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

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.

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.

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!!!

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 :-)

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?

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).

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).

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

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

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/la...oblem-solution