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

On May 15, 9:26 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
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.

At least we're getting screwed evenly :-)

The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance. This insurance
is the product of a contract which existed between the renter and the
insurer, perhaps mandated by the terms of the renter's lease. If the
insurer pays the renter for damages which were caused by one or more other
entities, the insurer has a right of subrogation against the responsible
party or parties. The difference is that there is no "fault" which needs to
be shown in the insurer's payment to the renter, whereas the insurer must
prove fault on the part of the other parties before it is entitled to
recover.

A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

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?

LWG wrote:
The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance.

That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
to hit them up first.
A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
but that's never heappened).

Of course that's true. But if you are talking about property damage only,
most people would rather collect their damages than their damages minus
one-third, forty percent, or whatever your or your lawyer's time is worth.

That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
to hit them up first.
A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay
for his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which
assess fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the
process is almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the
insured is determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his
deductible.

There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
but that's never heappened).

On May 17, 12:23 am, Ron Natalie wrote:
LWG wrote:
The first entity responsible is the homeowner's insurance.

That may be a possible entity, but there is no legal requirement
to hit them up first.

A similar thing happens with auto accidents. An insured's collison pay for
his damages without regard to the insured's fault. Payments between
companies are governed by intercompany arbitration agreements which assess
fault between different insureds involved in a collision, and the process is
almost invisible to the insured. In the event that the insured is
determined not to be at fault, he is reimbursed his deductible.

There's no requirement that you file a claim with your own policy first
in most states (barring no-fault states). I am perfectly allowed to
go pursue the at-fault party without involving my insurance company
here in Virginia. My insurance company even tells me this when I
file the report. Frankly, I always let them do it. It's what I
pay them for, and if they can't collect I'm still eligible to pursue
it (the only downside is if they settle for less than what I wanted,
but that's never heappened).




See, now to me that sounds a bit bizarre, bearing in mind I am used to
things working quite differently, and I do live a long way from you)

For car accidents here, each party has to claim from his/her insurance
and the insurance companies sort it out with each other. Although, in
this country, because there is no requirement for you to have car
insurance of any kind, there are plenty of uninsured people running
around, and if one of the hits me, I will still claim off my
insurance, but the insurance company will take the uninsured person to
court to recover their costs. Which would probably be repaid $5 a
week if they're poor.. Which is why, if you are broke but not stupid,
you will have 3rd party insurance. However, if your car is not
registered or has no WOF (Warrant of Fitness - 6 monthly inspection),
they will probably get nasty with you if you stack into someone

"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