PDA

View Full Version : Apartment owner sueing Lidle's family



HumnHilghtFreel
03-02-2007, 12:18 PM
Link Here (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03022007/news/regionalnews/apt__owner_sues_lidle_kin_for_7m_regionalnews_dare h_gregorian.htm)

Apparently, the guy suing has a history of being a jerk.


http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/bad-dentist--bad-bad-dentist-241011.php A choice word or two in the link

Redsland
03-02-2007, 01:50 PM
The NTSB's final report about the crash stated that the investigation could not determine who was at the controls of the plane. Therefore, it's impossible to say who was at fault.

registerthis
03-02-2007, 02:14 PM
Surely insurance would cover whatever damages were caused by the plane. I wonder why he feels a lawsuit is necessary.

paintmered
03-02-2007, 02:45 PM
Surely insurance would cover whatever damages were caused by the plane. I wonder why he feels a lawsuit is necessary.

Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.

Ltlabner
03-02-2007, 02:47 PM
Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.

Or get a little attention.

Sounds like he's a peach of a guy.

RedFanAlways1966
03-02-2007, 02:51 PM
Maybe he doesn't feel it's necessary and simply wants to cash in.


Yep. Not everyday that a multi-millionaire crashes into your apartment. I am sure Mr. Dentist realizes that Lidle was very rich and probably has heard that his widow got a nice life insurance settlement.

Rob Zombie once wrote a song tiled "Scum of the Earth". I think this guy can have his name and picture placed next to this song. It seems appropriate to me.

remdog
03-02-2007, 02:51 PM
Big deal. So he's sueing. In today's world it would be more surprising that he wasn't. Maybe he feels he's endured more 'pain and suffering' than the insurance is willing to pay for so he's going to court.

Rem

UKFlounder
03-02-2007, 06:55 PM
The guy seems like a scum, but if somebody ran an airplane into my house, would I be tempted to sue them/their family? Is it really that unreasonable?

Maybe I'm just not thinking straight about this or overlooking something, but how many of us would be satisfied with insurance settlement if something so strange happened to our home.

What am I missing? I don't want to approve of suing a dead man's family - that certainly does nothing good as they continue to mourn - but I can kind of see why he would do that.

oneupper
03-02-2007, 09:21 PM
The guy seems like a scum, but if somebody ran an airplane into my house, would I be tempted to sue them/their family? Is it really that unreasonable?

Maybe I'm just not thinking straight about this or overlooking something, but how many of us would be satisfied with insurance settlement if something so strange happened to our home.

What am I missing? I don't want to approve of suing a dead man's family - that certainly does nothing good as they continue to mourn - but I can kind of see why he would do that.

It's property. He can sue if he hasn't recieved restitution for his property/expenses incurred. Anything above that, IMO is frivolous.
Nobody was hurt.

If people start suing for "pain and suffering" (or whatever) whenever their property is damaged or they had a "close call", it will get ridiculous (not that it isn't already).

Yes...but "we could have been killed or injured". Right. You weren't...move on.

George Foster
03-02-2007, 09:41 PM
The guy seems like a scum, but if somebody ran an airplane into my house, would I be tempted to sue them/their family? Is it really that unreasonable?

Maybe I'm just not thinking straight about this or overlooking something, but how many of us would be satisfied with insurance settlement if something so strange happened to our home.

What am I missing? I don't want to approve of suing a dead man's family - that certainly does nothing good as they continue to mourn - but I can kind of see why he would do that.

I have earthquake insurance on my house but it has a 15K deductable. Maybe for such an incident, especially for an apartment building, he has a huge deductable. I think he deserves to get back every dime he has coming to him. Lost income and the amount of the deductable. he should not make a profit however.

I know this Larry Rosenthal, he refers to himself as "dentist to the stars." He was doing cosmetic dentistry before it was sexy. He does wonderful work, and does CE courses all over the world. I doubt he is still "homeless." With that being said, if I lost my house, and my insurance did not cover everything, I deserve to be compensated and "made whole." The article did not say weather or not his insurance covered his loses. Maybe they screwed him over and said that he did not have "airplane crash coverage into your living room coverage." Also since he owned the apartment, it had to decline in value after the accident, like a car is not worth as much, even after you fix it after a crash.

UKFlounder
03-02-2007, 09:58 PM
It's property. He can sue if he hasn't recieved restitution for his property/expenses incurred. Anything above that, IMO is frivolous.
Nobody was hurt.

If people start suing for "pain and suffering" (or whatever) whenever their property is damaged or they had a "close call", it will get ridiculous (not that it isn't already).

Yes...but "we could have been killed or injured". Right. You weren't...move on.

Fair point.

vaticanplum
03-02-2007, 10:06 PM
There is absolutely no way this guy and his family are still homeless. If they are, then they should sue their own insurance company. Give me a break.

acredsfan
03-02-2007, 10:56 PM
I have earthquake insurance on my house but it has a 15K deductable. Maybe for such an incident, especially for an apartment building, he has a huge deductable. I think he deserves to get back every dime he has coming to him. Lost income and the amount of the deductable. he should not make a profit however.

I know this Larry Rosenthal, he refers to himself as "dentist to the stars." He was doing cosmetic dentistry before it was sexy. He does wonderful work, and does CE courses all over the world. I doubt he is still "homeless." With that being said, if I lost my house, and my insurance did not cover everything, I deserve to be compensated and "made whole." The article did not say weather or not his insurance covered his loses. Maybe they screwed him over and said that he did not have "airplane crash coverage into your living room coverage." Also since he owned the apartment, it had to decline in value after the accident, like a car is not worth as much, even after you fix it after a crash.Is the problem of the insurance the guy has and whether or not they cover the damage the responsibility of Lidle's family? If the insurance company wasn't going to cover it all or they were trying to screw him out of it then sue the the insurance company. If you want to start frivilous cases like this then why doesn't the Lidle family sue the apartment owners for building the apartment they ran into.... If the apartment wasn't there they wouldn't have to go through the pain and suffering of losing their loved one. See, the blame is not on Corey or whoever was flying, it is on one of several other things. It was an accident and they happen, tough luck, get your insurance money, rebuild or relocate, then move on. The pilot died because of the error. Isn't that enough? NO, people have to have money and fame. It sickens me. If this would have happened to me I would be thanking God I was alive and well, and feeling for the family who lost their loved one. Yes, I would want my insurance to cover it and get my money back, but I wouldn't for one moment want to get that money from the family that had already lost enough. I'd want it from my insurance company!!!!!! I can't say it enough, be thankful and move on.

oneupper
03-03-2007, 07:16 AM
I have earthquake insurance on my house but it has a 15K deductable. Maybe for such an incident, especially for an apartment building, he has a huge deductable. I think he deserves to get back every dime he has coming to him. Lost income and the amount of the deductable. he should not make a profit however.

I know this Larry Rosenthal, he refers to himself as "dentist to the stars." He was doing cosmetic dentistry before it was sexy. He does wonderful work, and does CE courses all over the world. I doubt he is still "homeless." With that being said, if I lost my house, and my insurance did not cover everything, I deserve to be compensated and "made whole." The article did not say weather or not his insurance covered his loses. Maybe they screwed him over and said that he did not have "airplane crash coverage into your living room coverage." Also since he owned the apartment, it had to decline in value after the accident, like a car is not worth as much, even after you fix it after a crash.


This is a fair point. I would go further. There is no reason the dentist HAD to have insurance against such an event (an airplane crashing into his apt).
(Heck, I'm not sure my house has such coverage)
He should be able to seek restitution for every cent of what he lost.

Maybe it's a $7 million apartment. NY real estate values are a bit crazy.

RedsBaron
03-03-2007, 07:51 AM
This is a fair point. I would go further. There is no reason the dentist HAD to have insurance against such an event (an airplane crashing into his apt).
(Heck, I'm not sure my house has such coverage)
He should be able to seek restitution for every cent of what he lost.

Maybe it's a $7 million apartment. NY real estate values are a bit crazy.

The dentist probably cannot file suit directly against Lidle's insurance company. I am not familiar with New York law, but in my own state if the dentist wanted to recover for damages to his apartment building from the negligent party that caused those damages, he would have to sue that negligent person, not the negligent person's insurance company.
Lidle's death was a tragedy, but I expect that there is a pretty good argument that the crash was partially or wholly his fault. If Lidle had insurance coverage, it is possible that his insurer has failed to agree to fully compensate the dentist for his damages, leaving the dentist with the alternatives of either suing Lidle's estate or not being fully compensated. Just because Lidle died does not mean his estate (or his insurer) should avoid responsibility for whatever damages he caused.
I would assume that the dentist had his own insurance coverage, but that coverage may not have fully compensated him, and his own insurer would then have a subrogation claim and the right to attempt to recover what it paid from Lidle's estate.
This doesn't mean that the dentist is a wonderful person. This doesn't mean that the claimed damages are not wildly inflated.
All I am saying is that we shouldn't be too quick to condemn the dentist just because he filed the suit.

RedsBaron
03-03-2007, 07:52 AM
The NTSB's final report about the crash stated that the investigation could not determine who was at the controls of the plane. Therefore, it's impossible to say who was at fault.

If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

Ltlabner
03-03-2007, 08:08 AM
If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

UKFlounder
03-03-2007, 08:46 AM
Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

That's the best point made against this suit and a very good question to ask.

WMR
03-03-2007, 09:32 AM
Funny that he isn't suing the family of the flight instructer. Surely he isn't suing Lidle's family because they have deep pockets?

Or it may be that the flight instructor's contract with Lidle specifically stated that the contractor assumed all potential future liabilities for any accident that occurred while he was in Lidle's employ.

We don't have anywhere close to enough facts to draw conclusions as to whether or not the apartment owner is 'in the right' for filing his suit, but RB's points are an excellent summation of what could be going on here.

cincinnati chili
03-03-2007, 09:41 AM
I agree with RB and Wily Mo. We don't have all the facts.

But if an airplane crashes into my house, I think that the estate of the responsible party (or the responsible party's insurer) should pay. My premiums should not increase, I shouldn't incur a single out of pocket expense. I should be made whole for every monetary or psychic loss as a direct or indirect result of the crash, to the extent that the law allows.

On it's face, I don't see why the guy is taking so much heat for suing.

creek14
03-03-2007, 05:21 PM
This story reminded me of a promo I saw for an upcoming Extreme Makeover. From reading this article it sounds like (at least in this case) that the homeowners insurance has to cover the damage.


"EXTREME MAKEOVER: HOME EDITION" REBUILDS THE HOME OF A
GIVING FAMILY WHOSE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED IN A PLANE CRASH

Ty and the gang of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" head to Tampa, Florida to rebuild the home of a family whose house was destroyed by a small plane crash,

on "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," SUNDAY, MARCH 4 (8:00-9:00 p.m., ET) o*n the ABC Television Network.

Tom and Cynthia Tate are well known in their tight knit community of Davis Island. Tom is the co-owner of Tate Brothers' Pizza and is responsible for giving most of the kids in town their first jobs, while Cynthia is extremely involved with the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and the PTA. The Tate Brothers are involved with almost every volunteer or charity event around Davis Island, and it's been said that many of the island kids have grown up in the Tate house. In that respect, June 12, 2006 was a rare day when the house was not filled with neighborhood kids. Out of the entire Tate family, o*nly Cynthia was at home when a plane crashed into the house. The pilot was killed, along with the family pets, and the co-pilot was badly burned but survived. Cynthia miraculously escaped without any injuries, while the house and everything inside it was destroyed. To make matters worse, because of a clerical error, the home was not insured, so the Tates are unable to pay off the existing mortgage, let alone rebuild their home.

The Tate family has gone above and beyond in helping their community, and now it's time for Ty and the gang to lend a helping hand in return. This episode of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" will feature the restoration of the home of o*ne of Davis Island's most beloved families, so that o*nce again it can be a gathering place for the entire community.

While Ty and the designers, national homebuilder WCI Communities and hundreds of volunteers and workers are rebuilding their home in a remarkable seven days, the Tate family will go o*n vacation to Costa Rica o*n a Disney Adventure.

The design team for this episode of "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" will feature team leader Ty Pennington and designers Paige Hemmis, Eduardo Xol, Tracy Hutson and Preston Sharp.

The series is produced by Endemol USA, a division of Endemol Holding. It's executive-produced by Denise Cramsey. David Goldberg is the president of Endemol USA. "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is broadcast with Spanish subtitles via secondary closed captioning. This program carries a TV-PG parental guideline.

George Foster
03-03-2007, 09:31 PM
If so, suit should be filed against anyone who may have been at the controls.

Actually, the suit should be filed against who owned the plane, Lidle. If you own a car, and let someone drive it, and they are in a wreck, the car is covered by YOUR insurance company. I assume the samething goes for airplanes.

This was ruled as pilot error. They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.

FoReel
03-04-2007, 12:46 AM
I don't get it PERIOD!!! They think they can get a chance of actually winning this lawsuit.

"They were lucky they weren't home. If it happened a few hours later, when they and others would have been home from work, it would have been a horror."
One, you can't get money if something might of happened. Say that you find a worm or a finger in your burger from a fast food chain and don't eat it, you can't win a lawsuit because you almost ate it. Plus what about the horror of Lidle and the flight instructor's family had to deal with. I could think of a lot more people that are cold-hearted. These "people" are scum

RedsBaron
03-04-2007, 07:57 AM
Actually, the suit should be filed against who owned the plane, Lidle. If you own a car, and let someone drive it, and they are in a wreck, the car is covered by YOUR insurance company. I assume the samething goes for airplanes.

This was ruled as pilot error. They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.

Actually, the suit should be filed against whoever may have been negligent or otherwise at fault. Again, I am applying W. Va. law here, since it is where I practice, but, assuming the state law to be applied is similar to that of W. Va., you generally should name as defendants anyone whom you have a good faith basis to assert may be liable.
With all respect, George is flat out wrong in his implied assertion that if there is an automoblie accident the person to sue is the owner of the car, not the driver. Yes, in W. Va., the primary duty to defend generally rests with the insurer of the car, not the insurer of the negligent driver-----but you don't sue the insurance company, you sue the negligent party.
If you only sue the owner, then you will need to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the owner was guilty of neglegent trustment or some other act of negligence which should make the owner legally responsible for the driver's negligent driving, and you then still have to prove that the driver was negligent.
Sue the driver directly, and negligent entrustment is not an issue, at least with regard to him or her--just carry your burden of proving that the driver was at fault. Yes, the driver will just be defended by the owner's insurer, but secondary coverage will also be owed by the driver's insurer.
There is also the possibility that coverage under the owner's policy may be limited for the driver. For example, I have a case right now where the alleged negligent driver, son of the owner, was expressly excluded from coverage under the owner's policy. The owner's insurer therefore only has to arguably provide state minimum limits of $20,000 rather than the normal policy limits of $100,000. In this case the alleged negligent driver; his father, the vehicle owner; and his alleged employer have all been sued over the motor vehicle accident. The primary duty to defend rests first with the insurer of the owner, and then with the insurer of the driver. The alleged employer has denied that the driver was its employee or agent, but has its own coverage. Then there is the insurer who provided underinsurance coverage to the injured party himself.
Again, you should name as defendants anyone whom you have a good faith basis to assert may be liable.

RedsBaron
03-04-2007, 08:03 AM
I don't get it PERIOD!!! They think they can get a chance of actually winning this lawsuit.

One, you can't get money if something might of happened. Say that you find a worm or a finger in your burger from a fast food chain and don't eat it, you can't win a lawsuit because you almost ate it. Plus what about the horror of Lidle and the flight instructor's family had to deal with. I could think of a lot more people that are cold-hearted. These "people" are scum

Actually even the above statements are not always literally true. We now have cases where people allegedly are exposed to products that might cause them injury and seek damages for the cost of "medical monitoring." However, in genral, FoReel is right--you cannot recover for an injury you might have suffered but did not. However the "horror" that the families of Lidle and the flight instructor had to deal with is irrelevant. If the apartment damage was the fault of Lidle and the flight instructor, then their liability is not affected by what happened to them in the crash; in such event, they could have ejected from the plane without suffering physical harm, or, as actually occurred, tragically perished--neither outcome would affect their liability, if any.

Redsland
03-04-2007, 12:23 PM
They forgot to fill the plane with gas before take off, if my memory is correct.
Incorrect. There was plenty of fuel, as the fire and damage would attest. The NTSB ruled that the wind pushed the plane toward the building, and the pilot (whomever that might have been) falied to compensate.

George Foster
03-04-2007, 02:42 PM
Incorrect. There was plenty of fuel, as the fire and damage would attest. The NTSB ruled that the wind pushed the plane toward the building, and the pilot (whomever that might have been) falied to compensate.

""While early reports had Lidle's plane sending out a fuel-related distress call, later investigation proved that false. There was no call."

quote form howstuffworks.com

.....I knew I read it somewhere, I did not know they changed their story.

letsgojunior
03-06-2007, 05:56 PM
On it's face, I don't see why the guy is taking so much heat for suing.

I agree. Much of this depends on what sort of insurance policy Lidle had, and how much it covers. It's not unseemly at all to sue if he perceives the policy as deficient, especially with the reports that Lidle and his instructor were at fault.

And I don't like the Post's spin. He's suing the estate for significant property damage to his Upper East Side apartment. Your average shoebox in Manhattan (400-500 sq ft) usually goes for $800K-$1M - so the $7 M figure doesn't seem to me unreasonable on its face, especially if he had valuable personal property (computers, televisions, etc.) inside.

WMR
03-06-2007, 06:08 PM
Not to mention the outrageous construction costs in NYC... I've heard horror stories about getting a toilet installed... re-doing an apartment damaged in such a unique fashion in the Upper East Side? The mind boggles.