them.  Sharing the pain...

[The Mighty Duck]

I think you're missing the point of civil litigation.  Criminal law exists to punish.  Civil tort litigation exists so that people who experience financial harm are compensated by those who caused the financial harm through intentional or negligent actions.  It's not about "punishing"--it's about compensation for financial harm that's been inflicted.  Here, there's no question there was an intentional wrongful act.  There's no question that that intentional wrongful act caused significant financial harm.  It only makes sense to me that the person who committed the act is the one, ultimately, who pays for it.  To me, the fact that the business's insurer, not the business itself, is out $10 million is completely irrelevant in the question of whether the arsonist should have a judgment against him for the damages he caused.

You can say that the intention of civil law is not to punish, and be perfectly right.  But intentions mean less than reality, and in the end, a $10 million judgment against a ten year old is a punishment, no matter how justified it is.  If the kid made $50 000 a year and worked for fifty years, he would earn an income of $2.5 million over his lifetime.  Hardly enough to repay the debt, even if he saved every penny and put it towards compensation.

The crux of the argument is, does something stupid done as a ten year old justify a lifetime of debt?  Or, at some point, should we accept that people do stupid things, and let it be?  And give the kid a chance to have a real life?

What you seem to be missing is that yes, it is very much a moral argument.  Legally, you're perfectly correct in saying that the insurance company can sue the kid, and that they have a legal claim to do so.  My point is that leaving the kid with a $10 million debt to haunt him for the rest of his life isn't going to do anyone any good.  The insurance company isn't going to get its money unless the kid makes $200 000/year for 50 years and signs it all over to them, so the effort is futile to begin with, and it destroys any chance of the kid ever being able to lead a normal life.  So while the company can sue, maybe they shouldn't.  YMMV, but I feel like choosing to sue will gain them nothing and cost them, and the kid, a fair bit.  It's lose-lose.

[Mitlov]

If your concern is discretion, you can still exercise discretion after obtaining the judgment.  More, actually.  Seizing assets and garnishing wages doesn't happen automatically when you have a judgment against someone.  Instead, the business (through its insurer) can check in on him throughout the next few years.  Nineteen and has a kid on the way?  Not a time to garnish wages, if they choose not to.  Going to night school for a degree in accounting while working 50 hours a week at a tire shop to support his family?  Not a time to start garnishing wages.  Lands a job at a prestigious CPA firm?  Garnish away.

If the company never sued to begin with, they'd never have that option to exercise discretion.  They'd give up everything based upon a prediction that he would spend the rest of his life in the same financial situation he was in at age 15.

[Cord]

Some good posts above. Yes, paying damages is a zero sum game. There isn't a magical source of cash to offset everyone's losses (even though insurance cos are thought of as such).

And what if there had been no insurance in place? Would a business owner who had spent his life building his business just have to accept his loss of his $10M business with no attempt to recover anything? What about the forgiveness of his "mistake" of letting his insurance coverage lapse? What if someone had been killed in that fire? Would we still be talking about excusing the kid's mistake? Lots of what ifs, but the kid's actions would've been the same in each case. It wasn't planning on the kid's part that prevented worse consequences.

Bottom line for me: I wouldn't give a damn if some kid's life is ruined if he was responsible for destroying my $10M business. Harsh? Maybe, but this wasn't a 4 year old that accidentally got a hold of a cigarette lighter. Any 12 year old knows that it is wrong to deliberately light a building on fire.

[tenpenny]

But intentions mean less than reality,

If one assumed that was true, the REALITY is that these kids caused a $10million fire, no matter what their INTENTIONS were. 

[The Mighty Duck]

If your concern is discretion, you can still exercise discretion after obtaining the judgment.  More, actually.  Seizing assets and garnishing wages doesn't happen automatically when you have a judgment against someone.  Instead, the business (through its insurer) can check in on him throughout the next few years.  Nineteen and has a kid on the way?  Not a time to garnish wages, if they choose not to.  Going to night school for a degree in accounting while working 50 hours a week at a tire shop to support his family?  Not a time to start garnishing wages.  Lands a job at a prestigious CPA firm?  Garnish away.

That's a good point - I had thought that the garnishing of wages and whatnot was set by the court.  If the company has the ability to exercise discretion in how they do it, if they get a judgment, then I see little issue in taking this action, aside from the aggravation and financial strain put on the mother.  But the cynic in me says maybe she should have raised her children better...