Apartment owner sueing Lidle's family

[HumnHilghtFreel]

Link Here

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


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

[Redsland]

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]

Surely insurance would cover whatever damages were caused by the plane. I wonder why he feels a lawsuit is necessary.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by registerthis

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]

Originally Posted by paintmered

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

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]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

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]

Originally Posted by oneupper

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]

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]

Originally Posted by George Foster

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]

Originally Posted by George Foster

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]

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.