The Parental Immunity Doctrine: Is Insurer Bad Faith an Exception or Should the Doctrine Be Abolished?

A boy and his dad got hurt in a car crash in Florida. The dad’s wife’s car was involved, and the boy’s mom tried to get money from their insurance. The insurance company wouldn’t pay even though the crash was partly the dad’s fault. After a long court case, the insurance company was found to be acting unfairly. But because of a rule in Florida, the boy may not get all the money he deserves because parents can’t be sued by their own kids. The doctrine of parental immunity originated in a court case in Mississippi in 1891. It stated that children cannot sue their parents for injuries because it’s important for family and society to be peaceful. In Florida, the doctrine was established in 1970, saying that family members can’t sue each other, but they can sue third parties for injuries. The purpose of this policy is to protect family harmony and resources. In 1982, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a mom was sued by her son for injuring him. The court said that the old rule protecting parents from being sued by their kids was outdated because now most families have insurance to cover these kinds of accidents. So, they said that the mom could be sued, but only if there was insurance to pay for the injuries. The Florida Supreme Court decided in 1988 that husbands and wives could sue each other, even though they couldn’t before. In 1993, they said that most states had already gotten rid of the old rule, so Florida should too. In some states, children can sue their parents for negligent driving. In Florida, step-parents might not have the same immunity as natural parents. If the insurance company doesn’t act in good faith, they can be held responsible for the full amount of the child’s claim. This means the family’s money won’t be affected, and the child will still be compensated for their injuries. Florida recognizes that an insurance company may have to pay more than its policy limits if it is found to have acted in bad faith. In a case where a woman sued her insurance company for not paying enough after a car accident, the court said the company might have to pay her legal fees if it acted in bad faith. Similarly, a child can only sue a parent’s insurance company for more money if the company acted in bad faith. But, it might be time for Florida to change this rule, especially when a parent’s insurance company should be responsible for the damages caused by the parent. Other states have already done this, and it might encourage insurance companies to do the right thing. Even the court in Florida said there could be exceptions to the rule when it makes sense in a particular case. In some states, parents used to be protected from being sued by their children for accidents caused by driving. But now, many states have changed this rule. For example, in Florida, a court ruled that a child can sue their parent’s employer if the parent caused an accident while driving the employer’s car. Other states have similar rules. A few states still have the old rule, but they make exceptions for accidents caused by the parent’s bad driving. The court doesn’t have the power to order visitation between a stepfather and former stepson. The law doesn’t allow visitation between unrelated parties. Stepparents don’t have all the rights and responsibilities of a natural parent. Parental immunity doesn’t include temporary guardians like grandparents. These cases are about insurance and liability laws. Robert N. Heath, Jr. is a certified civil trial lawyer and advocate. The column is submitted on behalf of the Trial Lawyers Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-parental-immunity-doctrine-is-insurer-bad-faith-an-exception-or-should-the-doctrine-be-abolished/