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

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?

"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/...tate-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

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 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.

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!!!!

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.