# Understanding the "Aunt from Hell" Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002 "2015-10-18T15:28:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/41 "2015-10-20T18:54:58Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Also, there is no indication from the case file online that any medical insurer she may have had played any role in bringing this case. I looked at the state of Connecticut’s website for the case file last week. There was something cursory, but no transcript or anything. But what in the case file would you be looking for to see if the insurer had a role in bringing this case? That’s the whole point of going to court through proxies (though it’s not actually _called_ that) – to have a plausible level of remove. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/42 "2015-10-20T19:06:13Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If this is what occurred, all the Aunt’s lawyers had to say was " **Our client’s own medical insurance wouldn’t pay out till our client could prove she would not be successful in recovering her expenses from her nephew** … ". > > They have said nothing like this. I don’t think this can be the position. I was under the impression that the aunt all but admitted exactly the bolded. [Have a look](http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/jennifer-connell-aunt-suing-nephew-sean-tarala-birthday-party-injuries-lawsuit-westport-connecticut-manhattan-photos-facebook-damages/): > [@](#): > > While Connell did not speak to the media outside of court, but later told her side of the story to CNN. She said that the outrage against her on the internet, with some calling her the worst aunt in the world, is misguided. She said Connecticut law requires an individual, not an insurance company, be named as a defendant in a law suit. > > “This was meant to be a simple homeowners insurance case,” she told CNN. “Connecticut law is such that I was advised by counsel that this is the way a suit is meant to be worded.” > > … > > Her attorney released a statement to FOX CT: > > "From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant. > > Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough." From [Snopes](http://www.snopes.com/2015/10/13/aunt-sues-nephew-exuberant-hug/): > [@](#): > > Connell later claimed that even though he was a “very loving, sensitive” child, he still needed to be held accountable for what he did. > > But her lawyers walked back those statements on Wednesday — saying she “was never looking for money” and had “no choice” but to sue the boy in 2013 because her insurance company was only willing to fork over $1 to help pay for her medical treatment. > > Since Connecticut law states that people who file injury claims on their insurance must take the responsible party to court, Connell was ultimately obligated to file a lawsuit against Sean, her lawyers said. > > “She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company,” her attorneys said in a statement. “We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict.” ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/43 "2015-10-20T19:12:27Z")
And lastly, this article from [Today.com](http://Today.com) might directly answer the OP: [**Nothing personal: Why Jennifer Connell sued her nephew — and why it was a lost cause**](http://www.today.com/parents/nothing-personal-why-jennifer-connell-sued-her-nephew-why-it-t50686). ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/44 "2015-10-20T19:37:31Z")
@bordelond: I’m not seeing what you’re seeing in that quote. She wanted the homeowner’s insurance to pay up; there’s nothing there to suggest that the medical insurance refused to do so without a suit. (Is it possible that there WAS no medical insurance to claim against? 2011 was before the health insurance mandate, so maybe Aunt didn’t have a health insurer to pay those medical bills. In that case, her only hope of getting an insurer to pay was getting the court to find that Nephew was negligent.) ---
**Author:** ![aktep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f0a364/32.png) [@aktep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aktep)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/45 "2015-10-20T20:08:28Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > As I understand it, not many people are savvy enough to come up with an innocuous explanation of an injury once presented in the ER (or wherever). > > Doctors, nurses, etc. will ask “How did that happen?” and depending on the response the patient gives, the injury can be coded on the insurance paperwork in such a way that the medical insurance company will know that a tort is in play and they may be able to go after another “person” (insurance company) for some or all of the money. > > This was pointed out on the board I mentioned a few posts up. Of course, plenty of people just said they wouldn’t mention their nephew, just that they tripped over their own feet and fell. The lawyers shot back “_That’s insurance fraud!_”. And on and on it went. I don’t know how hard a medical insurance company will investigate to see whether or not someone can be sued to defray costs of what the same medical insurance company. Anytime I’ve had a minorly-serious injury, I’ve gotten a form in the mail from my medical insurance company asking a lot of who what when where and how about the injury. The letter that comes with the form says something along the line of "you’re covered, but fill this out so we can figure out who [to sue and get our money back.] might also be required to provide coverage to you in this instance. " ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/46 "2015-10-20T20:16:17Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > @bordelond: I’m not seeing what you’re seeing in that quote. She wanted the homeowner’s insurance to pay up; **there’s nothing there to suggest that the medical insurance refused to do so without a suit**. (Is it possible that there WAS no medical insurance to claim against? 2011 was before the health insurance mandate, so maybe Aunt didn’t have a health insurer to pay those medical bills. In that case, her only hope of getting an insurer to pay was getting the court to find that Nephew was negligent.) Check out the Snopes quote from post #42: > [@](#): > > **Since Connecticut law states that people who file injury claims on their insurance must take the responsible party to court** , Connell was ultimately obligated to file a lawsuit against Sean, her lawyers said. Since the quote reads “their insurance”, it appears they mean “Connell’s insurance”. I take that to mean – without direct evidence – that the insurance in question is Connell’s workplace medical insurance. I will admit to not having read a really precise and detailed legal analysis of this case. I have read a lot of what lawyers on another board posted: what they said they’ve read between the lines given the facts made public. But since those lawyers don’t have first-hand knowledge of what went on, they could easily be missing something and be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/47 "2015-10-20T23:14:49Z")
There’s nothing in any of this that clearly says she had to sue her nephew in order for her own insurance to pay out. The problem is that the journalists writing this up (and snopes) have about as much of a clue as people kicking this around on social media, and are constantly garbling the distinctions between her insurance and the nephew’s parents’ homeowners insurance. If you look at the actual, direct quote from her own lawyers it is clear as day: they said it was about “getting medical bills paid by _homeowner’s insurance_”. My emphasis. Not \*\*her \*\*insurance. If suing the nephew and losing had merely been a necessary prerequisite to being paid out by her own insurance, why would her lawyers be directly quoted as saying it was about getting her bills paid by the homeowners insurance? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/48 "2015-10-21T00:24:04Z")
This isn’t unique to CT. As others have mentioned, you do not sue the insurance company. It was not at fault. You sue the responsible party who is covered by insurance. It is recognized that this is a fiction. The woman was not trying to take money from the kid’s piggy bank. If I had to guess (and it is just a guess) the woman realized that her medical insurance would only pay her medical bills, less deductibles and copays. By suing the homeowner’s insurance, she can get the sticker price of her medical treatment, plus pain and suffering, annoyances and inconveniences, etc. Those add-ons are usually between 2.5 and 3.5 times what the sticker price of medical bills are. Still, the point remains. There is no animosity between her and the nephew. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/49 "2015-10-21T00:37:27Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There’s nothing in any of this that clearly says she had to sue her nephew in order for her own insurance to pay out. The problem is that the journalists writing this up (and snopes) have about as much of a clue as people kicking this around on social media, and are constantly garbling the distinctions between her insurance and the nephew’s parents’ homeowners insurance. > > If you look at the actual, direct quote from her own lawyers it is clear as day: they said it was about “getting medical bills paid by _homeowner’s insurance_”. My emphasis. Not \*\*her \*\*insurance. If suing the nephew and losing had merely been a necessary prerequisite to being paid out by her own insurance, why would her lawyers be directly quoted as saying it was about getting her bills paid by the homeowners insurance? I agree that there are some missing pieces of information. Without those pieces, a good answer for the OP’s question may not be possible. I am curious whether a readily-searchable online transcript will ever become available at Connecticut’s Civil Inquiry website mentioned in the Snopes link. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/50 "2015-10-21T00:42:27Z")
What information is missing? Her lawyer said it was about “getting medical bills paid by homeowners insurance”. What’s missing? ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/51 "2015-10-21T14:12:03Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > What information is missing? Specific information about Connell’s health insurance. Did she have it? If not, why not? If so, did it cover anything regarding the wrist injury? If not, why not? Did her health insurance at any point require that the tort claim be pursued? And so on. Most all commenters on the other board I keep mentioning, they made the assumption that she, indeed, had health insurance through her employer. Then they extrapolated all other speculation from that assumption. Can’t lock it down with a link, but I feel like that Connell having health insurance was a safe assumption given that she worked in the white-collar world. Still, an assumption is not proof positive, so … \. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/52 "2015-10-21T14:33:26Z")
> [@purplehearingaid](#): > > I always thought when a child was a minor the parents were the one that held responsible for their child action . No. The parents may ultimately be financially responsible for a judgment against the child, but a parent is not _generally_ responsible for the torts of a child. > [@Senegoid](#): > > Did she wait four years or is that how long it took to get to trial? She wasn’t so reluctant that she decided not to accuse her 8 year old nephew of being negligent, I can’t help but notice. Four years is probably the statute of limitations for tort actions in Connecticut. It’s fairly typical for personal injury attorneys to wait until the SOL has almost expired to file suit to ensure that any damages have already been sustained and can be documented, rather than estimated. > [@Aspidistra](#): > > Someone with experience in the area can probably tell me - would nephew and/or nephew’s dad expect to experience any negative consequence if aunt had won her case? That is, a rise in their insurance premium, for instance, or nephew finding that an adverse judgement might ‘follow him round’ in some way when he reaches adulthood? > [@puddleglum](#): > > According to [this](http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/19/real_estate/homeowners-insurance-claims/) type of claim could raise the father’s insurance premiums by around 14% for seven years. That is for first party property damage claims, which are common. Experience modifications are used to calculate property damage premiums. Homeowners’ liability claims are fairly unusual and experience mods don’t really make sense in such a context. It’s unlikely to make any difference to the family’s premium. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > How is a broken wrist worth $127K? $30K emergency room visit, $15K operation, $5K other medicals, $10K future medicals, two months of lost wages. Then add some pain and suffering. > [@bordelond](#): > > I looked at the state of Connecticut’s website for the case file last week. There was something cursory, but no transcript or anything. But what in the case file would you be looking for to see if the insurer had a role in bringing this case? If the health insurance provider is suing pursuant to its subrogation rights against the nephew the case will be styled _XYZ Insurance Co. a/s/o Jennifer Connell v. Stupid Nephew_ or something along those lines.\* Since she was represented by her own attorney, it’s clear to me that the insurer was not the one responsible for the litigation. > [@UltraVires](#): > > This isn’t unique to CT. As others have mentioned, you do not sue the insurance company. It was not at fault. You sue the responsible party who is covered by insurance. It is recognized that this is a fiction. The woman was not trying to take money from the kid’s piggy bank. Nitpick: under some circumstances, the insurer itself may be a defendant. But not in personal injury cases. > [@bordelond](#): > > Specific information about Connell’s health insurance. It’s not relevant. Connell was suing on her own behalf, regardless of who initially paid the bulk of her bills. If she did have health insurance that carrier would be entitled to recover a percentage of the amount it paid out from her tort recovery. \*“as subrogee of” ETA: just realized I totally forgot to answer the OP’s questions. > [@](#): > > 1. Why does Colorado require her to sue the child to get the claim paid? I assume that if there was some other way to appeal the insurance company’s decision, they would have done so. It seems like a bizarre system, and perhaps one deliberately engineered to discourage people from challenging the insurance industry. > > 2. The family’s homeowner’s insurance offered compensation in the form of $1. What’s the deal with this? It seems like a calculated insult. If they require a judgement against the defendant before they will pay the insurance, why bother giving her any money at all? Does this lady not have her own insurance? (1) As has been mentioned, if an insurance company refuses to pay (or refuses to pay what the injured party believes is enough) then litigation is the only option. (2) It’s probably to avoid some type of bad faith claim or fee-shifting. If an insurance company’s insured is clearly liable, the insured may have a claim _of his own_ against the insurer for failing to handle the claim in good faith; generally, that means refusing to settle for the policy limits when liability and damages of at least those limits are clear. In this case, liability was likely clear but damages were not. In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs may also be entitled to attorney’s fees if they offer to settle and the defendant declines the offer and is then found liable in some greater amount. She may well have her own insurance, but health insurance doesn’t cover lost wages and copays and coinsurance can add up quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/53 "2015-10-21T14:59:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In this case, liability was likely clear but damages were not. Keep in mind that the jury found against her on liability. Whatever the insurer was thinking, I doubt they were too worried about an eight-year-old being found liable for negligent hugging. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/54 "2015-10-21T15:08:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Specific information about Connell’s health insurance is] not relevant. Maybe not relevant to the court case, but relevant to understanding Connell’s motivations for pursuing the case at all. One assumes that she was not financially whole at the time she filed … so why was she not? We can only speculate about that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/55 "2015-10-21T15:09:25Z")
Did they? I can’t find any sources that specify what the verdict actually was, other than that she recovered nothing. I considered it most likely that they would find the nephew liable for a negligent hug but that they would reject the idea that the hug cause the fracture. ETA: We don’t need to speculate. Insurance rarely makes one whole. For health insurance, there is coinsurance, deductibles, copays and so on. Disability insurance generally only pays two thirds of wages. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/56 "2015-10-21T15:24:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Did they? I can’t find any sources that specify what the verdict actually was, other than that she recovered nothing. I considered it most likely that they would find the nephew liable for a negligent hug but that they would reject the idea that the hug cause the fracture. [_NY Post_, 10-18-2015](http://nypost.com/2015/10/13/aunt-loses-lawsuit-against-8-year-old-nephew-who-jumped-into-her-arms/) > [@](#): > > “We just couldn’t find him, you know, liable for what happened,” a female juror told reporters after the verdict, although she added that “it wasn’t” easy for the six-person panel to agree. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/57 "2015-10-21T15:34:00Z")
Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/58 "2015-10-21T17:36:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > ETA: We don’t need to speculate. Insurance rarely makes one whole. For health insurance, there is **coinsurance, deductibles, copays and so on. Disability insurance generally only pays two thirds of wages**. OK. That moves the goal posts a bit. Assuming her health insurance paid everything it was contractually obligated to pay … was she in fact suing for all the things you mentioned (in red above)? How much work did she miss? In the end – and we land squarely in Great Debates territory here – while it was legally defensible for her to sue her nephew, was it morally defensible? Is it better to have eaten all those deductibles and co-pays (even if painful) than to sue a minor relative? The pros and cons fall in both directions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/59 "2015-10-21T17:43:32Z")
It’s unlikely that the amounts she paid out of pocket were in evidence. Under the collateral source rule, the jury never learns whether some or all of the damage were covered by insurance (though the judge will reduce the jury award by those amounts where subrogation is not available). I disagree that there’s a moral question here. She wasn’t suing the nephew in anything but name. It seems pretty clear that she would not have attempted to collect from the nephew if the insurer did not have to pay. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002/60 "2015-10-21T19:24:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I disagree that there’s a moral question here. She wasn’t suing the nephew in anything but name. It seems pretty clear that she would not have attempted to collect from the nephew if the insurer did not have to pay. An unpaid judgement, however, would be very likely to show up in Nephew’s credit report and possibly cause trouble for him getting a student loan or a first job or apartment, because he’ll be a legal adult before it falls off the credit bureau reports (seven years? or ten?). Moreover, Aunt doesn’t have to do anything to get the judgement listed at Experian, et al., and probably can’t do anything to prevent its listing because the judgement would be a matter of public record. If if she makes no effort to seize his college fund or garnish his lawn-mowing wages, it’s still a legal debt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-the-aunt-from-hell-case/735002.md?page=4)