Originally Posted by oneupper
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.