Kid ruins artwork statue and Moo doesn't want to pay

This was on the national news last night. I'm sure moo herself leaked the story becuz she thinks she's right and wants to shame the insurance company. If it was me and I thought I was right, I'd just hire a lawyer and be thru w/ it. But all moos need attention as we all know. But we also know moos don't watch their kyds no matter how much they say they care about them.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-face-132000-claim-kid-knocks-sculpture/story?id=55927437

The moos lawyer is blathering on about how the art piece wasn't secured and could've fallen on any child. So how do they explain that the piece has been there all this time and not fallen?

This isn't a bloody wardrobe from Ikea, this is a one-of-a-kind piece of art that took the creator 2 years to build.

The parents dispute the city's claim that the child wasn't supervised. There weren't even in the frame when the incident happened, therefore they weren't supervising their brat.

I've watched the clip, you see these two brats running around like it's a bloody playground, one of the kids climbs up the statue and grabs at it, then it and the leech both fall down. When a nearby adult gets up and comes near them the two bastards run like scalded cats.

These stupid breeders haven't got a leg to stand on.

Moo was attention whoring in the worst way possible IMHO

And just maybe 5 year old Crotchford is too young to be in a museum anyways.

This doesn't surprise me. Hope the moo has to pay for the damage. Clearly the artist is upset and deservedly so. Perhaps one of those million or so existing children's charities could reimburse the artist or museum for the damage?

I saw lots of unsupervised brats in the museums while in southern CA. If you see a sign saying kids under 12 or 13 admitted free RUN FOR THE HILLS. They were old enough to read yet they ignored the signs and were running around touching EVERYTHING that wasn't behind protective glass. It didn't matter that it was ancient Mayan pottery or a painting. It was a disgrace. It is well past time for parents to pay for the damage of their spawn.

I just heard on the radio, the moo's home insurance company paid the artist for the statue and the moo has to pay the $25,000 deductible. So finally a score for common sense. Yay!

Haha! Serves her right. She should've been watching her feral hellspawn.

Haha! Sucks to be moo! I wonder if the kid will have to work it off around the house or if they'll just wait for their ridiculously large tax return and use that - mind you, even then it would take a few years, depending on how much money gets thrown at them every April.

How long do you think it'll be before the gofundme page goes live? /eyeroll

moo wants to contest the value of the artwork, but i think its a lost cause....I'm sure the insurance company was on that and researched it ages ago.

She can contest all she wants to and waste attorney's fees doing so, as long as she pays.

I hope she can't pay and they garnish her wages and / or put a lien on her house.

The family's insurance company paid:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article214450329.html [9 July 2018]

"Overland Park has been reimbursed for the damage that a 5-year-old caused to a $132,000 sculpture on sale at a community center, city officials say.

"The city received a check for $107,000 from the insurance company of the boy’s family, city spokesman Sean Reilly told The Star. That check reimbursed the city for all but the $25,000 deductible in the city's insurance policy."

If you read the rest of the story, several people are still wringing their hands about whether the statue was really worth the claimed amount and why it was unsecured. Breeders... The story doesn't mention whether the family will be liable to the city for the $25,000 deductible. I hope moo and duh are.

Quote
kman
If you read the rest of the story, several people are still wringing their hands about whether the statue was really worth the claimed amount and why it was unsecured. Breeders... The story doesn't mention whether the family will be liable to the city for the $25,000 deductible. I hope moo and duh are.

Sounds like the artist was reimbursed and good for him. Hope they end up paying the entire amount.

Quote
kman
The family's insurance company paid:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article214450329.html [9 July 2018]

"Overland Park has been reimbursed for the damage that a 5-year-old caused to a $132,000 sculpture on sale at a community center, city officials say.

"The city received a check for $107,000 from the insurance company of the boy’s family, city spokesman Sean Reilly told The Star. That check reimbursed the city for all but the $25,000 deductible in the city's insurance policy."

If you read the rest of the story, several people are still wringing their hands about whether the statue was really worth the claimed amount and why it was unsecured. Breeders... The story doesn't mention whether the family will be liable to the city for the $25,000 deductible. I hope moo and duh are.

The insurance company will want the deductible or the artist will. The artist can get a judgment against moo, put a lien on her house or garnish the wages. I dont know how that works, but I can't understand ripping off the artist, when moo has to pay deductible per her contract w/ the insurance company. The insurance company should find a way to make her do that.