It sounds like this is just a convoluted way to get back to the "common sense" resolution to the matter. If the employee can't legally pursue the employer, they go after the "deep pocket" of the owner's insurance. Even though they technically are suing the owner, this is really all about money. And, they know the money (i.e. deep pocket) is with the insurance, not the owner. But, the way to insurance is through the owner. Unless they're charging the owner with something criminal (and it doesn't sound like they are), he's just being dragged along for the ride.
Now, after the settlement with the owner's insurance (or during?), that owner's insurance company will counter-sue the dealership. The owner's insurance company isn't an "employee". So, the legal limitation doesn't apply. The money for whatever settlement will ultimately come from the dealership. In fact, I think the article states as much in the last paragraph. So, at the end of the day, after all the lawyers get paid their cut, things work out largely as they should.
What would be interesting to know is if this would affect the owner in any way. Higher insurance rates, court costs of any kind, dropped/cancelled insurance? Otherwise, this just feels like a typical legal run-around with a sensational headline to get people worked up. Maybe if they started the article with their last paragraph, it might not be viewed as such a big deal?
|