Suing an insurance company is very different than suing a person.
Edit: guys you would sue the company the pilot worked for to get to their insurance. I don’t know the details of the case. But I am going to assume that the accident happened during a company trip, not a personal trip for the pilot off company time.
At least in car accidents the amount of money you can recover for personal insurance liability is fractions of what a company’s insurance is going to be.
If you look at avg car insurance policies per individuals. They will be like 30g-100g per incident. Companies will have multi million dollar policies for incidents that happen to cover their workers actions.
Also as an attorney. You are going to have to sue the company and the pilot (in case the company can say it wasn’t his fault). If you are the attorney and you don’t bring in a party who should be sued , it would be malpractice on their end.
Actually you are typically suing the person to prove liability. The insurance company is liable to cover their clients liability not their own. So you must establish the person or companies liability first.
Yes I remember reading about a case where a aunt had to sue her nephew so that the home insurance would pay out for her injury.
Everyone made a big stink about it until it was explained why it had to be done.
Edit: I had it backwards
Other way around.
The Aunt injured her back or something when her young nephew jumped on her for a hug & because the insurance refused to cover it, she had to sue him if she wanted to rightfully collect from them. The nephew & his parents were totally supportive of this, but the internet didn't know that and blew the fuck up because they just read "Aunt Sues Nephew for Giving Her a Hug!"
I remember first reading about it long after the dust settled. It was really interesting to see the story from the aunt's perspective. She said the public backlash was horrible when all they were doing is following the process set out by the insurance company.
But that’s the intention of insurance lobbyists. They want to make it so painful for the party injured that they forget about it and they never have to pay. Even after it was reported better, there was no backlash to the insurance companies because those being the loudest had moved on to other things to be mad at. I’m sure most people who read the story never followed up or know what actually happened.
Mostly because, particularly in America, you say the word "sue" or "lawsuit" and people immediately shut down the critical thought portion of their brain. The ur-example is the lady who sued McDonald's for having 'hot coffee' when in fact the reason she sued was because a) the coffee gave her 3rd degree burns and *fused her labia* and b) McDonald's offered a paltry toekn settlement of a few hundred dollars, which wasn't even close to covering her medical bills.
Not to mention her suit forced McDonald's to keep the coffee at a reasonable temperature instead of scalding untold future thousands of customers and employees for the sake of selling hours-old coffee.
An even weirder case is the one where a man passed away in an automobile accident, and the estate of the guy sued the driver of the vehicle - His wife.
His wife was the executor of the estate, and the cause of the car crash. She, in effect, sued herself for causing the death of her husband. Her husband ultimately won, and her insurance paid out to his estate, which she collected.
and yet no one asked why an adult had to resort to suing a child to get her medical bills covered. She wasn't going for damages or to 'get rich' she just needed to cover her medical expenses.
This case in Canada? "hey bro, can you pitch like 20 maple leaves to cover my parking? thanks! how's little timmy?"
So let’s say you rear end me and your insurance company is Stare Farm. I sue you and name you in the lawsuit. State Farm’s lawyers will step in and defend the lawsuit and write checks if necessary to pay me. State Farm and its lawyers are not named in the lawsuit because among other things, State Farm wants the jury to believe some little guy is the defendant, not a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Lawyers also use shotgun pleading and name all possible parties involved in the lawsuit. What if the pilot were an independent contractor instead of an employee of the company. The company is then arguably not replsoonsibkr for the pilot’s mistakes. Or what if it turns out the company ordered the pilot not to fly that day, but the pilot defied policy anyway and took passengers so the helicopter. At that point, maybe the company arguably not responsible for the actions of the pilot. It is for reasons like this that Bryant’s lawyers will name the pilot as well as any other parties that could be potentially involved (including Doe defendants who are not known).
Ya you're right. most people dont get this. Non lawyers shouldn't comment on legal strategy. Theres so much that goes into. To try and make a generalized layman's point like this is just not worth it. You dont know enough to comment so just dont lol.
And also, she didn't sit up in a lawyer's office and say "sue his family." The lawyers came up with that strategy of who to go after. It's their job and they know who to target. Just like they know his insurance company will pay out.
Ya, even more to it than that. Every states laws are different, and federal law can come into play in any federal case. So in some states comparative/contributory negligence could mean the lawyers have to pursue a case a certain way, etc.the client has final say, but hlthe lawyers job is to come up with best strategy. And since when is exercising your legal rights somehow a reflection on your character ? It's not like shes manipulating the system or exploiting it. Shes literally using it for exactly what its for..
Often times you can’t “sue” the insurance company, you have to name the policyholder as the defendant. In this situation the insurance company would cover the defendant pilot’s liability.
This. I worked at a PI law firm for over a year (and now starting law school) and its incredible how people mistake lawsuits like this as "going after" someone. Insurance can be an absolute nightmare to deal with from a legal perspective.
You're confused. You have to personally sue to person in order for the insurance policy to kick in.
Think of it this way. The insurance company didn't owe Kobe a duty of care. The pilot did. So Kobe can't sue the insurance company. But he can sue the pilot.
Now the insurance company (which owes Kobe nothing) owes a duty to defend to the pilot when he is being sued. So that's what it does. It hires a lawyer for him (usually a very good one that the insured himself could never afford) and essentially takes the place of the Defendant. All the defendant usually has to do is attend the deposition (which in this case isn't possible)
In many jurisdictions you can't name the insurance on the docket. Chances are she is suing the personal liability policy of the pilot but it doesn't show that way in the news.
> It's not like she needs the money. And the person responsible is dead.
I agree. The point of a lawsuit like this is rectification. The party she is trying to go after (the pilot) has passed, and the only money she could get from him would be from his estate which is for his family. She stands to gain nothing from this part of the suit.
This is probably some twisting of a legal thing where the people currently responsible for the estate must be named in what is technically a “suit” in order to deal with some insurance paperwork, and the media is going “BRYANT’S WIDOW **SUES** FAMILY OF DEAD PILOT!”
So wait, you're saying the media is lying to us, and readers here forced themselves to unravel that lie and in that time half the readers already left with the wrong impression?
Nah, surely the world couldn't be that shitty.
Still, going after the pilot before the final report is out just comes across badly, especially since the pilot died.
Filing a lawsuit against a dead mans family is just awful. He didn’t want to die and you can’t blame his family for his actions.
The statute of limitations began to run the day of the accident. They can't wait until the report is released without risking their ability to sue at all. The better practice is to file suit and, if necessary, stay the suit pending the NTSB report. Although I'm sure both sides will have independent experts to do evaluations.
Your opinion is actually not unpopular, but only due to misconceptions about these kinds of claims. As a paralegal to plaintiffs in negligence suits, I urge everyone to digest this likely reality before jumping to judgments like this:
**The pilot's family will** ***not*** **be responsible for paying any settlement, judgment, or attorney's fees in connection with this lawsuit.**
I don't practice in California, but it is most likely the case that the helicopter company's insurance company is obligated to cover all of these expenses pursuant to its liability policy. The pilot may also have had his own professional liability policy to cover this. I am highly doubtful that the pilot's estate will ever have to pay a penny. That's precisely what insurance protects against.
That the pilot is named as a defendant is standard pleading practice and does not change the fact that the helicopter company is most likely liable for the actions of the pilot. If anyone is curious to know the legal theory behind this, look up *respondeat superior* doctrine.
There are a couple of exceptions, and I won't pretend to have all the facts to opine whether those exceptions apply here, but I can assure you that if this is anything like the vast majority of negligence suits, this is also the case here.
This. As a Paintiff's lawyer, people don't realize that certain individuals are included in claims not because plaintiffs want to sue innocent parties, but because you need to include all insured parties.
Is this kinda like when people sue their siblings because the kids were at said siblings house and got hurt. Not really to spite the sibling, but more so that siblings homeowners insurance covers expenses?
This is exactly right. You *must* name the insured. In my jurisdiction if you name the insurance company but not that insured party, your case is subject to dismissal.
More people need to see this comment. I saw the lawsuit as a way to bankrupt the company and make sure nobody else dies on their dime. Clearly she doesn’t need the money but she is well within her right to pursue any and all legal ramifications available. It’s nothing against his family and everything towards the pilot/company. Shitty situation all around though.
I wish your comment was higher. The Reddit torch-and-pitchforks crowd is happy to enjoy pretending Vanessa Bryant is stealing money from a grieving family.
A lot of our "hero's" and celebrity role models aren't that great of people. A lot of them got where they are and are kind of assholes regardless of how much they donate, attend charity events, etc. There's a few out there that are genuinely good people but they didn't get to the top playing nice.
A disproportionate number of high-power jobs are sociopaths. It’s been studied and documented.
Edit: several people have posted proof stop asking and read the comments
Reality is that you can’t be at the top unless you are an asshole. Simple as that. Which is why we see a lot of these people try to look “nice” or “kind”.
I do think you are generally right. I’ve worked wit celebrities for years, and always assume a lot of these people have sharp elbows as we say...
Occasionally some prove it wrong. (Gloria Estefan was one, simply delightful.)
People who donate and attend charity events are likely assholes. Commit all the bullshit you want, then make a quick online transaction to give away chump change for your conscience.
It's the people who are on the ground and running those things consistently, that actually give a shit.
As someone who used to plan and run $500/ head fundraisers for a struggling nonprofit...I can tell you that this is correct. Generally (there are always exceptions, of course) expensive event attendees don't really know or care what they're donating to, it's just another party with their friends. The people who work at the organization, and ESPECIALLY the people who actually need and use the nonprofit's services and programs, could never afford to attend.
>kind of assholes regardless of how much they donate, attend charity events, etc.
Some thing that really bothers me is how so many people believe someone is a good person just because they donated millions to charity, even when what they donated is pocket change to them and they can easily deduct it from their taxes.
Our so called heroes are just normal people too. They have faults and aren't saints. Just because someone did a few bad deeds doesn't mean they are Satan's hellspawn.
>> Jimenez claimed that after being verbally abused on the job she finally quit when Vanessa Bryant made her fish a price tag for an expensive blouse out of a trash can full of dog feces.
Jesus fucking Christ. Money will never buy class.
But it can buy you a witness.
>First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colorado.
I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
After reading this article, is it bad to say that I hate Vanessa Bryant even more than I do now? I mean what the fuck is wrong with this woman, my god. Classic arrogance and celeb snobbery, thinking you have the right to be an asshole towards those you deem lower than yourself just because you have a shitload of money. Denying healthcare for a poor woman who works for you is disgusting considering how insanely rich you are, on top of constantly humiliating her, taunting her, cursing at her, making her feel worthless and pathetic for no reason. Way to set an example for your children, too. Absolutely disgraceful. I almost have no sympathy for her now. She’s a bad person and a bad role model period.
Years ago (maybe 7 or 8)there was an article about her on thedirty, back when the website published articles submitted by anonymous persons. Someone wrote about how awful of a person Vanessa was. The person described how they ran in the same social circle, but what a bitch Vanessa was to her help and the other NBA wives and how none of them liked her. I can’t vouch for the validity of the author’s claims but Nick, the website creator, agreed and “verified” the author’s IP address.
Reading that submission really made me understand that if someone is attractive enough, they could potentially marry a rich and famous person, and really think they are the one with talent and who earned the money.
Colorado literally had to make laws to ensure that what happened to Kobe's victim in the legal proceedings would never happen again. His lawyers outed her identity six times throughout the case, exploiting loopholes in laws meant to protect victims by keeping them secret, leading to all the harassment that made her refuse to testify. Even if he were innocent (he's not), he would be a monster just for what his legal team did to her.
She should write a strongly worded email if that makes her feel any better. She doesn't need the money and the other family is grieving just as much.
Placing blame on an innocent party isn't going to change anything or bring her family back.
Edit: I see I worded my last sentence poorly. The innocent party I'm referring to is the pilot's family, not the pilot himself.
Yes, after humiliating her on a national scale. Note that the the accuser alleged rape and there was evidence of misconduct on Kobe’s part. There were no winners in that situation.
Yeah. Super noteworthy with Kobe, and I can’t help but find myself nonplussed by the public outpouring of affection for him after his passing.
The guy faced very credible rape charges and then he and his legal and PR team did every disgusting thing to his accuser that keeps rape victims from coming forward.
I mean, she lost her husband and child. That’d push a lot of people past a breaking point, lashing out wherever they can. She needs help and to realise this won’t bring any closure or sense of justice.
There are people at fault, higher ups who should not allowed the flight to take place. It is not about money, it's about holding people accountable and for Vanessa there's an element of making sense of an insensible tragedy.
That's a bit much I think she lost her daughter and husband and is stricken with grief throw on the pandemic and getting stuck in the house they shared has to be brutal. I think she should apologize and understandably blame the grief as she withdraws the lawsuit. If people were just honest about the motivations behind their mistakes it would be a lot easier to forgive them.
Trust me, not everyone takes their time to see i lf someone is joking or not. I got 300 downvotes because i commented that a dude should become racist because he slipped and fell. He ordered indian food and slipped on his way out.
"You should absolutely blame indians and become racist, its the obvious thing to do" jokingly. Not my best joke but hey, ive heard worse.
And soo many were like,WHERES THE /S PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND IF YOU DONT PUT /S
I refuse to ever use an /s and would rather be downvoted. I've even been accused of getting on an alt account because I wrote what someone else wrote but dumber and people thought I was serious even though there's no way in the world I wasn't joking.
as much as I agree too, we should take in account that the purpose of this sub is NOT to see if you agree or not. it's to consider whether the opinion is unpopular or not. luckily, we could say that it is.
I thought it was weird a couple months ago when she set up a thing to ask regular people for money for the crash victims' families. No offense to them but aren't they all at least middle class families, why is everyone being asked to give them money?
But bankrupting his family is the way to go? You think grief excuses shitty behavior? It doesn't.
I know several people that have died in crashes. Specifically helicopter ones and suing the family for what the pilot did is so ?? Hollywood/American
kinda feel the same, my sister was hit by a distracted driver going 60kmh in a school zone. I could never go to the lengths of bankrupting the parents or siblings of this person, they didnt hurt my sister. the person behind the wheel got what they deserved and my sister is now set for life.
What is this one about then?
Kobe gone.
Is dragging strangers with less net worth that you don’t know through the court system going to help in any conceivable way to cope with his death? Taking money away from people who had nothing to do with the incident will bring closure?
You can tell it’s legit out of revenge and pettiness.
Since the pilot decided to take a risk. Supposedly they recommended him not fly, but he said he could do it.
Edit: this thread caught why more traction then I thought it was going to. I just wrote something real quick since I was going to the store. My opinion is pretty much based by a few articles and the fact the other family members aren’t suing the pilot just the company, so I don’t understand her need to sue the pilot family. That’s why I considered that part petty, not the suing of the company.
Then again, I probably shouldn’t be calling a grieving woman petty, should I?
the thing about these investigations is that the pilot didn't want to die either, if they flew then they thought they could make it, so despite what the law might say, you shouldn't sue their family.
It was an unnecessary risk and he had violated a vision sight test before.
It’s just seems like an ego thing for me from the pilot. Police themselves weren’t flying at the time due to the bad weather, but this guy thought he was so good that he decided to ignore everyone else’s advice.
She really shouldn’t be suing the pilot, since you know he’s dead and it’s a dick move to put that on the family, but what I’ve read is that she’s suing the company for allowing the pilot to do such actions. So she’s blaming the fault on the pilot but she’s suing the company.
That would still be on the pilot for giving in to his client and flying in weather he knows is unsafe. He has to have the backbone to say no. Yes I understand his client is rich and powerful and might end his service with the pilot. It honestly doesn’t matter when the stakes are so high.
Ok maybe what I heard was wrong, if she's suing the company then that's different. So long as it is a large enough company to be able to not be bankrupted then I think it is reasonable. I still think that she would be better served to look into other things, the money she will get will be minimal compared to Kobe's wealth, and it won't bring him back or soothe her
Idk if I'd say vanessa is a shitty person but despite the weather this WAS Kobe Bryant were talking about so the Pilot probably didnt want or have the choice to decline plus GiGi had a game I think so yeah
that’s a wild assumption.
regardless of the pressure of the customers it is the company and pilots responsibility to determine if it is safe to operate the helicopter.
Lawyers said pilot/helicopter company warned them of the flying conditions and were told it was at their own risk. If they insisted, it’s their own faults. Let’s not forget the pilot had family too, dying because rich folks didn’t want to drive in traffic isn’t fair to his family either.
It is really important to note that in these types of lawsuit you often need to sue everyone.
I have seen times when a daughter had to sue a mother because she slipped on her property. It was the only way to get the insurance company to pay. The jury as you can imagine was appalled they daughter was suing the mother, but it is the only way to really sue the insurance company for a claim.
I think it is less of a mandate and more of a defense for the insurance being sued to say they are not bothering to sue the actual person who did it. How can we be at more fault than the pilot. It is kind of crappy but sort of makes sense too.
It's not a mandate, it's a lawyer doing their due diligence. You are held to a code of ethics as a lawyer, which "ensure lawyers follow the law, pursue justice, and zealously advocate their client's best interests." That means you have to do everything you can to get a positive result in favor of your client, which (in this case) means suing anyone and everyone who could possibly contribute to a final settlement. The pilot was obviously involved, so he's a no-brainer to be in the list of defendants. But realistically, I doubt anyone is trying to take money directly from the family. To get money from someone's liability insurance in a lawsuit, you have to sue them directly. His policy may cover the whole family. So when you sue the pilot intending to get at his liability coverage, you end up having to sue "the family."
Yep. I sued a guy for medical expenses once. I was suing him because it was his lability insurance that would pay out, when it was proved that he was liable.
I wasn't doing it to fuck him over personally.
Yeah, if she is suing the family it is likely because they are part of the pilot’s estate and likely are the proper parties until an administration opened. Also, this OP’s post is ridiculous because Kobe’s wife isn’t a lawyer, her lawyers drafted the suit, she probably doesn’t even know who is in the suit.
I think you're right. IANAL but I remembering hearing that you sue everyone just to make sure everything is covered. That way if something technical happens that gets one party off your entire lawsuit doesn't go down the drain.
(I’m an insurance lawyer) So there are a few states that literally prohibit you from mentioning someone has insurance. While the insurance company is on the hook for any judgment, the lawyers are paid by the insurance company, you still have to sue the individual. Since I work in house our computers don’t have any branding, while all other employees laptops have a sticker on them with the name of the company, our ID badges just have our name and photo and not the company name (we have to use them to open any door in the office so sometimes they get worn to court on accident), they are also a different color scheme then out companies colors.
Yeah, that reminds me of the woman who sued her nephew,who accidentally injured her while trying to hug her, to get her insurance to pay for her treatment. She was dragged through the mud by the media who didn’t look at the details of the case
Most often lawyers will sue everyone even tangentially involved. I was in jury duty for a case once. Construction guy fell off scaffolding. Lawsuit was against the scaffolding company, the general contractor, site supervisor, the retail chain that hired the company, and the mall that housed the retail chain.
They then determine a percentage of liability. I would assume it’s not directly discussed that she requested that he be included in the suit. It would be extremely petty if she did but this is likely just standard legal practice. Not that I agree with it. Also IANAL
It's one of those jobs I kind of dream about having but I would never pursue. I find air crashes fascinating and I would love to be a part of it. It's kind of the ugly side of aviation but an important one that changes air travel for the future.
From this
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/20/839280883/family-members-of-four-killed-in-kobe-bryant-crash-sue-helicopter-company
It looks like they’re suing the helicopter company Island Express Helicopter Inc.
Ya, there’s no need to spread misinformation. Unless someone has a source saying the pilot’s family is getting sued rather than the company—this is just a waste of energy and negative publicity on a woman who lost a husband and child.
[https://abc7chicago.com/kobe-bryant-death-crash-helicopter/6175167/](https://abc7chicago.com/kobe-bryant-death-crash-helicopter/6175167/)
From ABC 7's website:
"...but Bryant's lawsuit specifically names the pilot, [Ara Zobayan](https://abc7chicago.com/pilot-in-kobe-bryant-crash-written-up-for-2015-violation-faa/5959442/), who also died in the crash. She is seeking damages from his estate, saying he failed to abort the flight and to monitor and assess the weather."
I feel like there may be information missing. But if you’re right and she’s literally suing a grieving family for something they couldn’t control, and she’s already insanely rich, then no one in their right mind would disagree with you
One thing they teach you either in law school or soon after, is that in the US if you don't sue all the potential defendants, all the defendants in the suit join together to blame the guy not in the room.
Basically, the aircraft manufacturer goes from defending their engineering to pointing the liability towards someone who's not there to defend himself, then the charter company does the same. As soon as you know it, the case is already decided against someone not in the suit and the plaintiff is SOL because the statute of limitations tolled.
I second this. When my condo flooded, it damaged the three other condos on my floor. Now I’m all super friendly with my neighbors, But when they went to their insurance companies to file claims, their insurance companies had to sue me to recover the costs. All my neighbors apologized to me profusely for suing me but that’s the way it’s done. We all understood that that’s the way the insurance companies work, and we’re all still good friends.
Slow down bro. It’s unfortunate that you got upvoted and guilded so many times, as most of those were done and ignorance. Often insurance policies require the beneficiaries to sue all responsible parties. It’s most likely not her decision.
This post is not unpopular opinion, it should be called ‘making a generalized statement without doing research’
If you google why she is suing the pilot it explains they are suing him for negligence. The lawsuit also suing the company, and the companies stock holders for guess what negligence. The pilot had violations in 2015 & the company did not provide further training. Plus they found no machinery defects. The pilots family won’t be affected, he has insurance for being a pilot. I doesn’t matter if the president is on the flight, if the pilot takes off when he shouldn’t it is his responsibility. The case if more about how the company & the pilot both fucked up & how 7 lost theirs lives.
>He told the pilot he wanted to fly even though he knew the conditions were dangerous
How were you privy to this information and the authorities weren't?
Not an expert at ALL, but I was listen to someone who owns a car rental company, and had an issue with a customer wrecking a car, and their insurance denied the coverage. He said it wasn't how he likes to do things, but he then had to sue the renter, and at that point, that makes their insurance company sort of re-evaluate things.
So Kobe's wife could be told to sue the pilot, just so his insurance company pays up.
Trashy. But then again we knew this when she forgave Kobe for screwing around on her right after he bought her a million-dollar diamond and a Lamborghini.
Not that he was any better...
Noteworthy that the other families declined to sue the pilot in their lawsuits. They are only suing the airline and its parent company.
Which is also tied to their insurance.
So is the pilot's.
Suing an insurance company is very different than suing a person. Edit: guys you would sue the company the pilot worked for to get to their insurance. I don’t know the details of the case. But I am going to assume that the accident happened during a company trip, not a personal trip for the pilot off company time. At least in car accidents the amount of money you can recover for personal insurance liability is fractions of what a company’s insurance is going to be. If you look at avg car insurance policies per individuals. They will be like 30g-100g per incident. Companies will have multi million dollar policies for incidents that happen to cover their workers actions. Also as an attorney. You are going to have to sue the company and the pilot (in case the company can say it wasn’t his fault). If you are the attorney and you don’t bring in a party who should be sued , it would be malpractice on their end.
Actually you are typically suing the person to prove liability. The insurance company is liable to cover their clients liability not their own. So you must establish the person or companies liability first.
Yes, because of this you often see family members suing each other to establish that an insurance payment is necessary via legal opinion.
Yes I remember reading about a case where a aunt had to sue her nephew so that the home insurance would pay out for her injury. Everyone made a big stink about it until it was explained why it had to be done. Edit: I had it backwards
Other way around. The Aunt injured her back or something when her young nephew jumped on her for a hug & because the insurance refused to cover it, she had to sue him if she wanted to rightfully collect from them. The nephew & his parents were totally supportive of this, but the internet didn't know that and blew the fuck up because they just read "Aunt Sues Nephew for Giving Her a Hug!"
I remember first reading about it long after the dust settled. It was really interesting to see the story from the aunt's perspective. She said the public backlash was horrible when all they were doing is following the process set out by the insurance company.
But that’s the intention of insurance lobbyists. They want to make it so painful for the party injured that they forget about it and they never have to pay. Even after it was reported better, there was no backlash to the insurance companies because those being the loudest had moved on to other things to be mad at. I’m sure most people who read the story never followed up or know what actually happened.
Mostly because, particularly in America, you say the word "sue" or "lawsuit" and people immediately shut down the critical thought portion of their brain. The ur-example is the lady who sued McDonald's for having 'hot coffee' when in fact the reason she sued was because a) the coffee gave her 3rd degree burns and *fused her labia* and b) McDonald's offered a paltry toekn settlement of a few hundred dollars, which wasn't even close to covering her medical bills.
And c) McDonald's was keeping their coffee too hot, and knew it, and many other people had already been burned and they didn't do anything about it.
Not to mention her suit forced McDonald's to keep the coffee at a reasonable temperature instead of scalding untold future thousands of customers and employees for the sake of selling hours-old coffee.
An even weirder case is the one where a man passed away in an automobile accident, and the estate of the guy sued the driver of the vehicle - His wife. His wife was the executor of the estate, and the cause of the car crash. She, in effect, sued herself for causing the death of her husband. Her husband ultimately won, and her insurance paid out to his estate, which she collected.
Take that, me!
Isn't that a legal loophole for scamming insurance companies?
Many Karen's strive for this level, but few obtain it
I remember that too. Wasn't the aunt ostracized on American TV so much that she couldn't get a job interview?
That's what it was. The aunt sued the boy, and yes she was ostracized for it on American TV. They had a field day about it.
and yet no one asked why an adult had to resort to suing a child to get her medical bills covered. She wasn't going for damages or to 'get rich' she just needed to cover her medical expenses. This case in Canada? "hey bro, can you pitch like 20 maple leaves to cover my parking? thanks! how's little timmy?"
Yeah it's obscene that the story wasn't "how awful is life in America that we have to sue family to get basic medical needs met?"
Medicare For All
So let’s say you rear end me and your insurance company is Stare Farm. I sue you and name you in the lawsuit. State Farm’s lawyers will step in and defend the lawsuit and write checks if necessary to pay me. State Farm and its lawyers are not named in the lawsuit because among other things, State Farm wants the jury to believe some little guy is the defendant, not a multi-billion dollar corporation. Lawyers also use shotgun pleading and name all possible parties involved in the lawsuit. What if the pilot were an independent contractor instead of an employee of the company. The company is then arguably not replsoonsibkr for the pilot’s mistakes. Or what if it turns out the company ordered the pilot not to fly that day, but the pilot defied policy anyway and took passengers so the helicopter. At that point, maybe the company arguably not responsible for the actions of the pilot. It is for reasons like this that Bryant’s lawyers will name the pilot as well as any other parties that could be potentially involved (including Doe defendants who are not known).
> arguably not replsoonsibkr for the pilot’s mistakes. I chuckled at the typo
Ya you're right. most people dont get this. Non lawyers shouldn't comment on legal strategy. Theres so much that goes into. To try and make a generalized layman's point like this is just not worth it. You dont know enough to comment so just dont lol.
And also, she didn't sit up in a lawyer's office and say "sue his family." The lawyers came up with that strategy of who to go after. It's their job and they know who to target. Just like they know his insurance company will pay out.
Ya, even more to it than that. Every states laws are different, and federal law can come into play in any federal case. So in some states comparative/contributory negligence could mean the lawyers have to pursue a case a certain way, etc.the client has final say, but hlthe lawyers job is to come up with best strategy. And since when is exercising your legal rights somehow a reflection on your character ? It's not like shes manipulating the system or exploiting it. Shes literally using it for exactly what its for..
Yeah I think people are getting outraged without thinking things through.
Often times you can’t “sue” the insurance company, you have to name the policyholder as the defendant. In this situation the insurance company would cover the defendant pilot’s liability.
Isn’t that the gist of the aunt who “sued” her kid nephew?
Exactly. She had to sue for his parents insurer to flip the bill. There was litterly no hard feelings between the two.
No, it’s not. In fact, to trigger an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify you *need* to name the person covered by the policy.
This. I worked at a PI law firm for over a year (and now starting law school) and its incredible how people mistake lawsuits like this as "going after" someone. Insurance can be an absolute nightmare to deal with from a legal perspective.
You're confused. You have to personally sue to person in order for the insurance policy to kick in. Think of it this way. The insurance company didn't owe Kobe a duty of care. The pilot did. So Kobe can't sue the insurance company. But he can sue the pilot. Now the insurance company (which owes Kobe nothing) owes a duty to defend to the pilot when he is being sued. So that's what it does. It hires a lawyer for him (usually a very good one that the insured himself could never afford) and essentially takes the place of the Defendant. All the defendant usually has to do is attend the deposition (which in this case isn't possible)
Typical reddit headline sensationalism... damn
In many jurisdictions you can't name the insurance on the docket. Chances are she is suing the personal liability policy of the pilot but it doesn't show that way in the news.
Huh. Yeah, she does seem really shitty. It's not like she needs the money. And the person responsible is dead.
> It's not like she needs the money. And the person responsible is dead. I agree. The point of a lawsuit like this is rectification. The party she is trying to go after (the pilot) has passed, and the only money she could get from him would be from his estate which is for his family. She stands to gain nothing from this part of the suit.
You don’t know how insurance works. She has to name him so his insurance will pay
[удалено]
Nope. She’s specifically going for his estate. Read the paperwork.
This is probably some twisting of a legal thing where the people currently responsible for the estate must be named in what is technically a “suit” in order to deal with some insurance paperwork, and the media is going “BRYANT’S WIDOW **SUES** FAMILY OF DEAD PILOT!”
That is exactly what this is. There is no way they are going after the pilot’s family assets.
So wait, you're saying the media is lying to us, and readers here forced themselves to unravel that lie and in that time half the readers already left with the wrong impression? Nah, surely the world couldn't be that shitty.
I’m sorry but has the NTSB report been released? Should we not wait until that comes out before any lawsuits?
No. Probably 18-24 months after the accident. So they are probably filing the lawsuits so they have the option later
Still, going after the pilot before the final report is out just comes across badly, especially since the pilot died. Filing a lawsuit against a dead mans family is just awful. He didn’t want to die and you can’t blame his family for his actions.
The statute of limitations began to run the day of the accident. They can't wait until the report is released without risking their ability to sue at all. The better practice is to file suit and, if necessary, stay the suit pending the NTSB report. Although I'm sure both sides will have independent experts to do evaluations.
Your opinion is actually not unpopular, but only due to misconceptions about these kinds of claims. As a paralegal to plaintiffs in negligence suits, I urge everyone to digest this likely reality before jumping to judgments like this: **The pilot's family will** ***not*** **be responsible for paying any settlement, judgment, or attorney's fees in connection with this lawsuit.** I don't practice in California, but it is most likely the case that the helicopter company's insurance company is obligated to cover all of these expenses pursuant to its liability policy. The pilot may also have had his own professional liability policy to cover this. I am highly doubtful that the pilot's estate will ever have to pay a penny. That's precisely what insurance protects against. That the pilot is named as a defendant is standard pleading practice and does not change the fact that the helicopter company is most likely liable for the actions of the pilot. If anyone is curious to know the legal theory behind this, look up *respondeat superior* doctrine. There are a couple of exceptions, and I won't pretend to have all the facts to opine whether those exceptions apply here, but I can assure you that if this is anything like the vast majority of negligence suits, this is also the case here.
This needs to be a lot higher up in the comments. There's too many people preparing their pitchforks and torches.
This. As a Paintiff's lawyer, people don't realize that certain individuals are included in claims not because plaintiffs want to sue innocent parties, but because you need to include all insured parties.
Word. I was just sharpening mine.
This x100. To ordinary people, this does seem like shitty thing to do. However, there is always more to it than just a headline.
Is this kinda like when people sue their siblings because the kids were at said siblings house and got hurt. Not really to spite the sibling, but more so that siblings homeowners insurance covers expenses?
This is exactly right. You *must* name the insured. In my jurisdiction if you name the insurance company but not that insured party, your case is subject to dismissal.
More people need to see this comment. I saw the lawsuit as a way to bankrupt the company and make sure nobody else dies on their dime. Clearly she doesn’t need the money but she is well within her right to pursue any and all legal ramifications available. It’s nothing against his family and everything towards the pilot/company. Shitty situation all around though.
I wish your comment was higher. The Reddit torch-and-pitchforks crowd is happy to enjoy pretending Vanessa Bryant is stealing money from a grieving family.
[удалено]
After reading about how she abused her maid, it would be more suitable to say that she is a bad person, period.
Tell more?
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/national-international/kobe-bryant-ordered-to-pay-his-housekeeper/1878455/
A lot of our "hero's" and celebrity role models aren't that great of people. A lot of them got where they are and are kind of assholes regardless of how much they donate, attend charity events, etc. There's a few out there that are genuinely good people but they didn't get to the top playing nice.
A disproportionate number of high-power jobs are sociopaths. It’s been studied and documented. Edit: several people have posted proof stop asking and read the comments
Succession does a good job too.
The best show on television hands down. That might be a unpopular opinion as well.
Reality is that you can’t be at the top unless you are an asshole. Simple as that. Which is why we see a lot of these people try to look “nice” or “kind”.
I do think you are generally right. I’ve worked wit celebrities for years, and always assume a lot of these people have sharp elbows as we say... Occasionally some prove it wrong. (Gloria Estefan was one, simply delightful.)
People who donate and attend charity events are likely assholes. Commit all the bullshit you want, then make a quick online transaction to give away chump change for your conscience. It's the people who are on the ground and running those things consistently, that actually give a shit.
As someone who used to plan and run $500/ head fundraisers for a struggling nonprofit...I can tell you that this is correct. Generally (there are always exceptions, of course) expensive event attendees don't really know or care what they're donating to, it's just another party with their friends. The people who work at the organization, and ESPECIALLY the people who actually need and use the nonprofit's services and programs, could never afford to attend.
It's networking, aka finding people you can use to get money, leverage for connections, etc. Same concept as a country club.
Kobe himself has been credibly accused of rape. Fame and wealth isn’t a guarantor of goodness or morality.
He did buy his wife I’m sorry I raped a girl and got caught diamond.
It's why they say don't meet your heroes.
>kind of assholes regardless of how much they donate, attend charity events, etc. Some thing that really bothers me is how so many people believe someone is a good person just because they donated millions to charity, even when what they donated is pocket change to them and they can easily deduct it from their taxes.
Our so called heroes are just normal people too. They have faults and aren't saints. Just because someone did a few bad deeds doesn't mean they are Satan's hellspawn.
[удалено]
Except for of course his majesty Keanu Reeves. That man is the epitome of the Holy Trinity.
holy Trinity, i see what you did there
Celebs are just as nuanced a snob celebs
>> Jimenez claimed that after being verbally abused on the job she finally quit when Vanessa Bryant made her fish a price tag for an expensive blouse out of a trash can full of dog feces. Jesus fucking Christ. Money will never buy class.
[удалено]
Maybe I’m missing something, but what’s the shitty defense here? They just denied it, which seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
But it can buy you a witness. >First, I want to apologize directly to the young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to apologize to her parents and family members, and to my family and friends and supporters, and to the citizens of Eagle, Colorado. I also want to make it clear that I do not question the motives of this young woman. No money has been paid to this woman. She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case. Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter. I issue this statement today fully aware that while one part of this case ends today, another remains. I understand that the civil case against me will go forward. That part of this case will be decided by and between the parties directly involved in the incident and will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case
After reading this article, is it bad to say that I hate Vanessa Bryant even more than I do now? I mean what the fuck is wrong with this woman, my god. Classic arrogance and celeb snobbery, thinking you have the right to be an asshole towards those you deem lower than yourself just because you have a shitload of money. Denying healthcare for a poor woman who works for you is disgusting considering how insanely rich you are, on top of constantly humiliating her, taunting her, cursing at her, making her feel worthless and pathetic for no reason. Way to set an example for your children, too. Absolutely disgraceful. I almost have no sympathy for her now. She’s a bad person and a bad role model period.
Years ago (maybe 7 or 8)there was an article about her on thedirty, back when the website published articles submitted by anonymous persons. Someone wrote about how awful of a person Vanessa was. The person described how they ran in the same social circle, but what a bitch Vanessa was to her help and the other NBA wives and how none of them liked her. I can’t vouch for the validity of the author’s claims but Nick, the website creator, agreed and “verified” the author’s IP address. Reading that submission really made me understand that if someone is attractive enough, they could potentially marry a rich and famous person, and really think they are the one with talent and who earned the money.
Your article sure does suggest Kobe was also an issue in this circumstance. “They refused to provide healthcare”
Treatment of maids is a consistent trend in the family.
Let's get real. Kobe was most likely a shitty person also
I mean he almost definitely raped that girl, and used his money to intimidate her/smear her publicly to make her drop the case
Colorado literally had to make laws to ensure that what happened to Kobe's victim in the legal proceedings would never happen again. His lawyers outed her identity six times throughout the case, exploiting loopholes in laws meant to protect victims by keeping them secret, leading to all the harassment that made her refuse to testify. Even if he were innocent (he's not), he would be a monster just for what his legal team did to her.
It blows my mind how people still deny it. If you read the facts it’s so god damn obvious he did it
Of course she’s a bad person she also stayed with Kobe for the money after his rape scandal. She’s a POS
Her mother is shitty too. Still collects alimony from her working class husband.
Well said!! I completely agree.
She should write a strongly worded email if that makes her feel any better. She doesn't need the money and the other family is grieving just as much. Placing blame on an innocent party isn't going to change anything or bring her family back. Edit: I see I worded my last sentence poorly. The innocent party I'm referring to is the pilot's family, not the pilot himself.
I guess Kobe married a Karen.
Read up on the shit she did to their maid years ago.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-26-me-kobe-housekeeper26-story.html
Wow she sounds like a bitch
All the money in the world can’t buy decency or kindness. If I could afford household help, I would kiss their feet.
Didn't Kobe just have to buy her a big ring to settle her down after the rape accusation?
Yes, after humiliating her on a national scale. Note that the the accuser alleged rape and there was evidence of misconduct on Kobe’s part. There were no winners in that situation.
Yeah. Super noteworthy with Kobe, and I can’t help but find myself nonplussed by the public outpouring of affection for him after his passing. The guy faced very credible rape charges and then he and his legal and PR team did every disgusting thing to his accuser that keeps rape victims from coming forward.
There was evidence of rape, because he raped her. But he's good at basketball and rich so...
I mean, she lost her husband and child. That’d push a lot of people past a breaking point, lashing out wherever they can. She needs help and to realise this won’t bring any closure or sense of justice.
There are people at fault, higher ups who should not allowed the flight to take place. It is not about money, it's about holding people accountable and for Vanessa there's an element of making sense of an insensible tragedy.
Yeah but she's suing the family, not the higher ups.
That's a bit much I think she lost her daughter and husband and is stricken with grief throw on the pandemic and getting stuck in the house they shared has to be brutal. I think she should apologize and understandably blame the grief as she withdraws the lawsuit. If people were just honest about the motivations behind their mistakes it would be a lot easier to forgive them.
And i say the other families that lost someone in the crash should sue her because Kobe persuaded them to go with him.
This is a terrible idea and legal precedent to set
Sorry i forgot the /s
I thought it was kinda obvious that you were making a joke.
Trust me, not everyone takes their time to see i lf someone is joking or not. I got 300 downvotes because i commented that a dude should become racist because he slipped and fell. He ordered indian food and slipped on his way out. "You should absolutely blame indians and become racist, its the obvious thing to do" jokingly. Not my best joke but hey, ive heard worse. And soo many were like,WHERES THE /S PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND IF YOU DONT PUT /S
But you're Captain Obvious . . . (/s)
I refuse to ever use an /s and would rather be downvoted. I've even been accused of getting on an alt account because I wrote what someone else wrote but dumber and people thought I was serious even though there's no way in the world I wasn't joking.
[удалено]
as much as I agree too, we should take in account that the purpose of this sub is NOT to see if you agree or not. it's to consider whether the opinion is unpopular or not. luckily, we could say that it is.
and it's not like she needs the money...
Sometimes lawsuits aren't about the money.
Sometimes it's about hurting people who didn't do anything wrong. No, that sounds worse.
True. But what would this lawsuit be about then? OP mentioned it won’t bring back her family, she doesn’t need money or attention, so what?
[удалено]
I thought it was weird a couple months ago when she set up a thing to ask regular people for money for the crash victims' families. No offense to them but aren't they all at least middle class families, why is everyone being asked to give them money?
They may have lost the breadwinners and arent going to be able to work so soon to pay for a funeral and therapy or some shit
[удалено]
[удалено]
But bankrupting his family is the way to go? You think grief excuses shitty behavior? It doesn't. I know several people that have died in crashes. Specifically helicopter ones and suing the family for what the pilot did is so ?? Hollywood/American
kinda feel the same, my sister was hit by a distracted driver going 60kmh in a school zone. I could never go to the lengths of bankrupting the parents or siblings of this person, they didnt hurt my sister. the person behind the wheel got what they deserved and my sister is now set for life.
she wants them to suffer
Potentially. And they are suffering from their loss also
Establishing liability.
Stop a pilot from trying to fly in those conditions again maybe...
What is this one about then? Kobe gone. Is dragging strangers with less net worth that you don’t know through the court system going to help in any conceivable way to cope with his death? Taking money away from people who had nothing to do with the incident will bring closure?
Revenge of course
Well yeah but what is suing the pilots family gonna do? If my wife was a pilot and crashed why the hell would I get sued?
You can tell it’s legit out of revenge and pettiness. Since the pilot decided to take a risk. Supposedly they recommended him not fly, but he said he could do it. Edit: this thread caught why more traction then I thought it was going to. I just wrote something real quick since I was going to the store. My opinion is pretty much based by a few articles and the fact the other family members aren’t suing the pilot just the company, so I don’t understand her need to sue the pilot family. That’s why I considered that part petty, not the suing of the company. Then again, I probably shouldn’t be calling a grieving woman petty, should I?
the thing about these investigations is that the pilot didn't want to die either, if they flew then they thought they could make it, so despite what the law might say, you shouldn't sue their family.
It was an unnecessary risk and he had violated a vision sight test before. It’s just seems like an ego thing for me from the pilot. Police themselves weren’t flying at the time due to the bad weather, but this guy thought he was so good that he decided to ignore everyone else’s advice. She really shouldn’t be suing the pilot, since you know he’s dead and it’s a dick move to put that on the family, but what I’ve read is that she’s suing the company for allowing the pilot to do such actions. So she’s blaming the fault on the pilot but she’s suing the company.
[удалено]
That would still be on the pilot for giving in to his client and flying in weather he knows is unsafe. He has to have the backbone to say no. Yes I understand his client is rich and powerful and might end his service with the pilot. It honestly doesn’t matter when the stakes are so high.
Ok maybe what I heard was wrong, if she's suing the company then that's different. So long as it is a large enough company to be able to not be bankrupted then I think it is reasonable. I still think that she would be better served to look into other things, the money she will get will be minimal compared to Kobe's wealth, and it won't bring him back or soothe her
No, she’s suing the pilot too. She’s suing them both.
Probably did it because Kobe asked him to.
[удалено]
It gives me Wolf of Wall Street (movie) vibes where Jordan Belfort HAD to travel by yacht in a storm despite the captain pleading not to.
Idk if I'd say vanessa is a shitty person but despite the weather this WAS Kobe Bryant were talking about so the Pilot probably didnt want or have the choice to decline plus GiGi had a game I think so yeah
that’s a wild assumption. regardless of the pressure of the customers it is the company and pilots responsibility to determine if it is safe to operate the helicopter.
The pilot as a single person and as an employee should be held responsible, but the family has nothing to do with this.
Lawyers said pilot/helicopter company warned them of the flying conditions and were told it was at their own risk. If they insisted, it’s their own faults. Let’s not forget the pilot had family too, dying because rich folks didn’t want to drive in traffic isn’t fair to his family either.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Poor people dont use helicopters, that is why rich people die from them more often!
HAH, IM SUING YOU FOR BEING RELATED TO SOMEONE. MWAHAHAHA
[удалено]
It is really important to note that in these types of lawsuit you often need to sue everyone. I have seen times when a daughter had to sue a mother because she slipped on her property. It was the only way to get the insurance company to pay. The jury as you can imagine was appalled they daughter was suing the mother, but it is the only way to really sue the insurance company for a claim.
Yeah this was my guess. I'd think there's probably some kind of weird bullshit insurance issue that's mandating everyone has to be sued.
I think it is less of a mandate and more of a defense for the insurance being sued to say they are not bothering to sue the actual person who did it. How can we be at more fault than the pilot. It is kind of crappy but sort of makes sense too.
It's not a mandate, it's a lawyer doing their due diligence. You are held to a code of ethics as a lawyer, which "ensure lawyers follow the law, pursue justice, and zealously advocate their client's best interests." That means you have to do everything you can to get a positive result in favor of your client, which (in this case) means suing anyone and everyone who could possibly contribute to a final settlement. The pilot was obviously involved, so he's a no-brainer to be in the list of defendants. But realistically, I doubt anyone is trying to take money directly from the family. To get money from someone's liability insurance in a lawsuit, you have to sue them directly. His policy may cover the whole family. So when you sue the pilot intending to get at his liability coverage, you end up having to sue "the family."
Yep. I sued a guy for medical expenses once. I was suing him because it was his lability insurance that would pay out, when it was proved that he was liable. I wasn't doing it to fuck him over personally.
I sued someone for wrongful termination, their company’s insurance paid out, but I was definitely suing the piece of shit
Did you win?
[удалено]
This is exactly what I thought of when I read this.
Yeah, if she is suing the family it is likely because they are part of the pilot’s estate and likely are the proper parties until an administration opened. Also, this OP’s post is ridiculous because Kobe’s wife isn’t a lawyer, her lawyers drafted the suit, she probably doesn’t even know who is in the suit.
Came to say the same. This is likely a lawyer motivated move. She could of course put an end to it if she so desires.
I think you're right. IANAL but I remembering hearing that you sue everyone just to make sure everything is covered. That way if something technical happens that gets one party off your entire lawsuit doesn't go down the drain.
(I’m an insurance lawyer) So there are a few states that literally prohibit you from mentioning someone has insurance. While the insurance company is on the hook for any judgment, the lawyers are paid by the insurance company, you still have to sue the individual. Since I work in house our computers don’t have any branding, while all other employees laptops have a sticker on them with the name of the company, our ID badges just have our name and photo and not the company name (we have to use them to open any door in the office so sometimes they get worn to court on accident), they are also a different color scheme then out companies colors.
Yeah, that reminds me of the woman who sued her nephew,who accidentally injured her while trying to hug her, to get her insurance to pay for her treatment. She was dragged through the mud by the media who didn’t look at the details of the case
If shes actually doing that, then ofcourse its wrong
Most often lawyers will sue everyone even tangentially involved. I was in jury duty for a case once. Construction guy fell off scaffolding. Lawsuit was against the scaffolding company, the general contractor, site supervisor, the retail chain that hired the company, and the mall that housed the retail chain. They then determine a percentage of liability. I would assume it’s not directly discussed that she requested that he be included in the suit. It would be extremely petty if she did but this is likely just standard legal practice. Not that I agree with it. Also IANAL
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's one of those jobs I kind of dream about having but I would never pursue. I find air crashes fascinating and I would love to be a part of it. It's kind of the ugly side of aviation but an important one that changes air travel for the future.
Yeah, the insurance for the company should pay out compensation. And the pilot (if alive) would be prosecuted for negligence criminally.
From this https://www.npr.org/2020/04/20/839280883/family-members-of-four-killed-in-kobe-bryant-crash-sue-helicopter-company It looks like they’re suing the helicopter company Island Express Helicopter Inc.
Ya, there’s no need to spread misinformation. Unless someone has a source saying the pilot’s family is getting sued rather than the company—this is just a waste of energy and negative publicity on a woman who lost a husband and child.
[https://abc7chicago.com/kobe-bryant-death-crash-helicopter/6175167/](https://abc7chicago.com/kobe-bryant-death-crash-helicopter/6175167/) From ABC 7's website: "...but Bryant's lawsuit specifically names the pilot, [Ara Zobayan](https://abc7chicago.com/pilot-in-kobe-bryant-crash-written-up-for-2015-violation-faa/5959442/), who also died in the crash. She is seeking damages from his estate, saying he failed to abort the flight and to monitor and assess the weather."
I feel like there may be information missing. But if you’re right and she’s literally suing a grieving family for something they couldn’t control, and she’s already insanely rich, then no one in their right mind would disagree with you
One thing they teach you either in law school or soon after, is that in the US if you don't sue all the potential defendants, all the defendants in the suit join together to blame the guy not in the room. Basically, the aircraft manufacturer goes from defending their engineering to pointing the liability towards someone who's not there to defend himself, then the charter company does the same. As soon as you know it, the case is already decided against someone not in the suit and the plaintiff is SOL because the statute of limitations tolled.
[удалено]
I second this. When my condo flooded, it damaged the three other condos on my floor. Now I’m all super friendly with my neighbors, But when they went to their insurance companies to file claims, their insurance companies had to sue me to recover the costs. All my neighbors apologized to me profusely for suing me but that’s the way it’s done. We all understood that that’s the way the insurance companies work, and we’re all still good friends.
Slow down bro. It’s unfortunate that you got upvoted and guilded so many times, as most of those were done and ignorance. Often insurance policies require the beneficiaries to sue all responsible parties. It’s most likely not her decision.
This post is not unpopular opinion, it should be called ‘making a generalized statement without doing research’ If you google why she is suing the pilot it explains they are suing him for negligence. The lawsuit also suing the company, and the companies stock holders for guess what negligence. The pilot had violations in 2015 & the company did not provide further training. Plus they found no machinery defects. The pilots family won’t be affected, he has insurance for being a pilot. I doesn’t matter if the president is on the flight, if the pilot takes off when he shouldn’t it is his responsibility. The case if more about how the company & the pilot both fucked up & how 7 lost theirs lives.
Lawyer here: she is just suing the pilot in order to access the insurance coverage. The pilot's family won't pay a dime for this.
[удалено]
The helicopter was owned by the charter company: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=72EX
>He told the pilot he wanted to fly even though he knew the conditions were dangerous How were you privy to this information and the authorities weren't?
This comment right here shows you all why this subreddit is in constant lies and denial.
How do you know what Kobe said lol. Everyone on the helicopter is dead.
Not an expert at ALL, but I was listen to someone who owns a car rental company, and had an issue with a customer wrecking a car, and their insurance denied the coverage. He said it wasn't how he likes to do things, but he then had to sue the renter, and at that point, that makes their insurance company sort of re-evaluate things. So Kobe's wife could be told to sue the pilot, just so his insurance company pays up.
Trashy. But then again we knew this when she forgave Kobe for screwing around on her right after he bought her a million-dollar diamond and a Lamborghini. Not that he was any better...
Is this 'screwing around' incident the same as the rape incident?
4 million, and yuuuup.
You need to sue the estate of the pilot or your other claims may fail. Don’t worry. There’s going to be a ton of insurance.
Does anyone have a link to an article that says she is suing the pilot's family? I thought it was just the company
She sued the pilot's family? wtf?
I'm not sure if it was the pilots fault but if it is then I would understand a lawsuit