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

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?

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?

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

_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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

"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!!!!

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 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.