Theoretically, within specific bounds, this is possible. When my single/no dependents/living on his own brother died, I got the pleasure of telling his creditors that he was dead and where do I send a copy of the death certificate too. My mom or I ( Or any other sibling) were not legally responsible for his debts. Granted, his estate was a pittance.
My mother almost had a nervous breakdown over this. She seem to think she had a moral and legal responsibility to square everything. My mom is not wired right. That was a fun kitchen table convo, let me tell you.
I don’t know the particulars of this case, but the motel owner alone has done himself more harm than good by attempting recouping any losses. Look how far this news has already spread.
Was this article from a real, print newspaper? It strikes me as bizarre that they used the term “Kiwi” to mean New Zealander through the whole article. A legitimate newspaper in the US wouldn’t talk about a Canuck doing something if he wasn’t on the hockey team.
It’s sad that the guys died, but if the bill was in the parents’ name, I guess it’s not immoral for the hotel or the car company to demand payment.
I thought the language used in the various news media who reported on this was emotive and inflammatory. Yesterday’s Herald Sun had a front page article with the headline:
SO CRUEL Heartless Kiwis demand parents pay for dead Melbourne brother’s rental car bills
Their deaths were a tragedy and it’s awful that it happened on a holiday but it’s not up to the rest of New Zealand to take a financial hit in order to make up for one badly behaved glacier. I think New Zealand is officially in recession and international tourist numbers have dropped due to the worldwide economic downturn so I don;t really see the big deal in business owners asking for payments of costs that have been legally incurred.
According to news sources here last night, all bills incurred by the family have been covered by donations from Kiwis, mostly anonymous. Offers kept coming in long after the bills had been paid.
After arriving back home in Aus today with the body of one son, the parents were greeted with the news that their other son’s body was found, washed 10km down river.
The car was rented by a parent and the kids driving it were contractually not allowed to be driving it. It’s the parents’ rental. Not the boys’.
Actually, I don’t understand what the fuss is about. When my father died, we still had to pay off his debts, it’s not like they were forgiven just because he died. That included damage that was incurred as a result of his unexpected expiry (he was preparing his lunch, there was a small fire).
There were legal obligations. When someone dies and has debts, the estate has to pay those off before the remainder can be distributed according to how it was willed. If the person has no estate, the it sucks to be a creditor.
In the case of the dead Aussies that’s irrelevent because it was never their debt. Their parent’s rented the car for the trip, and were also on the excursion to the glacier with their two sons. Like most rental agreements, the contract specifies who can be the drivers. In this case the father who rented the vehicle and their cousin were listed as permitted drivers on the contract.
They parked the car in the lot, the parents went with them to the glacier, but they didn’t go beyond th warning signs, which look like this. The kids went up to the glacier and never came back.
So the scenario is more like this: I rent a car to go camping. At the campsite, a tree falls on my girlfriend. I still have to pay for my rental no matter how personally devastated I may be. It’s my responsibility. My girlfriend’s death has nothing to do with it.
If the boys had rented it and the whole car had been crushed, insurance would have covered it (as it mostly did when my dad died), or if the father had been the only one driving, insurance would have covered it. But the insurance company isn’t covering it because they violated the terms of their contract. Harsh.
But it’s also harsh when people lose a loved one in a car accident and the insurance company won’t pay out, because policy has a clause about illegal activity and the loved one was driving drunk. Happens all the time.
I thought exactly the same thing when the news report came out, but it’s too damned late if they did. The lock & key replacement for the car was one of the larger bills.
