Dentist sues Lidle's estate for $7M

[Maxman]

By SAMUEL MAULL, Associated Press Writer

document.write(getElapsed("20070301T235410Z"));Thu Mar 1, 6:54 PMUPDATED 17 HOURS AGO

NEW YORK - A dentist to the rich and famous has filed a $7 million lawsuit against the estate of late New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle, claiming his home was destroyed when the ballplayer's small airplane crashed into his apartment building.

Dr. Lawrence Rosenthal says in court papers that after Lidle's Cirrus SR-20 aircraft crashed into the Manhattan building where he lived with his wife and teenage son, they had to vacate their 43rd-floor apartment.

Rosenthal, whose patients include Donald Trump, Bruce Springsteen and Catherine Zeta-Jones, said his apartment sustained ``severe damage, including broken windows, smoke damage, loose bricks and extensive other damage'' that forced them out.

The plane, with Lidle and flight instructor Tyler Stanger aboard, hit the Upper East Side building on the 30th floor, 13 floors below Rosenthal's apartment, on Oct 11. Lidle, 34, and Stanger, 26, were killed in the crash.

The two had taken a midday flight past the Statue of Liberty and north up the East River. They apparently had trouble when they tried to turn and head south.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigated, but its report said it reached no final conclusions about the cause of the accident, nor did the agency's report say who was at the controls when the airplane crashed.

Rosenthal's lawyer, David Jaroslawicz, said Thursday that ``everything was destroyed'' in his client's home and the family has been renting while waiting to return. He said their home is actually three apartments joined to make one apartment that is worth ``several million dollars.''

Rosenthal's lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan state Supreme Court, names Lidle's wife, Melanie Lidle, as the defendant in her capacity as administratrix of her late husband's estate.

A lawyer for her, Robert N. Clarke Jr., issued a statement saying attorneys for the Lidle and Stanger families had filed wrongful-death lawsuits against Cirrus Design Corp., maker of the airplane, in California. He said the lawsuits allege product liability, negligence and other complaints.

A spokeswoman for Cirrus Design didn't immediately return messages left on her office phone and cell phone on Thursday.

Rosenthal was in the news in January, when he sued best-selling dating-book author Ellen Fein for $5 million after she called him a quack on the LyingDentist.com and BadDentist.com Web sites. She accused him of ruining her mouth.

The lawsuit accused Fein, author of ``The Rules,'' of defamation, harassment and extortion.

Fein's lawyer, Ann McGrane, said she planned to file a motion to dismiss Rosenthal's lawsuit, and she said she was sure it would be granted.

[timbok]

ok.. i don't get that but ok..

[ECURB]

ok.. i don't get that but ok..

Lidle's plane crashed into this guys house, he now has to sue Lidle for the money.

What dont you get?

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

What's the story here?

THE DOWNFALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Once again someone must be held acountable because there's no way that "Insert Name Here" could have effed up on his/own. No, it must be the plane's fault, the navigation system's fault, anyone else but the pilot's!!

And the apartment - apparently he doesn't have renters insurance? That's what it's freaking for!!! You should be able to sue for the deductible. THAT'S IT.

Lidle can't properly orient himself and smack's into a building - must be the airplane maker's fault.

Some guy crashes into your house, all of a sudden the insurance isn't enough.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. We go after responsibility on ALL the wrong matters in this country.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

[Maxman]

What's the story here?

THE DOWNFALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Once again someone must be held acountable because there's no way that "Insert Name Here" could have effed up on his/own. No, it must be the plane's fault, the navigation system's fault, anyone else but the pilot's!!

And the apartment - apparently he doesn't have renters insurance? That's what it's freaking for!!! You should be able to sue for the deductible. THAT'S IT.

Lidle can't properly orient himself and smack's into a building - must be the airplane maker's fault.

Some guy crashes into your house, all of a sudden the insurance isn't enough.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. We go after responsibility on ALL the wrong matters in this country.

I agree.

This guy in the apt has to be loaded. I understand that this was very tramatic. But you are going after blood money from a dead guys estate. At what point do you just say, wow pretty cool that we didn't get killed ourselves? And then just move on with your life.

When I was about 12 some guy hit a parked car in front of our house (my Dad's car) and damn near put it into our kitchen. Trashed our front lawn. You know what my Dad told me? He said he was so happy that I was playing a little league game when it happened instead of playing in the front yard. That thing would have killed me.

He counted his blessing and moved forward. Insurance took care of the damage and the car. No lawsuits because we were emotionally scarred or anything like that.

Enough is enough. I am with you GOB.

Now who else is with us? As a show of support we will go streaking through the quad at midnight. Let's GO.

[Arsis]

no streaking but I agree. people see everything that happens as a chance to make a quick buck that they didn't work for. This decades version of the get rich quick scheme: lawsuits. Is there a criteria needed to sue? I mean is there a limit on the crap you waste a courts time with?

[JetCane]

What's the story here?

THE DOWNFALL OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Once again someone must be held acountable because there's no way that "Insert Name Here" could have effed up on his/own. No, it must be the plane's fault, the navigation system's fault, anyone else but the pilot's!!

And the apartment - apparently he doesn't have renters insurance? That's what it's freaking for!!! You should be able to sue for the deductible. THAT'S IT.

Lidle can't properly orient himself and smack's into a building - must be the airplane maker's fault.

Some guy crashes into your house, all of a sudden the insurance isn't enough.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap. We go after responsibility on ALL the wrong matters in this country.

As someone who has earned a living DEFENDING people who are sued under their insurance policies, and who sees and exposes the mendacious and often fraudulent claims by sue-happy people on a regular basis, not to mention the distorting of the truth to pursue a claim against deep pocket parties, I can tell you that

YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!

[#27TheDominator]

As someone who has earned a living DEFENDING people who are sued under their insurance policies, and who sees and exposes the mendacious and often fraudulent claims by sue-happy people on a regular basis, not to mention the distorting of the truth to pursue a claim against deep pocket parties, I can tell you that

YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!

Ha. The guy had his entire apartment destroyed. Maybe he's not looking for a quick buck, maybe he's just looking to get back what he worked long and hard to earn. If the carrier would have ponied up, maybe he wouldn't have to sue. There are plenty of scumbag plaintiffs out there, but you can't tell me this is a fraudulent claim, I saw the guys apartment on fire. Unless you think it was his fault the plane crashed into his apartment? Did he camo the side or something?

[JetCane]

Ha. The guy had his entire apartment destroyed. Maybe he's not looking for a quick buck, maybe he's just looking to get back what he worked long and hard to earn. If the carrier would have ponied up, maybe he wouldn't have to sue. There are plenty of scumbag plaintiffs out there, but you can't tell me this is a fraudulent claim, I saw the guys apartment on fire. Unless you think it was his fault the plane crashed into his apartment? Did he camo the side or something?

I doubt it is that simple. You are a lawyer, so you should know that there are different ways to go about this.

He might have collected from his own insurer and is suing for the excess.

He may have collected from his insurer and then subrogated his rights, and they are suing under his name to be indemnified.

It could be a combination of the two.

I do know that every PD (property damage) claim i ever saw was initially grossly inflated, and had to be cut down to size. Do you think he had $7M but only insured it for $1M? Or, that his own compnay paid him what they thought his claim was worth, and now he is suing the estate for more? I doubt this guy was underinsured, being a dentist in NY, he knows about being insured for malpractice and other losses. I'll bet he is trying to put in an inflated claim after getting money from his own insurer.

I am sure this dentist will try to parlay this loss into a windfall. It's the American way.

[JetCane]

Here's another example:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256382,00.html

NEW ORLEANS — Only $1 billion of the $77 billion the city is seeking from the Army Corps of Engineers is for infrastructure damages it says it suffered because of levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina. The rest is for such things as the city's tarnished image and tourist industry losses.

The city "looked at everything and just kind of piled it on," Mayor Ray Nagin said.

"We got some advice from some attorneys to be aggressive with the number, and we'll see what happens," he said.

New Orleans has joined big business and thousands of homeowners in filing claims seeking compensation from the corps for damages sustained when the levees broke during the 2005 storm, flooding 80 percent of the city.

The claims allege poor design and negligence by the corps led to the failure of flood walls and levees.

[124]

If he's such a famous doctor I don't think he needs to be suing a family that just lost their husband, father, brother, son, etc. a total of $7 million. That's insane. This guy doesn't deserve to live and I for one hope that in due time, he isn't.

[Arsis]

anyone know the address of this guys new office. I'm gonna stop by on my way to school and kick him in the face for being such a classless jackass.

[Thai Jet]

You had me in stiches with this diagram !!! Couldn't agree more. People need to be responsible for their own actions, even wrong ones. Everyone's after the easy pay day.

[#27TheDominator]

I doubt it is that simple. You are a lawyer, so you should know that there are different ways to go about this.

He might have collected from his own insurer and is suing for the excess.

He may have collected from his insurer and then subrogated his rights, and they are suing under his name to be indemnified.

It could be a combination of the two.

I do know that every PD (property damage) claim i ever saw was initially grossly inflated, and had to be cut down to size. Do you think he had $7M but only insured it for $1M? Or, that his own compnay paid him what they thought his claim was worth, and now he is suing the estate for more? I doubt this guy was underinsured, being a dentist in NY, he knows about being insured for malpractice and other losses. I'll bet he is trying to put in an inflated claim after getting money from his own insurer.

I am sure this dentist will try to parlay this loss into a windfall. It's the American way.

So you have decided that this guy is trying to parlay this into a windfall? We all know that abuses occur, but to claim that it is "all the time" is as ignorant as thinking it never happens. As you are aware, it's a system where you cannot possibly get more than you ask for, so why should he ask for what you consider a reasonable amount and risk not getting the amount to which he is entitled? It is up to the courts and juries to come to the proper figure. You can't tell me that $7M for 3 apartments with a river view, all their contents and being displaced from their home for x amount of time is so far out of the realm of possibility. His insurance is irrelevant. As you know he can't "double dip" from both carriers.

If he's such a famous doctor I don't think he needs to be suing a family that just lost their husband, father, brother, son, etc. a total of $7 million. That's insane. This guy doesn't deserve to live and I for one hope that in due time, he isn't.

anyone know the address of this guys new office. I'm gonna stop by on my way to school and kick him in the face for being such a classless jackass.

You guys are a joke. The widow is suing the airplane company. She filed the first suit. What did this guy do other than have his apartment burned beyond recognition? Let somebody fly a plane into your house, God forbid, and see if you think you're entitled to damages. The widow has an attorney and insurance carrier to handle the claim. This guy didn't drive up to her house and scream at her that she has to pay him. Get a grip on the American system before you make stupid claims and threats. Corey Liddle's widow probably learned about this suit in paper, same as we did.

[JetCane]

I'm sure he has plenty of insurance, as it is generally required by most coop/condo associations. Fire, theft, liability, it is all standard. I bet he recovers millions from his own insurer, and then goes after the plane for whatever he can get.

Yes, ALL PD claims come in inflated, and it is naive to think otherwise.

But, we all pay for the lawsuit/claims abuses, by paying thru our noses in premiums on our own policies.

It is up to the courts and juries to come to the proper figure.

You dont think the judges in NYC know that every PD claim on their calendar is exaggerated? Please. I've been trying and settling cases in these courts with these judges for 20 years, and they know the score.

[#27TheDominator]

I'm sure he has plenty of insurance, as it is generally required by most coop/condo associations. Fire, theft, liability, it is all standard. I bet he recovers millions from his own insurer, and then goes after the plane for whatever he can get.

Yes, ALL PD claims come in inflated, and it is naive to think otherwise.

But, we all pay for the lawsuit/claims abuses, by paying thru our noses in premiums on our own policies.

You dont think the judges in NYC know that every PD claim on their calendar is exaggerated? Please. I've been trying and settling cases in these courts with these judges for 20 years, and they know the score.

That's the point. They are all exaggerated and if you brought one for the actual amount you wouldn't be able to settle for anywhere near the true value. It's not a perfect system, but to claim this guy is a scumbag is ridiculous. We don't pay through the nose for valid claims that are settled for the proper amount. You do this for a living, yet every plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney is crooked? If that's what you believe I truly feel sorry for you. Maybe if the scumbag carriers -you know who you are Allstate, Countrywide, etc, would make a fair offer before jury selection many more of these cases would settle.

As for this claim, the guy's ****ing apartment was engulfed in a ball of ****ing flame! He didn't leave the gas on, he came home to ashes. I saw it on tv, tell me he doesn't deserve to be put in the same position he was in before the fire. I repeat, if he recovered from his own insurance, he will not be able to recover for the same items and any recovery will be offset by that amount, so don't get all the lay people riled up like he's going to be double dipping and taking food from the Lidle's children. You said yourself that you don't even know if it's a subrogation claim, but you want to crucify this poor ****, even when it could be your beloved insurance carriers bringing the claim.

[JetCane]

You do this for a living, yet every plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney is crooked?

That depends on your definition of "crooked".

I have no love for insurance companies, either.

Here's the biggest difference between a plaintiff lawyer and an insurance claims examiner:

Claims examiner: Wow, she has bad injuries!

Plaintiff lawyer: Wow, she has good injuries!

[#27TheDominator]

That depends on your definition of "crooked".

I have no love for insurance companies, either.

Here's the biggest difference between a plaintiff lawyer and an insurance claims examiner:

Claims examiner: Wow, she has bad injuries!

Plaintiff lawyer: Wow, she has good injuries!

We're all scumbags. That's why nobody likes us, except (hopefully) the MILFs.

[JetCane]

We're all scumbags. That's why nobody likes us, except (hopefully) the MILFs.

True dat. We dont even like each other LOL.

I was called for jury duty last month, and when I was assigned to a pool of jurors in a courtroom, it turns out I knew the judge, as I had tried a case in front of him last year.

So, he calls me up to the bench and we start shmoozing. You should have seen the look on the faces of the two attorneys who were selecting the jury. They couldnt get rid of me fast enough. LOL.

[JetCane]

They are discussing this case on the BOR show. The dentist's lawyer agreed to come on, but backed out. They are stating his apartment WAS completely insured.

It was also brought out that this dentist is a litigious person and has filed numerous lawsuits before this one.

They are mentioning that it is odd (and probably incorrect) that he is suing Lidle and not Cirrus, who made the plane.

Part of the lawsuit is for $2M for EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Against Lidle's estate!? The guy is a total POS.

[mbn007]

They are discussing this case on the BOR show. The dentist's lawyer agreed to come on, but backed out. They are stating his apartment WAS completely insured.

It was also brought out that this dentist is a litigious person and has filed numerous lawsuits before this one.

They are mentioning that it is odd (and probably incorrect) that he is suing Lidle and not Cirrus, who made the plane.

Part of the lawsuit is for $2M for EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Against Lidle's estate!? The guy is a total POS.

If any combination of the above is true, then I do agree with you . He is worthless.

[#27TheDominator]

If any combination of the above is true, then I do agree with you . He is worthless.

Only one that is truly scum-baggy is suing for "emotional distress" though I've certainly seen the general public agree with less scumbaggy moves. The others may be evidence of worthlessness, but they are not sure-fire proof.

[JetCane]

Only one that is truly scum-baggy is suing for "emotional distress"

How many reasons do you need?

If a guy sucks one d1ck, he's gay.

[#27TheDominator]

How many reasons do you need?

If a guy sucks one d1ck, he's gay.

So does Tom Brady, but he still deserves to get paid.

[JetCane]

He is entitled to his first party benefits from his own insurance company.

He gets that without suing the estate.

But he shouldnt get a dime for emotional distress. F that.

[Arsis]

can you sue for emotional distress over frivolous lawsuits.

[#27TheDominator]

can you sue for emotional distress over frivolous lawsuits.

You can recover damages for defending frivolous lawsuits. Not for the "emotional distress" involved. I'm sure 'Cane has a clause he puts in almost every answer counterclaiming for damages/attorney's fees for defending against frivolous suits. It's the defense counsel version of suing for $3M when your claim is worth $25K.

The judge will almost never allow it. In this case the claim is not going to be deemed frivolous because the guy's apartment did burst into flames. It's a dick move to request "emotional distress" and I'm pretty sure he won't see and money for it, but I can't see it reaching the level of being frivolous.

I agree with 'Cane that the guy deserves his first party benefits. The question is do they cover his total loss? He might not have anticipated having his apartment burst into flames and be completely destroyed so his policy limits may well have been exhausted prior to paying for his total loss.

[JetCane]

I'm sure 'Cane has a clause he puts in almost every answer counterclaiming for damages/attorney's fees for defending against frivolous suits.

No, that is not a standard allegation in the Answers I prepare. It would be frivolous to claim that a prima facie meritorious claim is frivolous. I dont practice like that. I also read each of the allegations in the Complaint and will admit an obvious fact, such as the county where a party resides. I will deny what i dont know to be a true fact.

I rarely, RARELY have pursued sanctions against another atty. The last time I did was a couple of years ago, for what was essentially fradulent papers submitted to the court opposing my summary judgment motion. The court did impose sanctions on that one.

#27 I know we have no problem agreeing to disagree on some of the points here, as these are the types of issues frequently litigated. Ees all good, mon.

[#27TheDominator]

No, that is not a standard allegation in the Answers I prepare. It would be frivolous to claim that a prima facie meritorious claim is frivolous. I dont practice like that. I also read each of the allegations in the Complaint and will admit an obvious fact, such as the county where a party resides. I will deny what i dont know to be a true fact.

I rarely, RARELY have pursued sanctions against another atty. The last time I did was a couple of years ago, for what was essentially fradulent papers submitted to the court opposing my summary judgment motion. The court did impose sanctions on that one.

#27 I know we have no problem agreeing to disagree on some of the points here, as these are the types of issues frequently litigated. Ees all good, mon.

Yep Cane, it's all good. You admit the county? How big of you.

I've put requests for sanctions in my papers many times, but you can count the times I've really gone hard after them on one hand. Last time was a PI firm that had a kid that broke his arm in a public school playground. "Cane see if you can guess which firm. Only attorneys will understand the rest of this BS. I represented the Pentacostal church next door to the schoolyard. They couldn't tell me why they added the church as a party. Never responded to my summary judgment motion. Day the motion was heard, the City opposed saying that the kid said at his 50-h that the schoolyard was locked and "the priest" let him in. Called plaintiff's counsel, asked which priest, put in D&I demands they never responded.

Made another SJ motion and they opposed saying that it was premature because depositions hadn't been taken. City takes the depo. I ask two questions 1. what priest let you in to the schoolyard? 2. what church was he from? Kid names some Lutheran church about 20 blocks away. Request they drop the case against my clients. I'm told okay, send us a letter. I did. Phone calls, etc. After several months and the transcripts coming back, I make another motion to dismiss. They never oppose, but request adjournments 3 times. We consent. The 4th time they send a guy to the courtroom that isn't an attorney to answer the calendar and when the judge sees him he flips out screaming. They get an attorney there who says he can't withdraw the case, so I tell the judge I want sanctions etc.

I got sanctions and attorney's fees and we deserved them. My poor client was paying out of pocket because his carrier wouldn't defend because the property where the accident took place wasn't covered. The sanctions and attorney's fees at least covered the bill that poor sucker had been paying solely because of the incompetence of that firm and they had to bring another action with the right church as a party. Their lucky the kid was under 18 because otherwise they would have been barred by the statute of limitations. That PI firm has been bouncing around despite the fact that IIRC the first named partner was disbarred. They just made the wife a partner and kept the name. Oh, and in a 150 paragraph complaint they spelled Brooklyn in caps BRROKKLYN every single time.

[JetCane]

That PI firm has been bouncing around despite the fact that IIRC the first named partner was disbarred. They just made the wife a partner and kept the name.

I know exactly which firm this is.

I may have been in court when you won your motion! I heard the whole thing LOL. Of course, that stuff happens way to often, and it could have been a different case, too.