Wife of Former Yankee Lidle Sues Baseball’s Benefit Insurer

March 28, 2007

  • March 28, 2007 at 3:57 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    looks more like a money grubbing gold digging *****… oops i mean widow and attorney than the insurance carrier acting in bad faith. funny thing about people and not reading their insurance policies. the exclusions are right there in black and white and any 5th grader can understand them.

    Thanks for the laugh Hmmmm, your words are so true.

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:04 am
    Fred says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What does the flight plan that was filed say. Was he flying the plane or not. If Met cannot prove that he was flying the plane then they should pay.
    It is real simple. The reason the general public gets so upset with insurance is that they often immediately deny without proving their position. Just like in MS, if the house is gone, it must have been flood that caused it. They (State Farm) couldn\’t prove it
    There has to be a flight plan filed.

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:13 am
    Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    but uhm, what else is the insurance company supposed to do? If they feel as if there is some question as to the validity of the claim, don\’t they have every right to deny the claim until this can be investigated? What else could they do? Pay the claim, then investigate, find out the claim should be denied and make the widow pay them back? You can tell I don\’t work in claims since I am not sure this is the correct process. It seems to make more sense though (to investigate before paying out a claim). The article doesn\’t state why they refused to pay, so it\’s best to not make ASSumptions (oops!).

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:22 am
    Fred says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Please re-read. You just did make an ASSumption yourself

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:37 am
    Good for Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are correct, Jewel. AND show a lot of common sense. Don\’t need to be in claims to figure this one out. Besides, what difference does it make WHO filed the flight plan? Wouldn\’t expect anyone other than the trainer to do it, can you imagine him saying to his student…go file this for me so I don\’t have to.

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:38 am
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The MET policy said they would pay if the insured died in an accident as long as he was not a pilot. The widow has proven he died. MET now must prove he was the pilot to avoid paying.

    It is not unreasonable to expect MET to have to prove that he was the pilot — especially since they wrote the exclusion.

    Does anyone doubt that if the policy read, \”if the insured dies while acting as the pilot we will double the death benefit\”, that MET would be resisting paying double the death benefit until the widow could prove that he was the pilot?

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:45 am
    chad balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    do pilots get excluded for life benefits if they pitch since pitchers get excluded for pilotin\’ (or not acting like a passenger).

    let\’s review what we can determine:

    1. flight instructor on plane
    2. Cory Lidle on plane
    3. Plane has duel controls for flight instruction
    4. flight instructor probably being paid by hour…
    5. Lidle most likely paying instructor for flight lessons, that or he found a shortcut way around security, but seems like an expensive flight as instructor has to return…
    6. low flying building gets in the way
    7. Lidle probably really likes his instructor, and just pays he/she to fly him around town
    INSTRUCTOR:\”Hey Cory, want to take the controls?\”
    CORY:\”nah, I\’ll just sit back and leave it to the pro\’s, mr/ms flight instructor\”
    INSTRUCTOR:\”but Cory, you keep paying me, you really need to try this or I feel guilty for taking your money\”
    CORY:\”Yeah, but if I take the controls and goof up, my life policy won\’t pay out as much; I\’d rather let you, the instructor, crash this thing up than me\”

    policy terms: \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\”

    Was Lidle acting like a passenger? HMMM, let\’s see…he may have been acting like many things that day, a clown, a beekeeper, perhaps even a pitcher…but was he acting like a passenger? HMMMM….
    reviewing again: flight instructor, taking lessons from instructor, duel controls…yup, sounds like he was definitely a passenger!

    Shame on Met; why would they want to place a restriction in a life policy just because the RISK has changed? Please, name me one other athlete who has crashed his own plane…ok, name me a NY Yankee…oh crap, forgot about Thurmon Munson…

    come to think of it, maybe Met was justified by inserting this exclusion into their policy. What the heck, maybe the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO FLY A PLANE. That\’s probably one of the main reasons they don\’t hire baseball players to fly their planes; they use pilots instead. Go figure.

    Odd\’s are the pilots have a clause in their life policies that voids part of their coverage when they attempt to throw an inning of relief at Yankee Stadium, too.

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:46 am
    Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What ASSumption did I make Fred? Please enlighten me.

    Good for Jewel- lol- feels as if I am talking to myself when I call you by that name. But, thank you.

    Where does the burden of proof lie? With the plaintiff (in a criminal case this would be the DA) or the defendent (which would be the defense atty)?… but I realize this is a civil, not criminal case. But, usually it\’s the DA that has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendent is at fault for the \”crime\”. So, does the widow have to prove Mr. Lidle wasn\’t flying or does Met have to prove he was?

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:48 am
    Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sorry for the typo. :)

    Chad- You really need to stop posting. Your posts cause me to laugh so hard that people in the office will start to complain. Too funny! Thank you :)

  • March 28, 2007 at 4:56 am
    Adjuster, CFI says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They do have dual controls (as do most light aircraft). However, as soon as there was an emergency, it is more than likely Stanger took control of the aircraft. Any time a CFI is on board and in front of the controls, its assumed he is the Pilot in Command. As the aircraft had no requirement for a second in command, they have a good argument for Lidle being something of a passenger. Actual FAA regs get cloudy however, as for flight time logging, they could both be PIC (with Lidle technically receiving dual instruction).

    The bad portion of this case is the fact they have now sued Cirrus. These are the kind of lawsuits that put the small airplane manufacturers out of business before Congress rescued them. There was no indication of anything wrong with the airplane itself, only that a strong wind gust likely put them into the building. No reason to sue the airplane manufacturer other than greed.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*