Apartment dweller sues Cory Lidle's estate for destroying his apartment

[Peter R.]

A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about Cory Lidle's widow suing
Cirrus and a bunch of other deep pockets for damages after her husband's
Cirrus SR20 attempted to perform a 180 degree turn over the East River and
slammed into an apartment building on the east side of Manhattan, killing the
NY Yankees pitcher and a flight instructor.

Someone had posted a reply in that thread that outlined a scenario where an
apartment dweller in the damaged building sued the estate of the pitcher.

Looks like real life is imitating fiction:

From the USA Today's website, in part (copyright USAToday):

----------- start article quote:

Lidle estate sued over plane crash

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-12-cory-lidle-estate-lawsuit_N.htm?csp=34)

NEW YORK (AP) — Stephane Sparta was at home in his 31st floor apartment when
New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's small plane crashed into the floor
below.

The plane didn't hit Sparta, "but it gave him quite a shock," said his
lawyer, David C. Cook. "It came as close to giving him a haircut as you can
get."

Sparta, an architect, has sued Lidle's estate, claiming his home was
destroyed and he was emotionally injured by the crash.

Sparta says in court papers that he was forced to abandon his apartment after
Lidle's Cirrus SR-20 plane crashed into the building on Manhattan's Upper
East Side on Oct. 11, 2006. Sparta's court papers say parts of the airplane
wreckage "exploded" into his living room, "setting the contents on fire and
otherwise destroying the apartment and the property therein."

-------------- end quote ---------------------

--
Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter R." > wrote

> Sparta says in court papers that he was forced to abandon his apartment
> after
> Lidle's Cirrus SR-20 plane crashed into the building on Manhattan's Upper
> East Side on Oct. 11, 2006. Sparta's court papers say parts of the
> airplane
> wreckage "exploded" into his living room, "setting the contents on fire
> and
> otherwise destroying the apartment and the property therein."

At least there is some truth in that law suite.

He should be compensated, at least for the loss of his property; destroyed
due to an irresponsible act.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

Morgans wrote:

> At least there is some truth in that law suite.
>
> He should be compensated, at least for the loss of his property; destroyed
> due to an irresponsible act.

Suit. I wonder if Lidle's insurance is stonewalling them or the
amount offered inadequate for what this guy wanted?

This was the same guy I believe who was hospitalized by one of
the Macy's parade balloons. He has bad aviation karma :-)

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 23:27:34 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>He should be compensated, at least for the loss of his property; destroyed
>due to an irresponsible act.

I agree that this is someone who deserves to be made whole.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 07:58:47 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>This was the same guy I believe who was hospitalized by one of
>the Macy's parade balloons. He has bad aviation karma :-)

I hope the poor guy dosen't go for a heli ride. The aviation disaster
trifecta!

balloon - powered - rotorcraft

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ron Natalie" wrote

> This was the same guy I believe who was hospitalized by one of
> the Macy's parade balloons. He has bad aviation karma :-)

Wow! Suppose that he is attracting the crashes, and this is all his fault?

--
Jim in NC

[chris[_1_]]

On May 13, 3:19 pm, "Peter R." > wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about Cory Lidle's widow suing
> Cirrus and a bunch of other deep pockets for damages after her husband's
> Cirrus SR20 attempted to perform a 180 degree turn over the East River and
> slammed into an apartment building on the east side of Manhattan, killing the
> NY Yankees pitcher and a flight instructor.
>
> Someone had posted a reply in that thread that outlined a scenario where an
> apartment dweller in the damaged building sued the estate of the pitcher.
>
> Looks like real life is imitating fiction:
>
> From the USA Today's website, in part (copyright USAToday):
>
> ----------- start article quote:
>
> Lidle estate sued over plane crash
>
> (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-12-cory-lidle-estate-laws...)
>
> NEW YORK (AP) - Stephane Sparta was at home in his 31st floor apartment when
> New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's small plane crashed into the floor
> below.
>
> The plane didn't hit Sparta, "but it gave him quite a shock," said his
> lawyer, David C. Cook. "It came as close to giving him a haircut as you can
> get."
>
> Sparta, an architect, has sued Lidle's estate, claiming his home was
> destroyed and he was emotionally injured by the crash.
>
> Sparta says in court papers that he was forced to abandon his apartment after
> Lidle's Cirrus SR-20 plane crashed into the building on Manhattan's Upper
> East Side on Oct. 11, 2006. Sparta's court papers say parts of the airplane
> wreckage "exploded" into his living room, "setting the contents on fire and
> otherwise destroying the apartment and the property therein."
>
> -------------- end quote ---------------------
>
> --
> Peter

Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
accident, after all..

[Dallas]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:40:00 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:

> I agree that this is someone who deserves to be made whole.

I would think his homeowner's insurance would cover the damage and his
insurance carrier would sue Lidle's estate to get their money back.

The fact that he mentions "he was emotionally injured by the crash" leads
me to believe that he's trying to cash in on the accident.

--
Dallas

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:40:00 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> I agree that this is someone who deserves to be made whole.
>
> I would think his homeowner's insurance would cover the damage and his
> insurance carrier would sue Lidle's estate to get their money back.
>
> The fact that he mentions "he was emotionally injured by the crash" leads
> me to believe that he's trying to cash in on the accident.

So you don't think that he is due any "pain in the ass that this happen to
me" money?

I do.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Natalie]

chris wrote:
\
>
> Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
> the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
> accident, after all..
>
No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
homeowner's insurance be resonsible?

[EridanMan]

> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?

_IF_ this gentleman has renters/homeowners insurance, then I have to
agree that they are the ones responsible to cover his losses, as they
are the ones who have agreed to take responsibility and liability for
his personal property minus his stated deductible.

The situation strikes me as being identical to an automobile
accident. If both parties are covered by collision insurance, then
generally, both parties will settle with their insurance provider, and
then the at fault's provider will reimburse the the other's provider
for the cost of coverage... Makes life easier for everyone having
each party dealing with a company with whom they have an established
relationship (This I know from personal experience). I can't see why
this case is any different. Part of the service insurance provides is
a simple, hassle free way to be reimbursed for hardships without
having to go to trouble of figuring out liability and/or waiting for a
settlement - that burden is taken up by the insurance agency.

One might then say that yes, the man here still should take the Lidle
Estate up for his deductible... but that's negligible.

The thing that destroys this for me is the 'emotional pain'
nonsense... To be blunt, **** happens. Your lack of maturity in
being unable to emotionally cope with a stressful situation is not our
problem... Period. Grow up, deal with it, and move on.

I say this as someone with a degree in Clinical Psychology;) (I guess
its a good thing I decided not to become a therapist, eh?;)

[Allen[_1_]]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about Cory Lidle's widow suing
> Cirrus and a bunch of other deep pockets for damages after her husband's
> Cirrus SR20 attempted to perform a 180 degree turn over the East River and
> slammed into an apartment building on the east side of Manhattan, killing
the
> NY Yankees pitcher and a flight instructor.
> From the USA Today's website, in part (copyright USAToday):
>
> ----------- start article quote:
>
> Lidle estate sued over plane crash
>
>
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-12-cory-lidle-estate-lawsuit_N.
htm?csp=34)
>
> NEW YORK (AP) - Stephane Sparta was at home in his 31st floor apartment
when
> New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's small plane crashed into the floor
> below.
>
> The plane didn't hit Sparta, "but it gave him quite a shock," said his
> lawyer, David C. Cook. "It came as close to giving him a haircut as you
can
> get."
> -------------- end quote ---------------------
> --
> Peter

Seems like he may want to sue Cirrus too.

From the AvWebflash:

Last week Cirrus issued a mandatory Service Bulletin that requires the
replacement of some control system parts that, in specific cross control
circumstances, can cause the rudder and aileron controls to jam. The Service
Bulletin was issued a month after the controls jammed on a relatively new
SR20 as a student pilot was lining up for takeoff at Leesburg, Va. According
to the NTSB report, the student had applied full right rudder and full left
aileron and both systems locked. His instructor aborted the takeoff safely.
Investigators found control system parts tangled together and were able to
repeat the jamming action. In its Service Bulletin, Cirrus calls for new
parts that will prevent the entanglement and it also notes that the jamming
has never been reported in aircraft with properly rigged controls. However,
the relatively simple fix for the technical issue could affect a lawsuit
stemming from the crash of New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle's SR20 last
October

[Neil Gould]

Recently, EridanMan > posted:

>> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
>> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?
>
> _IF_ this gentleman has renters/homeowners insurance, then I have to
> agree that they are the ones responsible to cover his losses, as they
> are the ones who have agreed to take responsibility and liability for
> his personal property minus his stated deductible.
>
So, your opinion is that he should pay increased insurance fees in
perpetuity as a result of filing a claim for this event? Of course, I
disagree with that perspective. As I see it, the homeowner's insurance is
the last resort, if one can't collect from the responsible party.

Neil

[Jose]

> _IF_ this gentleman has renters/homeowners insurance, then I have to
> agree that they are the ones responsible to cover his losses

Isn't it sort of risky (as the affected party) to decide these questions
on your own, when a judge may disagree (to the tune of a million
dollars) with your amateur assessment of the legal status of your
damages? That's what lawyers are for.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Natalie]

Jose wrote:
>> _IF_ this gentleman has renters/homeowners insurance, then I have to
>> agree that they are the ones responsible to cover his losses
>
> Isn't it sort of risky (as the affected party) to decide these questions
> on your own, when a judge may disagree (to the tune of a million
> dollars) with your amateur assessment of the legal status of your
> damages? That's what lawyers are for.
>
I can almost assure you that there are lawyers involved. This ain't
small claims court.

[ArtP]

If you crash a rental plain the rental company's insurance will pay
them but the insurance may come after you. The fact that the rental
company has insurance doesn't relieve you of liability to pay the
rental company for any loses not covered by insurance or liability to
the insurance company for anything they paid on behalf of the
insured.That is why you need renter's insurance.

It is possible that the man in the condo did not have insurance or had
only partial coverage on a depreciated value.

Even in you example of auto insurance, that procedure is for small
claims. If you are talking big bucks liability then it can become a
matter settled in a court of law.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:27:23 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>>> _IF_ this gentleman has renters/homeowners insurance, then I have to
>>> agree that they are the ones responsible to cover his losses
>>
>> Isn't it sort of risky (as the affected party) to decide these questions
>> on your own, when a judge may disagree (to the tune of a million
>> dollars) with your amateur assessment of the legal status of your
>> damages? That's what lawyers are for.
>>
>I can almost assure you that there are lawyers involved. This ain't
>small claims court.

Some years back, a couple I know quite well had decided to call it
quits. Neither was thrilled, but it was working out. Then some one
told them they needed to have lawyers involved. From there it went
down hill in a hurry and turned from at least a sort of amicable split
to...well... a real fight. Of course the lawyers ended up with about
a third of the settlement and they ended up with a lot of hard
feelings.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 14, 2:10 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> chris wrote:
>
> \
>
> > Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
> > the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
> > accident, after all..
>
> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?

OK, so it's somebody's insurance. That is what I was meaning -
insurance paying out rather than suing someone..

I mean, you gotta realise that every time people overseas like myself
hear Americans talk about suing someone it just reinforces our opinion
of your country?? From how it sounds to us, you gotta be afraid to
walk down the street in the USA lest someone sue your ass for
something :-)

It just sounds very alien to us, is all I am meaning. In this
country, you just about *never* hear about private citizens taking
lawsuits. It's just unheard of. That's why we have insurance and ACC
(Accident Compensation) where you are barred from suing someone for
your accident and in return the Goverment pays you compensation for
your accident..

So the thought of suing someone over a plane crash just horrifies
me!!!!

[Allen[_1_]]

"chris" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 14, 2:10 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
>> chris wrote:
>>
>> \
>>
>> > Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
>> > the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
>> > accident, after all..
>>
>> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
>> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?
>
> OK, so it's somebody's insurance. That is what I was meaning -
> insurance paying out rather than suing someone..
>
> I mean, you gotta realise that every time people overseas like myself
> hear Americans talk about suing someone it just reinforces our opinion
> of your country?? From how it sounds to us, you gotta be afraid to
> walk down the street in the USA lest someone sue your ass for
> something :-)

Our neighbours to the south do not seem to be afraid of this.

> That's why we have insurance and ACC
> (Accident Compensation) where you are barred from suing someone for
> your accident and in return the Goverment pays you compensation for
> your accident..

OK dokey, even better than welfare!

> So the thought of suing someone over a plane crash just horrifies
> me!!!!
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

chris wrote:

> That's why we have insurance and ACC
> (Accident Compensation) where you are barred from suing someone for
> your accident and in return the Goverment pays you compensation for
> your accident..
>


If the government is in charge of it, it just means everyone is getting
screwed.

[Erik]

Morgans wrote:

> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2007 12:40:00 GMT, B A R R Y wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree that this is someone who deserves to be made whole.
>>
>>I would think his homeowner's insurance would cover the damage and his
>>insurance carrier would sue Lidle's estate to get their money back.
>>
>>The fact that he mentions "he was emotionally injured by the crash" leads
>>me to believe that he's trying to cash in on the accident.
>
>
> So you don't think that he is due any "pain in the ass that this happen to
> me" money?
>
> I do.

I do as long as you're willing to sell off some of your
"I'm a decent human being" Everything is for sale, right?

Any man who gives away the smallest measure of decency for any
measure of money deserves neither decency nor money.

[Jose]

>> So you don't think that he is due any "pain in the ass that this happen to me" money?
>> I do.
> I do as long as you're willing to sell off some of your
> "I'm a decent human being" Everything is for sale, right?

There's a difference between "...this happens to me" and "you made this
happen to me".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[chris[_1_]]

On May 15, 9:16 am, "Allen" > wrote:
> "chris" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 2:10 pm, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> >> chris wrote:
>
> >> \
>
> >> > Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
> >> > the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
> >> > accident, after all..
>
> >> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
> >> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?
>
> > OK, so it's somebody's insurance. That is what I was meaning -
> > insurance paying out rather than suing someone..
>
> > I mean, you gotta realise that every time people overseas like myself
> > hear Americans talk about suing someone it just reinforces our opinion
> > of your country?? From how it sounds to us, you gotta be afraid to
> > walk down the street in the USA lest someone sue your ass for
> > something :-)
>
> Our neighbours to the south do not seem to be afraid of this.
>
> > That's why we have insurance and ACC
> > (Accident Compensation) where you are barred from suing someone for
> > your accident and in return the Goverment pays you compensation for
> > your accident..
>
> OK dokey, even better than welfare!
>
>

Our ACC is paid for, among other things, by car and motorbike annual
registration. Which means most of what you pay when you register your
car is ACC, and the sort of people who don't register their cars are
also the sort of people who drive drunk, crash into to you, and cost
ACC a lot of money!!!

We also have a welfare state, unfortunately. Various attempts to
force people to look for work to justify their benefit have failed,
nobody wants to be mean to those poor unfortunate people on the
benefit, so you get generations of people who don't think about
looking for work, much easier to just sit there and claim the benefit.

Oh, and you can tell when you drive around the country, the poorer
towns and suburbs have way more satellite TV dishes than the rest of
us!!!! Guess who is paying for those!!!

P.S. Yes, I have been unemployed, but I got off my fat ass and found
work!!!

[chris[_1_]]

On May 15, 9:26 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> chris wrote:
> > That's why we have insurance and ACC
> > (Accident Compensation) where you are barred from suing someone for
> > your accident and in return the Goverment pays you compensation for
> > your accident..
>
> If the government is in charge of it, it just means everyone is getting
> screwed.

At least we're getting screwed evenly :-)

[LWG]

The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance. This insurance
is the product of a contract which existed between the renter and the
insurer, perhaps mandated by the terms of the renter's lease. If the
insurer pays the renter for damages which were caused by one or more other
entities, the insurer has a right of subrogation against the responsible
party or parties. The difference is that there is no "fault" which needs to
be shown in the insurer's payment to the renter, whereas the insurer must
prove fault on the part of the other parties before it is entitled to
recover.

A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

>> Isn't that what the apartment owner's insurance is for??? I mean, if
>> the crash was deliberate I could sort of understand it, but it was an
>> accident, after all..
>>
> No, it's what Lidle's liability insurance is for. Why should the
> homeowner's insurance be resonsible?

[Ron Natalie]

LWG wrote:
> The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance.

That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
to hit them up first.
> A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
> his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
> companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
> fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
> almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
> determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
but that's never heappened).

>

[LWG]

Of course that's true. But if you are talking about property damage only,
most people would rather collect their damages than their damages minus
one-third, forty percent, or whatever your or your lawyer's time is worth.

> That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
> to hit them up first.
>> A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay
>> for his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
>> companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which
>> assess fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the
>> process is almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the
>> insured is determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his
>> deductible.
>
> There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
> in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
> go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
> here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
> file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
> pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
> it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
> but that's never heappened).
>
>>

[chris[_1_]]

On May 17, 12:23 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> LWG wrote:
> > The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance.
>
> That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
> to hit them up first.
>
> > A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
> > his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
> > companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
> > fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
> > almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
> > determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.
>
> There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
> in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
> go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
> here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
> file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
> pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
> it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
> but that's never heappened).
>
>
>

See, now to me that sounds a bit bizarre, bearing in mind I am used to
things working quite differently, and I do live a long way from you)

For car accidents here, each party has to claim from his/her insurance
and the insurance companies sort it out with each other. Although, in
this country, because there is no requirement for you to have car
insurance of any kind, there are plenty of uninsured people running
around, and if one of the hits me, I will still claim off my
insurance, but the insurance company will take the uninsured person to
court to recover their costs. Which would probably be repaid $5 a
week if they're poor.. Which is why, if you are broke but not stupid,
you will have 3rd party insurance. However, if your car is not
registered or has no WOF (Warrant of Fitness - 6 monthly inspection),
they will probably get nasty with you if you stack into someone

[LWG]

The process is in fact quite similar to what you describe. What is lacking
in this discussion is common sense. Of course you can sue an adverse driver
for your property damage, and you don't have to make a claim against your
collision coverage. But why would you pay a lawyer a hundred or more
dollars per hour to do something your insurer is already obligated to do?
You may have a "choice" to collect $100 or $1000, but most people wouldn't
have to think long about which one they would take. So, no, here you don't
have to make a claim against your collision coverage, but you're nuts not to
(assuming you are not at fault, because then the concept of chargeable
occurrence comes into play). And yes, intercompany arbitration settles
between the companies who are signatory to the agreement.

Remember that in the case of personal injury, the process is different
(although the insurers may still be under a legal obligation to resolve
property damage claims promptly, despite the pendency of a personal injury
claim). Or, if you are involved in a collision with a self-insured vehicle,
that company may not be a signatory to the intercompany arbitration
agreement and you may have no option but to file suit. Or, you may not have
collision coverage on your vehicle.

>> > The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance.

>> There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
>> in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
>> go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
>> here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
>> file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
>> pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
>> it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
>> but that's never heappened).

> See, now to me that sounds a bit bizarre, bearing in mind I am used to
> things working quite differently, and I do live a long way from you)
>
> For car accidents here, each party has to claim from his/her insurance
> and the insurance companies sort it out with each other. Although, in
> this country, because there is no requirement for you to have car
> insurance of any kind, there are plenty of uninsured people running
> around, and if one of the hits me, I will still claim off my
> insurance, but the insurance company will take the uninsured person to
> court to recover their costs. Which would probably be repaid $5 a
> week if they're poor.. Which is why, if you are broke but not stupid,
> you will have 3rd party insurance. However, if your car is not
> registered or has no WOF (Warrant of Fitness - 6 monthly inspection),
> they will probably get nasty with you if you stack into someone
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:31:47 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

> Some years back, a couple I know quite well had decided to call it
> quits. Neither was thrilled, but it was working out. Then some one
> told them they needed to have lawyers involved. From there it went
> down hill in a hurry and turned from at least a sort of amicable split
> to...well... a real fight. Of course the lawyers ended up with about
> a third of the settlement and they ended up with a lot of hard
> feelings.

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/lawyer-problem-solution

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 14:31:47 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> > wrote:
>
>> Some years back, a couple I know quite well had decided to call it
>> quits. Neither was thrilled, but it was working out. Then some one
>> told them they needed to have lawyers involved. From there it went
>> down hill in a hurry and turned from at least a sort of amicable split
>> to...well... a real fight. Of course the lawyers ended up with about
>> a third of the settlement and they ended up with a lot of hard
>> feelings.
>
> http://grumman581.googlepages.com/lawyer-problem-solution


Works for me!