Unusual Legal Cases: Self-Sue and Sue the Baby

Oddly, it's not uncommon for such unique legal situations to arise. One of the most notable cases is Bagley v. Bagley. However, many similar, often bizarre lawsuits involve insurance companies from the very start.

Uncommon Scenarios and their Context

Insurance companies often require a party to be named in a lawsuit before they will take action. One such scenario involved a client of a commercial insurance company I worked for. The owner of a mid-sized company provided his underage and irresponsible son with a sports car while the son was employed as a manager. The son's responsibilities were merely to keep his seat warm, and one fateful night, he returned home drunk, causing significant damage to his own garage door.

Legal Proceedings and Denial of Claim

The son submitted a liability claim, arguing that his employer was responsible due to respondent superior. The insurance company denied the claim supported by the common law doctrine that one cannot be liable to oneself. Technically, the son had a plausible argument. Had the company found any negligence by the employer, the son could have pursued the claim against the company.

However, to proceed, the son had to file a lawsuit against both himself and the company. In Texas, one must file a lawsuit against both the driver of a company car and the company for negligent hiring. The son's attorney argued in the petition that the company knew of the son's alcohol problem and still hired him. This strategy was partially successful, with the judge allowing the case to proceed against the company but not against the son due to the common law doctrine.

Outcome and Consequences

The insurance company informed the father that he needed to provide a deposition to determine if he was aware of his son's alcohol problem. Faced with the prospect of legal trouble from his son and a lack of cooperation, the father refused. Consequently, the insurance company declined to defend the company, forcing the father to hire an attorney to defend his company at a cost of $2,500 to his son's claim for a damaged $2,500 door.

The father terminated his son's employment, leading to the case being dropped by the son, now unemployed and unable to afford his attorney's fees. Following this incident, the general liability, business auto, and work comp insurance policies were canceled due to the father's refusal to cooperate with the company's defense. The son had to shop for new coverage, with his rates skyrocketing sharply. Filling suit for wrongful termination of the policy, his claims were dismissed, and he was required to pay the insurance company's costs.

Conclusion

While these cases may seem extraordinary, they highlight the complex nature of insurance and employment law. The intricate interactions between insurance companies, employers, and employees often lead to such surprising outcomes. These legal conundrums serve as a reminder of the importance of proper insurance coverage and the careful management of employee behavior.