Should a child be billed for a accident?

Forums › Off topic › Should a child be billed for a accident?

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#141091 1-Mar-2014 08:04

Saw this article on stuff. The insurance company was trying to recoup costs from a 15yo.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9777895/Cricket-accident-leads-to-big-bill

I think the parents argument that parking next to a cricket ground makes the owner liable is rubbish as it might have been the only park available in the street. Yes he is only a minor playing sport but damage did occur and someone still has to be liable and I don't think it should be the owner of the car.

Its no different than kids playing on the street and accidentally breaking someones window with a ball.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1612 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996827 1-Mar-2014 08:25

Trying to charge the child was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The insurance company should quite rightly wear the loss on that one. After all, that's the business they are in, and that's why they charge premiums.

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996828 1-Mar-2014 08:31

It looks like everyone done everything right here except the insurance company, the kids had a genuine accident, fronted up to the car owner and gave true details, the car owner has suitiable insurance cover.

Now if the car was damaged delibertly then fair enought the insurance company demanding payment from the person that done it, but it seems to be a genuine accident, the insurance company should just accecpt that and move on instead of chasing after a kid.

Doing what they have done is just making themselves look like an asshat

Batman

Mad Scientist
29766 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996848 1-Mar-2014 08:53

Well if a dog can be held liable a child could i reckon.

Not saying it's right or wrong, not getting into that thanks very much.

That's why personal liability insurance comes in

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996877 1-Mar-2014 10:04

joker97: Well if a dog can be held liable a child could i reckon.

Not saying it's right or wrong, not getting into that thanks very much.

That's why personal liability insurance comes in

What 15 year old has liability insurance?!

Parents ought to be responsible for the acts of their children until they are no longer children - i.e. they reach 18.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#996881 1-Mar-2014 10:17

This hits the news every few years. Can't remember the last incident (may have been on Fair Go), but it was a similar story; some child gets billed for some property damage, parents complain, bill gets dropped. Essentially the insurance company doesn't really expect the victim (of the bill) to pay out of their own pocket; they're hoping that the personal liability cover part of their (parents) contents insurance will pay.

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#996885 1-Mar-2014 10:22

TinyTim: This hits the news every few years. Can't remember the last incident (may have been on Fair Go), but it was a similar story; some child gets billed for some property damage, parents complain, bill gets dropped. Essentially the insurance company doesn't really expect the victim (of the bill) to pay out of their own pocket; they're hoping that the personal liability cover part of their (parents) contents insurance will pay.

Think the last one was some kind of bike hitting a car or something

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#996900 1-Mar-2014 10:31

Insurance companies? Pfffft.

A couple of stories:

Broke glass door, called insurance company. Was told that if under $500 then it's better for me to pay than lose the discounts. They send their own accredited glazier. I asked him for the quote, he said to ask the company as he's not authorised to give it to me (WHAT?). The company then contact me to say it's $490... Sure, right, it doesn't sound like an arrangement at all.

Friend has business front destroyed by drunk driver who intentionally rammed car into building. Owner's insurance pay for repairs, then (within their rights) get paid by driver's insurance. On a separate lawsuit business owner wins compensation for loss of business during the two week repair... Owner's insurance immediately send letter asking for this money to be paid to them (even though was a separate civil lawsuit, owner didn't claim loss of business from his own insurance, etc). Owner tells his insurance company to STFU and GTFO.

Vultures.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Boeingflyer

643 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#996944 1-Mar-2014 11:39

My stories,

Bad:

1.) was 7 years old and got hit by a car, insurance billed my mum $400, mum wrote back to them asking how a 7 year old can pay $400. they never wrote back and never heard from them again.

Good

1.) wife flooded the upstairs bathroom, of course i was in Dubai that time, she ran the insurance company and within two weeks we had a sparky, claims guy and a builder come around to ensure the whole house was ok and then they painted the whole living/dining/kitchen celling because of a 50 cent size water mark. Excess was $50 and not once were we hassled or made things hard for my wife.

2.) 13 month old picked up his toy bxox and smash it against the tv causing it to lose pixels, rang them and they had a flash as, brand new tv in my house within 24 hours

3.) stove blew up because of water damage, they had a guy come around pick it up and had it fixed within two weeks

With all those claims, my excess never went up afterwards

It was with lumley

So they do do some good stuff, it's only the bad stuff that get reported.

Zeon

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#996949 1-Mar-2014 11:55

I think it really depends, I've had good experiences with Insurance claims. In this situation, I don't think the boy would have liability as he was in no way negligent it seems.

Speedtest 2019-10-14

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#997040 1-Mar-2014 14:02

Fabian: It was with lumley

Back home now. In one of those strange coincidences, I took this photo because this was the first thing I saw after reading your post and putting the phone in my pocket:

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#997068 1-Mar-2014 14:35

jamesrt: Trying to charge the child was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The insurance company should quite rightly wear the loss on that one. After all, that's the business they are in, and that's why they charge premiums.

But what if the owner of the car had no insurance? Who would ypu expect to pay for the damages then?

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#997077 1-Mar-2014 14:56

Yes they were right to try, the kids parents should have contents insurance, and they will be able to claim against it. Their kid damaged something, it is their problem to pay for it

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#997079 1-Mar-2014 15:01

Geektastic:
joker97: Well if a dog can be held liable a child could i reckon.

Not saying it's right or wrong, not getting into that thanks very much.

That's why personal liability insurance comes in

What 15 year old has liability insurance?!

Parents ought to be responsible for the acts of their children until they are no longer children - i.e. they reach 18.

I agree, but I don't think it often happens. The cricket story above I think is more the car owners problem for parking in an area where cricket is being played. the car owner will be out of pocket for the excess, probably to the tune of 300 dollars depending on policy.

I had a kid ride their bike into the back of my parked car and the parent was with them, and it did some damage. I asked for their details from the parent, and they refused to give them to me, saying you can't expect a kid to pay, they ran off and as I was in a rush I couldn't do anything. So I was basically out of pocket for the excess, but it was cheaper for me to get it repaired myself privately. . Some clarification of the law on this would be good, I am not sure if the insurance company is in the wrong either, it just doesn't look good to claim from a kid.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#997081 1-Mar-2014 15:07

I'm amazed that people think a 15 year old should not pay for damage they do. Even if it is an accident.

How do you teach lessons otherwise? Do we go through life learning there are no consequences to ones actions?

Whether the car owner has insurance has nothing to do with this.

The kids parents might have some personal liability insurance anyhows.

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#997111 1-Mar-2014 15:33

of course the kid (or his parents should pay) - he did the damage - accidental or otherwise has no bearing on the matter

the car was on a public road

if the car was not insured surely you wouldn't expect the owner to pay?

you break it - you pay

if it was my kid - i would pay

1 | 2 | 3 | 4