Legal Eagle Needed On Employee Bonding

Venue - jurisdiction? Where this happens will impact possible ramifications. What are the parameters and specific details of a courier's employment contract? Are aspects of potential liability spelled out?

Is he suspected of conspiring to participate in the heist? That may move it into the criminal venue and delay any potential civil action.

You'll need to decide the location of the story and research the applicable legal standards. Any bonding (insurance) company operating in that jurisdiction may be worth contacting for advice and guidance - check with their public relations office.

FWIW, a civil action can usually be brought against anyone, anytime, for any reason; the only requirement is the filing fee. A lot of frivolous lawsuits get thrown out of court on a fairly routine basis.

citymouse said:

Thank you! I may have to rethink this. C

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Starting point is an employer expects their employees to be negligent. Or in other words, your employees will be stupid on occasion. As an employer, you can't sue your employees for being stupid. Even when your employee feels that 15 Jello shots before trying to fly a 747 is not a problem isn't going to make it easy for you. This would constitute gross negligence, and very rarely can an employer sue even in that circumstance. Bottom line, any employer knows that his or her employees are going to be really stupid on occasion.

A criminal action by an employee against the employer could constitute a ground to sue, but what are you going to collect from someone in jail?

That's problem one.

Now we get into the really complicated part of this. The priority of the company is to get their money. To do this, the company assigns its interest in the claim to the insurance company and the insurance company issues a check. Basically, the insurance company now owns the claim against the employee, not the employer. If the employer were to file a claim against the employee, it would stop the ability of the insurance company to pay the claim to the employer.

The insurer, as the holder of the claim against the employee, can file suit. And on some occasions, the insurance company will do exactly that. But the first question the insurance company is going to ask itself, even before it puts together a theory of liability, is whether the employee has any ability to pay if the insurance company were to win. And this presumes that there isn't something in the bonding agreement preventing the insurance company from going after employees (which may very well be the case).

By the way, this is the simple explanation. The real answer is a lot more complicated.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

And when word gets out that the company is suing an employee who was attacked, for 'carelessness' (not for being part of the heist), who do they think will courier their next shipment of diamonds?
I imagine gem couriers have some fear of being attacked on the job in just this sort of scenario. If their employer doesn't have their back, I'll bet a reliable bonded courier could find safer work. Or a better employer.

Let me see if I've got this straight.

John hires Gem Transport, Inc. to transport $1,000,000 worth of gems that John owns for a fee of $5,000. Gem Transport's employee, Tom, is given the gems, and Tom loses them. Gem Transport contacts their insurance/bonding company, Bondo, and Bondo issues a check for $1,000,000 to John.

Gem Transport then sends a bill for $5,000 to John, who not impressed with Gem Transport's failure to properly transport John's gems, refuses to pay. Gem Transport then sues Tom for the $5,000 for not doing Tom's job causing Gem Transport not to be paid?

It's part of the cost of doing business. If I was a judge and got this case, I'd probably die laughing. The theory of liability is flimsy, at best. Businesses aren't paid for their services all the time for all sorts of reasons. It sucks, but you shrug and go on.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe