Who foots the bill?

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

So wait, if it is always someone else’s fault, why wouldn’t the center be the ones to pay? They didn’t properly secure it. Couldn’t you say the community center is saying it’s someone else’s fault?

I think we all agree that these parents should have been a little more aware but still this is why you have insurance.

So then have insurance cover it but you shouldn't have to lock everything down in fort knox to prevent negligent parents kids from breaking stuff. If the kid tripped and knocked it over, different story. They were climbing all over it and broke it.

It's called personal responsibility. People today just don't seem to have it.

If you can't watch your kids, don't take them out.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

So then have insurance cover it but you shouldn't have to lock everything down in fort knox to prevent negligent parents kids from breaking stuff. If the kid tripped and knocked it over, different story. They were climbing all over it and broke it.

It's called personal responsibility. People today just don't seem to have it.

If you can't watch your kids, don't take them out.

Insurance should and will cover it. This is why you have insurance

The parents aren’t saying they didn’t have fault, but that doesn’t mean they should pay for it.

I just think your point is funny. The parents should watch their kids so they are responsible but the center didn’t secure the artwork but they aren’t responsible. It’s just interesting logic.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Insurance should and will cover it. This is why you have insurance

I just think your point is funny. The parents should watch their kids so they are responsible but the center didn’t secure the artwork but they aren’t responsible. It’s just interesting logic.

Why should the center be responsible for kids climbing all over the art, secured or not?

Do you have kids? Serious question

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Why should the center be responsible for kids climbing all over the art, secured or not?

Do you have kids? Serious question

If the center didn’t dm everything to prevent this why should parents be responsible? Again they have insurance

That’s how insurance works. Frankly since it wasn’t secured there could be a case that the insurance company could deny the claim based on the center not properly preventing damage

Again I’m not saying parents don’t have responsibility in this(and they aren’t saying they don’t) but this is why you have insurance. If I rear end someone of course it’s my fault but my insurance company still pays.

I’m not saying the parents did a great job watching their kid but that’s not my point. The center has insurance, therefore insurance pays. That’s how it works.

Not sure what having kids has to do with anything. I’m an adult and get how the world works. You have insurance in case Something happens. Guess what? Something happened.

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

If the center didn’t dm everything to prevent this why should parents be responsible? Again they have insurance

That’s how insurance works. Frankly since it wasn’t secured there could be a case that the insurance company could deny the claim based on the center not properly preventing damage

Again I’m not saying parents don’t have responsibility in this(and they aren’t saying they don’t) but this is why you have insurance. If I rear end someone of course it’s my fault but my insurance company still pays.

I’m not saying the parents did a great job watching their kid but that’s not my point. The center has insurance, therefore insurance pays. That’s how it works.

Not sure what having kids has to do with anything.

So I'm guessing you don't. If this was my child I would take personal responsibility and make sure that they understood that type of behavior is not acceptable. The response in bold is the problem with people nowadays, it's simply finding somewhere else to place the blame.

Personal responsibility can be expensive but you can't just say. "They have insurance oh well" or claim that it should have been secured. That's called passing the blame onto someone else.

Whether or not the center's insurance will cover it or not is not relevant. It is 100% the parents fault and at minimum their insurance should cover it.

Should the center have secured it better? Sure, you can say that. That is absolutely no excuse for not paying attention to your children.

[hairysasquatch]

Insurance will pay then jack parents' rates.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

So I'm guessing you don't. If this was my child I would take personal responsibility and make sure that they understood that type of behavior is not acceptable. The response in bold is the problem with people nowadays, it's simply finding somewhere else to place the blame.

Personal responsibility can be expensive but you can't just say. "They have insurance oh well" or claim that it should have been secured. That's called passing the blame onto someone else.

Whether or not the center's insurance will cover it or not is not relevant. It is 100% the parents fault and at minimum their insurance should cover it.

Should the center have secured it better? Sure, you can say that. That is absolutely no excuse for not paying attention to your children.

Well I do have children and taking responsibility or not is not the point. The community center has insurance for just this reason. Should the parents pay ded or a portion of it? Sure, I can see that, but center has insurance. This is what insurance is for

Actually you can 100% say that, and no one is saying that anyway. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Why is the center not responsibile for not securing it? The insurance took the premium, why shouldn’t they have responsibility to pay for an item they insurance?

My point is that the centers insurance should cover it, so it’s not irrevlant, that’s my point.

I just don’t get why it’s all one persons fault, cause it simply isn’t. Center didn’t properly secure the art, insurance is there to cover the loss of items and parents should have watched the kids better. Why are just one of the three being held responsible in your eyes?

Have you ever been in a car accident that’s your fault? You ever gotten a cold because didn’t take care of yourself and had to go a dr? Your kids ever eat something you gave them that you didn’t know would make them sick or they were algeric to and you had to take them to the dr? They ever get a diaper rash and you went to a dr? And when those, or other things like that occurred, did you expect personal responsibility to pay for all this items? Of course not. You you paid your copay or Ded or whatever and it was over. This is no different.


I mean geez, you could get drunk, drive and kill someone and insurance would pay for that.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Insurance will pay then jack parents' rates.

It will be centers

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

So I'm guessing you don't. If this was my child I would take personal responsibility and make sure that they understood that type of behavior is not acceptable. The response in bold is the problem with people nowadays, it's simply finding somewhere else to place the blame.

Personal responsibility can be expensive but you can't just say. "They have insurance oh well" or claim that it should have been secured. That's called passing the blame onto someone else.

Whether or not the center's insurance will cover it or not is not relevant. It is 100% the parents fault and at minimum their insurance should cover it.

Should the center have secured it better? Sure, you can say that. That is absolutely no excuse for not paying attention to your children.

And it response to your comment I’m not blaiming anyone, you are. All I’m saying with insurance this is a case where the company pays. Fault is with more then one party.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

It will be centers

Not so sure about that myself. Parents could be forced to make a claim against their personal liability coverage on their homeowners policy.

[cking]

I think I am going to sue the parents for visual distress.

Watching those kids mess with that statue made me anxious. I had to take the day off from work.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Not so sure about that myself. Parents could be forced to make a claim against their personal liability coverage on their homeowners policy.

Could be, probably will be, centers insurance will still cover it

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Well I do have children and taking responsibility or not is not the point. The community center has insurance for just this reason. Should the parents pay ded or a portion of it? Sure, I can see that, but center has insurance. This is what insurance is for

Actually you can 100% say that, and no one is saying that anyway. This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Why is the center not responsibile for not securing it? The insurance took the premium, why shouldn’t they have responsibility to pay for an item they insurance?

My point is that the centers insurance should cover it, so it’s not irrevlant, that’s my point.

I just don’t get why it’s all one persons fault, cause it simply isn’t. Center didn’t properly secure the art, insurance is there to cover the loss of items and parents should have watched the kids better. Why are just one of the three being held responsible in your eyes?

Have you ever been in a car accident that’s your fault? You ever gotten a cold because didn’t take care of yourself and had to go a dr? Your kids ever eat something you gave them that you didn’t know would make them sick or they were algeric to and you had to take them to the dr? They ever get a diaper rash and you went to a dr? And when those, or other things like that occurred, did you expect personal responsibility to pay for all this items? Of course not. You you paid your copay or Ded or whatever and it was over. This is no different.


I mean geez, you could get drunk, drive and kill someone and insurance would pay for that.

We'll never agree on this so we can just agree to disagree. I hold the parents 99% responsible for this issue. There is absolutely no reason their kids should have been climbing on the statue and they are responsible for not watching them.

What if it had been secured and they broke the head off, or broke an arm off? Are you going to tell the artist "well you should have just built it better" no of course not but it's the exact same thing.

Great, they have insurance, and yes that is what it is for but they should not be responsible for someone else's neglect. Same thing with the Cincinnati zoo, should they really be responsible cause that woman wasn't paying attention to her kid?

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

We'll never agree on this so we can just agree to disagree. I hold the parents 99% responsible for this issue. There is absolutely no reason their kids should have been climbing on the statue and they are responsible for not watching them.

What if it had been secured and they broke the head off, or broke an arm off? Are you going to tell the artist "well you should have just built it better" no of course not but it's the exact same thing.

Great, they have insurance, and yes that is what it is for but they should not be responsible for someone else's neglect. Same thing with the Cincinnati zoo, should they really be responsible cause that woman wasn't paying attention to her kid?

You just aren’t getting my point at all. I’ve never waiveres from there is responsiblity all on parts, but that has nothing to do with why the insurance should pay. The initial question is who will pay. It’s the insurance company. You have the item insured in case there is damage. Is this a stupid way for damage? Of course but it is still damage.

The level of damage is irrelevant

Literally that’s what insurance is for. Literally to guarantee the cost of something damage.

I also noticed you didn’t answer my questions. Interesting. I’d guess you did use your insurance before. Seems to me you should have accepted personal responsibility and paid out of pocket

[Siberian13]

The only good news in all of this is that kid did us all a favor and destroyed a horrible piece of art.

So thank you little one!

[jcardstore]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

You just aren’t getting my point at all. I’ve never waiveres from there is responsiblity all on parts, but that has nothing to do with why the insurance should pay. The initial question is who will pay. It’s the insurance company. You have the item insured in case there is damage. Is this a stupid way for damage? Of course but it is still damage.

The level of damage is irrelevant

Literally that’s what insurance is for. Literally to guarantee the cost of something damage.

I also noticed you didn’t answer my questions. Interesting. I’d guess you did use your insurance before. Seems to me you should have accepted personal responsibility and paid out of pocket

Fine, I will concede that point since you so desperately want it. The insurance company will pay, whether it is the center or the parents. It should not be the responsibility of the center to secure the art, it should be the responsibility of the parents to watch their child.

Your questions were awful examples hence why I did not answer them. but since you really want I'll answer them 1 by 1.

Never been into a car accident so it's not relevant
I go to the doctor once a year for a physical so not relevant
Kids eating something they're allergic to is not neglect or lack of responsibility
Diaper rash, also not neglect.

Besides the car accident, terrible examples

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jcardstore

Fine, I will concede that point since you so desperately want it. The insurance company will pay, whether it is the center or the parents. It should not be the responsibility of the center to secure the art, it should be the responsibility of the parents to watch their child.

Your questions were awful examples hence why I did not answer them. but since you really want I'll answer them 1 by 1.

Never been into a car accident so it's not relevant
I go to the doctor once a year for a physical so not relevant
Kids eating something they're allergic to is not neglect or lack of responsibility
Diaper rash, also not neglect.

Besides the car accident, terrible examples

That was my point all along. That’s it.

So if you rear end someone you would pay out of pocket? Come on, no you wouldn’t and you shouldn’t.

And my example were just that, examples. You get my overall point.

[Athey49]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

I would say it’s more common place.

Crazy. I do think the parents are responsible for the damage (although $132k is ridiculous), I couldn't imagine getting married and telling family members not to bring their kids. If the kid cries, just bring them outside.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by Athey49

Crazy. I do think the parents are responsible for the damage (although $132k is ridiculous), I couldn't imagine getting married and telling family members not to bring their kids. If the kid cries, just bring them outside.

Guy across from me just got married and he said he didn’t invite kids. Same reason I said doesn’t want to pay for his cousins he never sees eat

[GOWIFB]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

You just aren’t getting my point at all. I’ve never waiveres from there is responsiblity all on parts, but that has nothing to do with why the insurance should pay. The initial question is who will pay. It’s the insurance company. You have the item insured in case there is damage. Is this a stupid way for damage? Of course but it is still damage.

The level of damage is irrelevant

Literally that’s what insurance is for. Literally to guarantee the cost of something damage.

I also noticed you didn’t answer my questions. Interesting. I’d guess you did use your insurance before. Seems to me you should have accepted personal responsibility and paid out of pocket

One thing that you are missing in your posts is that the insurance company has a right to pursue the parents for the money, which is what is happening in this instance. In using your prior example of a car accident if you are at fault and the other person decides to use their insurance for the repairs, then their insurance still has a right to pursue your insurance to get the money back. Now if you don't have insurance, or if your insurance denies that type of loss for whatever reason, then the other person's insurance can pursue you.

That is exactly the circumstance in this loss. The community center's insurance paid and they have the right to pursue to get their money back if they so choose, including any deductible that the community center may have had to pay. The parents could check with their homeowners coverage to see if they will cover it otherwise if they don't have insurance or if homeowners doesn't apply in this case then the parents can be pursued directly.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

One thing that you are missing in your posts is that the insurance company has a right to pursue the parents for the money, which is what is happening in this instance. In using your prior example of a car accident if you are at fault and the other person decides to use their insurance for the repairs, then their insurance still has a right to pursue your insurance to get the money back. Now if you don't have insurance, or if your insurance denies that type of loss for whatever reason, then the other person's insurance can pursue you.

That is exactly the circumstance in this loss. The community center's insurance paid and they have the right to pursue to get their money back if they so choose, including any deductible that the community center may have had to pay. The parents could check with their homeowners coverage to see if they will cover it otherwise if they don't have insurance or if homeowners doesn't apply in this case then the parents can be pursued directly.

I have mentioned that The centers insurance company has the right to go after parents for money. Just like it has the right to deny claim based on centers lack of securing the Art.

[oldgoldy97]

“My kids are well supervised” goes hand in hand with “my dog doesn’t bite.”

[spuds1961]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

“My kids are well supervised” goes hand in hand with “my dog doesn’t bite.”

I thought you said your dog doesn't bite, He doesn't that is not my dog.

[mainerunr]

Originally Posted by cking

I think I am going to sue the parents for visual distress.

Watching those kids mess with that statue made me anxious. I had to take the day off from work.

ooo....oooo...make sure you name the community center too. Some of your trauma must have been related to the possibility of seeing that thing fall and injure (or kill) the kid...

Seriously, why would the community center be displaying a work of art worth $132k without securing it in any way unless someone was hoping for an insurance claim on the thing.

And yes, parents need to do a better job for sure but the community center (or artist) should have done a better job of securing the 'artwork' too.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by GOWIFB

One thing that you are missing in your posts is that the insurance company has a right to pursue the parents for the money, which is what is happening in this instance. In using your prior example of a car accident if you are at fault and the other person decides to use their insurance for the repairs, then their insurance still has a right to pursue your insurance to get the money back. Now if you don't have insurance, or if your insurance denies that type of loss for whatever reason, then the other person's insurance can pursue you.

That is exactly the circumstance in this loss. The community center's insurance paid and they have the right to pursue to get their money back if they so choose, including any deductible that the community center may have had to pay. The parents could check with their homeowners coverage to see if they will cover it otherwise if they don't have insurance or if homeowners doesn't apply in this case then the parents can be pursued directly.

Bingo