Michigan uses statute of limitations claim against Anderson’s victims
Title says it all. Probably had to be done but when lawyers get involved it was bound to happen. I like lawyers but this seems a bit tone deaf as the first approach.
On the OSU side, I just hope that grade A ahole Gym Jordan has to explain his actions in a court of law one day.
One of of my gigs is to advise institutions in situations like this. It's really complicated and a lot of the responses here are knee-jerk and don't respect how difficult the decisions are for trustees and administrations. . .
Forget the legal arguments. They're not even that important in the first instance. Lets say there was no legal duties or obligations or defenses in any direction, and this was a pure moral decision. Any nonprofit (or church, etc) has a finite pool of resources to spend on its mission.
- How do you determine whether to spend it on making victims whole, or the 'normal' mission of the institution?
- Lets assume that you decide that it is appropriate to compensate claimants. How much? And from what pools of assets? In the case of UM, should money be diverted from non-athletic coffers? From the medical school? From the hospital? Etc. It's never obvious where to draw the line.
- Where an institution makes much of its income from government funding and donations, that adds an extra layer of issues. Are you OK diverting funds from the donor's intent? From the taxpayer's intent?
Then the legal arguments are an overlay on this, not a independent analysis:
- If the institution elects to divert funds to victims, it should do it in the most responsible way and avoid waste. That means it can't just spend them on everyone with a claim, but it has to diligence the allegations.
- Statutes of limitation exist precisely because there's a period of time after which it becomes really hard to ever prove a claim is true or untrue
- It's always possible for a legislature to change the statute of limitations where there's collective agreement that the current line is unfair to victims. Many states recently extended back the SoL for abuse claims against the church. That's going to increase compensation for earlier victims. There was a democratic decision that this was the right thing to do.
Obviously this all falls on a spectrum. There are MANY cases where it is a no brainer that the victim should be compensated. But there is also a big gray area and IMO anyone who professes certainty about the morally correct path maybe hasn't fully thought it through. Though I understand the instinct to compensate victims at any cost, because what has happened in so many institutions is so awful.
Just my $0.02.
What slow down with a common sense take...WE MUST PAY AND BE ABOVE SCHOOL X BECAUSE:MORAL HIGH GROUND...thanks for the perspective and experience. It's more complex than we simply have to be better as there is "only one fix"
How long till this thread is deleted?
Michigan's insurance providers are undoubtedly driving this defense as much as or more than lawyers.