Gravity357 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Collection agency bills 7 yr-old boy for $60007:21 AM Mountain Standard Time on Thursday, January 3, 2008azfamily.com MESA -- Jessica Brovitch, mother of five, showed us the damage done to her son's bike back on November 9th. Watch the story now According to Jessica, her 7 yr old was riding his bike to school that morning when he turned the corner at 54th street and Delta and collided with a van. "And with that back peg of his tire it then blew out the tire on the van and then his front tire of the bike rolled underneath the tire was runover." claims Jessica. He was thrown off his bicycle but suffered only scrapes and bruises. Mesa police were called to the scene but say no report was filed because no one was seriously hurt. Jessica says she offered to get the van's tire fixed right then and there but the driver said no thanks. "The driver of the van said no its okay don't worry about it I'm glad your kid is okay." Jessica thought that was the end of it. Then she got a phone call a couple days later asking her to pay for the damaged tire and scratches on the van. Jessica refused and on December 28th a collection agency sent this letter to her son asking for more than $600.00 in damages. "I was very shocked and appalled that they're coming after a 7 year old that even though nobody was at fault, you hit a 7 year old on the street." Jessica says. But Jake Mexin was in the van's passenger seat. He says it wasn't the driver's fault. "There's nothing she could have done. It's not like she went straight on and hit the kid. She was driving and the kid hit the back end of her van as she was driving away." Jake says. The driver's husband, Jeff Hughes, says he got his van fixed and turned the claim into his insurance company Allstate. He wasn't aware a collection agency billed the 7 year old, but does think Dylan's parents should pay the bill. "I will definitely call Allstate and let them know in my opinion they put the claim in the wrong name but I think they should be stand up people and pay for the damages that their son caused. If my son broke your window my son's going to pay for your window, I'm going to pay for your window." Allstate later contacted 3TV and notified that they apologized for the collection agency mix-up and offered gift certificates to Target to both Jessica and her son for the inconvenience.http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/KTVK_010208_7yroldboy.3bf4acb.htmlI really hate CA's btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 CAs don't know the ages of the people they are sent after.In this case, it was Allstate that messed up (and when they mess up they mess up huge...been there got the t-shirt). They are lucky the mother didn't hold them accountable for the collection agency's actions under vicarious liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Nashville/Savannah Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 CAs don't know the ages of the people they are sent after.In this case, it was Allstate that messed up (and when they mess up they mess up huge...been there got the t-shirt). They are lucky the mother didn't hold them accountable for the collection agency's actions under vicarious liability.If a child does cause damage and therefore, effectively creates a debt, isn't that child "liable" for the debt even if the parent has they ultimate responsibility?Not that it really matters one way or the other...just sort of wondering out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravity357 Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 CAs don't know the ages of the people they are sent after.In this case, it was Allstate that messed up (and when they mess up they mess up huge...been there got the t-shirt). They are lucky the mother didn't hold them accountable for the collection agency's actions under vicarious liability.I guess I'm a tad bias.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 If a child does cause damage and therefore, effectively creates a debt, isn't that child "liable" for the debt even if the parent has they ultimate responsibility?Not that it really matters one way or the other...just sort of wondering out loud. That's not what happened though. Allstate went after a child for a no-fault incident to cover their loss that they had to pay out to the insured (the van owner). Even the insured driver said it was bull-crud and told Allstate how they felt about it. It's not that much different than an uninsured motorist claim. The insurance company is supposed to absorb it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Nashville/Savannah Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 That's not what happened though. Allstate went after a child for a no-fault incident to cover their loss that they had to pay out to the insured (the van owner). Even the insured driver said it was bull-crud and told Allstate how they felt about it. It's not that much different than an uninsured motorist claim. The insurance company is supposed to absorb it.I agree but I was actually thinking in the generic...if a minor child causes damage (creating a legitimate obligation) and if the injured party engages a CA to collect; would they/could they not "go after" the minor child even though the parent(s) would bear the ultimate responsibility?As I said...not really that important one way or the other! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravity357 Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I agree but I was actually thinking in the generic...if a minor child causes damage (creating a legitimate obligation) and if the injured party engages a CA to collect; would they/could they not "go after" the minor child even though the parent(s) would bear the ultimate responsibility?As I said...not really that important one way or the other!Yeah, I'm curious too...I mean sure there is a moral obligation to pay but is there a legal obligation. The driver (the wife said don't worry about the payment) then her husband (the co-owner I assume) pitches a fit about it. Darn you Robert for making me think LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudX Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Yeah, I'm curious too...I mean sure there is a moral obligation to pay but is there a legal obligation. The driver (the wife said don't worry about the payment) then her husband (the co-owner I assume) pitches a fit about it. Darn you Robert for making me think LOLI was noticing that as well...for a dad to try and act all moral, hes going agaisnt what his wife already wrote off, after a police report. Seems to me like he has no ground to go on...LOL:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravity357 Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 The more I read about subrogated claims the more pi$$ed off I get. Not trying to jack your thread Gravity:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=hps_us_pageoneI'm never going to Walmart again.http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/11/28/business/112907shank.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andbowd Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 WoW.AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts