• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas county suing wife, children of fallen deputy

Tonawanda said:
It certainly sounds unfair and even unethical, but if I understand correctly, it could be right.

It sounds like subrogation. Subrogation is defined as a legal right that allows one party (in this case the county) to make a payment that is actually owed by another party (e.g., the other driver’s insurance company) and then collect the money from the party that owes the debt after the fact.

It appears that the county paid medical bills, on behalf of the family, that the county was not responsible for, and they are entitled to the payment from the insurance company of the driver who was at fault. In accidents and workers comp cases, the county usually would have filled a claim and got the payment directly from the insurance company.

It sounds like a big screw up, and the county has now realized and decided to go after the money. If the family's settlement included hospital bills and the family didn't pay them, the county may have an appropriate legal claim.
Click to expand...

I'd submit that the proper way to deal would have been for the county to separately seek payment from the other parties insurance company. Assuming non of the payment to the family was specifically to cover medical expenses the county is plain wrong. And that's without even considering that the county should be responsible for his medical expenses given that it's a line of duty situation.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'd submit that the proper way to deal would have been for the county to separately seek payment from the other parties insurance company.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, if the insurance company disputes the claim and litigation is necessary, its likely only the family could sue the insurance company because they were the victims of the accident. These types of reimbursements to a 3rd party after litigation is very common and almost automatic depending on state law, and if the proper notifications are made by the 3rd party. At least one of those things are in dispute by the family's attorney. Outside of that, it appears to me that the county would have legal claim to get reimbursed.

Assuming non of the payment to the family was specifically to cover medical expenses the county is plain wrong. Agree!

And that's without even considering that the county should be responsible for his medical expenses given that it's a line of duty situation. Agree!

Unfortunately some of the southern states do not provide the same benefits to its employees as a state like New York. New York State employers are required to carry worker's comp insurance which would cover all loses to the family to possibly including a significant lump sum benefit. There should also be contractual employee, and state benefits. We also have no fault insurance which requires a drivers loss to be paid to the family irregardless who's at fault in the accident. Under that situation, the victims insurance company would have pay for the loss and sue the other insurance company.

Off this topic, but related to the unfairness of the family's suffering is the cost of these benefits. Taxes or revenue is required by these municipalities to provide fair wages and benefits. State law also provides mandates to protect employees, especially government employees. And, there is state aid to help provide these benefits in some states. My understanding is that there is no income tax in Texas, although they have a dividend tax. States like New York with high taxes, strict regulations and extensive services and entitlements are having a difficult time paying the bills, and are losing businesses and residents to other states that are less expensive to live in and do business.

None of this changes the unfairness and lack of benefits for the family of this law enforcement officer.
 
Last edited:
Tonawanda said:
I agree. However, if the insurance company disputes the claim and litigation is necessary, its likely only the family could sue the insurance company because they were the victims of the accident. These types of reimbursements to a 3rd party after litigation is very common and almost automatic depending on state law, and if the proper notifications are made by the 3rd party. At least one of those things are in dispute by the family's attorney. Outside of that, it appears to me that the county would have legal claim to get reimbursed.

Assuming non of the payment to the family was specifically to cover medical expenses the county is plain wrong. Agree!

And that's without even considering that the county should be responsible for his medical expenses given that it's a line of duty situation. Agree!

Unfortunately some of the southern states do not provide the same benefits to its employees as a state like New York. New York State employers are required to carry worker's comp insurance which would cover all loses to the family to possibly including a significant lump sum benefit. There should also be contractual employee, and state benefits. We also have no fault insurance which requires a drivers loss to be paid to the family irregardless who's at fault in the accident. Under that situation, the victims insurance company would have pay for the loss and sue the other insurance company.

Off this topic, but related to the unfairness of the family's suffering is the cost of these benefits. Taxes or revenue is required by these municipalities to provide fair wages and benefits. State law also provides mandates to protect employees, especially government employees. And, there is state aid to help provide these benefits in some states. My understanding is that there is no income tax in Texas, although they have a dividend tax. States like New York with high taxes, strict regulations and extensive services and entitlements are having a difficult time paying the bills, and are losing businesses and residents to other states that are less expensive to live in and do business.

None of this changes the unfairness and lack of benefits for the family of this law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...

My little brother is retired NYPD. I cannot begin to imagine what would happen if NYC ever tried to pull something similar. That said I hear what you're saying, I just find it unimaginable that an employer doesn't somehow or other cover injuries incurred on the job. But I've lived my entire life in NY and that's what I'm used to.
 
Tonawanda said:
It certainly sounds unfair and even unethical, but if I understand correctly, it could be right.

It sounds like subrogation. Subrogation is defined as a legal right that allows one party (in this case the county) to make a payment that is actually owed by another party (e.g., the other driver’s insurance company) and then collect the money from the party that owes the debt after the fact.

It appears that the county paid medical bills, on behalf of the family, that the county was not responsible for, and they are entitled to the payment from the insurance company of the driver who was at fault. In accidents and workers comp cases, the county usually would have filled a claim and got the payment directly from the insurance company.

It sounds like a big screw up, and the county has now realized and decided to go after the money. If the family's settlement included hospital bills and the family didn't pay them, the county may have an appropriate legal claim.
Click to expand...

Excellent explanation of what might be going on. Thanks.
 
So this is essentially a MVA, right?

I know when I was brought to the ER , they knew I was in a MVA. I broke my wrist and dislocated my thumb. Within the first month of injury Kaiser contacted me to make sure I knew if I got a settlement they would be reimbursed. I could have paid them directly , but an agreement was made for the perps (;)) car insurance to pay them directly (I think it was like 20,000). But damned right if that agreement wasn't made I would have owed them. Any payment included damages to me.

It just looks unseemly as the officer died because of the accident. But really, it is double dipping.
 
clownboy said:
Obamacare. We're all supposed to get our own now. The days of employer supplied insurance are dying.
Click to expand...

My God. Please read the dates on this. The officer died the year Obamacare passed. Obamacare had phased in provisions, most of which would not have been in place 10 months after it passed. This had absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare, at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom