Progressive Argues That the "Gag Rule" Exception Doesn't Apply To Them, Tries to Deny Coverage to Brain Damaged Child
In an effort to avoid paying a $100,000 personal injury claim, attorneys for Progressive Casualty Insurance argued in court that the exception clause in the 1963 "gag rule" law did not apply to them.
The suit was filed by a 9-year-old brain damaged boy and his grandmother, and the defendants in the case were the boy's parents. In order to collect on the auto insurance claim, Teddy Harrison and his grandmother had to sue Teddy's mom and dad for improperly installing his car seat.
The car accident happened when Teddy was 3 years old. He was buckled into a Century Products Co. car seat in the back seat of his mother's SUV vehicle. They were struck by an uninsured Corvette and the SUV flipped over several times before coming to a stop. Tragically, Teddy's car seat came unbuckled due to the impact of the accident and the seatbelt also failed. The child was thrown from the vehicle and suffered irreversible brain damage. He is now a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair and will require 24-hour care for the rest of his life.
Although Teddy's mother had buckled him into the car seat correctly and heard it click, a coin hidden inside the buckle mechanism caused the failure. The Harrison's sued Century Products Co. and the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
The SUV driven by Mrs. Harrison was insured by Progressive but they refused to pay the $100,000 personal injury claim. Their denial was based on their belief that a 1963 law barring evidence pertaining to seat belts and car seats in personal injury cases would kill Teddy's case. Without evidence regarding the car seat Teddy's lawyers could not present a case against Teddy's parents for improper installation. The law, called the "gag rule" was amended in 1999 to include an exception clause. The exception clause states that evidence in personal injury cases pertaining to seat belt and car seat use should be allowed, but only in the case of defectively designed, manufactured, installed or operating seat belts or car seats.
Attorneys for Progressive knew of the exception clause added to the law but still refused to pay and the Harrison vs. Harrison case went to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
In court Progressive attorneys argued that the exception clause to the "gag rule" law only applied to manufacturers of seat belts and car seats and not to insurance companies who insure automobiles with the safety equipment installed. They also stated that a ruling against them could open the floodgate for similar lawsuits, and that's probably the reason they fought so hard not to pay Teddy's personal injury claim. It wasn't anything personal against the brain damaged child, they just did not want a precedent set with this case because it would cost them big.
In the end, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided against Progressive in a 6-1 ruling and added that the specifics in this case would not cause a flood of new lawsuits against auto insurance companies. Progressive Casualty Insurance will pay Teddy and his grandmother $100,000.
