Erin Andrews awarded $55 million by the jury

[PhatOrange]

i don't think that the argument is that she is entitled to more because she is a celebrity, i think the argument is that she was more damaged because she is a celebrity.

thats too bad because i'd wager a normal jane doe living in a small community would be far more damaged if 2000 people in her community viewed a similar video of her; and all her co-workers and such. that would be devastating.

 

[orangecuse]

Exactly. By any reasonable measure her career took off because of this. People are acting like it's 1986 and naked pictures of celebrities were something people gave a crap about.
99.87% of people that viewed this probably viewed it with the same interest level they have when FB highlights a story about Kim K tweeting a picture of her butt. People don't care, it's mildly interesting at best.
Her only damage is emotional. And she deserves to be compensated well for that,but this much is clearly just an indication of peopl valuing celebs more because they're rich and super - interesting.
Even the 17 million views, who cares? The backlash is probably far worse for some lady that works at state Farm and has 100% of her co-workers and neighbors potentially seeing that. And she'd get a couple hundred thousand. People got bent out of shape because of all the riches some lady got because McDs serves coffee at 80,000 degrees and burned her ****** off, but this seemingly makes sense.

Agree. The general/compensatory damages in this case were 100% emotional or "mental anguish." She sustained no physical injury, fracture, etc. to trigger that pain and suffering threshold. No economic loss as she was/has been handsomely employed at Fox and looked to be doing quite fine during the post season baseball games, football games, etc. that she has been doing. Her earnings capacity hasn't been effected, so no loss of future income there either. She isn't married, etc., no loss of consortium, no physical impairment, disfigurement, etc.

Emotional distress claims are very subjective. Undoubtedly her attorneys and hired specialists (psychiatrist, etc.) painted a convincing and persuasive picture of her alleged mental anguish. Great theatrics in the courtroom as many of these type cases are, well, theater. Various states also have caps on damages that are quite subjective in nature, Tennessee appears not be one of them. Though, it's likely that the bulk of this verdict was rendered in the form of punitive damages. This is where jurors have some free reign in hitting the defendant where it hurts, and making that penalty sting big time. Therefore, that damage award has more to do with hammering the defendant than awarding the plaintiff...otherwise, 55 million is absurdly excessive for compensatory damages only in this instance.

 

[two3zone]

Question for lawyers. Do juries know how much liability coverage a defendant has before they set an award amount?

Nope. Colateral source rule.

 

[two3zone]

Of the $54 mil, $28 mil is owed by the perv (Barrett) and $26 mil by the hotel. I'm not sure collection will be easy. Maybe the hotel had significant liability insurance.

She'll probably end up with it all, joint and several liability will mean it will all probably come from the hotel.

 

[bpo57]

She'll probably end up with it all, joint and several liability will mean it will all probably come from the hotel.

You sure about that?

 

[two3zone]

You sure about that?

I'm sure the perv doesn't have the money so yeah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

 

[orangecuse]

You sure about that?

Most probable as the Peeping Tom dude is likely judgement proof.

 

[bpo57]

I'm sure the perv doesn't have the money so yeah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

Obviously the perv doesn't have the $$. Are you sure the hotel is responsible for his half?

 

[orangecuse]

Obviously the perv doesn't have the $$. Are you sure the hotel is responsible for his half?

Yes.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability

 

[JOC44]

Marriott doesn't own the hotel. The hotel is probably held by a corporation that will file bankruptcy because it lacks the funds to cover the judgment. This is probably covered by the hotel owner's general liability insurance, as I assume the theory of liability is negligence on the part of the hotel. Basically, Andrews probably won't get much more than the full limits of available insurance.

One creative possibility is that, assuming the insurance company was controlling the defense of the case, Andrews could settle with the hotel owner so that she agrees to take the full insurance limits and is assigned the hotel owner's claim against the insurance company for the excess verdict. In some cases, the insurer can be liable to its policyholder when it takes a case to verdict and the award exceeds policy limits if a settlement within policy limits had been available. The hotel owner might be able to assign that claim to Andrews in return for Andrews's agreement not to execute the judgment against the hotel owner's non-insurance assets.

 

[manleyzoo]

Facts of the case: a perv got ahold of Erin's room number and installed a camera, catching her naked. He then released the video on the Internet. Big story because she's a celeb.

If it were a normal person it probably never gets noticed and most certainly doesn't have any media coverage. (I'm not condoning it, just stating the reality of the world we live in)

Let's look at this a different way. How many people do you think were murdered in hotel rooms last year? I don't have the number but I'm guessing it's more than a few.

I'm assuming everyone is in agreement that being murdered is far worse than having a naked video taken.

If murder is too much hyperbole, use sexual assault. I'm sure there were thousands of s e xual assaults in hotel rooms last year.

Did the murder victims families and the sexual assault victims get $30M+ each? Highly doubtful. Does this verdict set a super high precedent for the future? I would argue yes.

So her case is diminished and her damages disproportionate to the crime because you believe more murders and assaults took place in hotels than invasions of privacy. Of course, you have no evidence to support your certainty. Even if you did, how, in any way, does that make her case, or the award, inappropriate? You surmise unrelated incidents without supporting facts and assume corresponding awards because you're sure and you're guessing...Are you saying the jury should have considered guesses of unrelated incidents in making their ruling?

The right to privacy is the "right to be left alone," implied in a number of places in the constitution. It's in the same class as identify theft not murder or assault of any nature.

 

[two3zone]

Obviously the perv doesn't have the $$. Are you sure the hotel is responsible for his half?

Yes.

 

[Cowtown]

Agree. The general/compensatory damages in this case were 100% emotional or "mental anguish." She sustained no physical injury, fracture, etc. to trigger that pain and suffering threshold. No economic loss as she was/has been handsomely employed at Fox and looked to be doing quite fine during the post season baseball games, football games, etc. that she has been doing. Her earnings capacity hasn't been effected, so no loss of future income there either. She isn't married, etc., no loss of consortium, no physical impairment, disfigurement, etc.

Emotional distress claims are very subjective. Undoubtedly her attorneys and hired specialists (psychiatrist, etc.) painted a convincing and persuasive picture of her alleged mental anguish. Great theatrics in the courtroom as many of these type cases are, well, theater. Various states also have caps on damages that are quite subjective in nature, Tennessee appears not be one of them. Though, it's likely that the bulk of this verdict was rendered in the form of punitive damages. This is where jurors have some free reign in hitting the defendant where it hurts, and making that penalty sting big time. Therefore, that damage award has more to do with hammering the defendant than awarding the plaintiff...otherwise, 55 million is absurdly excessive for compensatory damages only in this instance.

Civil law is supposed to be about compensating an injured party for a loss, not a convenient alternative to winning the lottery. Juries should not be allowed to award damages, for the decision and the award should both be made on law, ie by a judge, rather than the emotional leanings of a dozen laypeople, trying to ensure that there will be a large award made when it's ultimately their turn to sue. Tort reform is desperately needed in the US. In other countries they redistribute the wealth through taxes and social programs. In the US they do it with lawsuits.

 

[Cowtown]

Marriott doesn't own the hotel. The hotel is probably held by a corporation that will file bankruptcy because it lacks the funds to cover the judgment. This is probably covered by the hotel owner's general liability insurance, as I assume the theory of liability is negligence on the part of the hotel. Basically, Andrews probably won't get much more than the full limits of available insurance.

One creative possibility is that, assuming the insurance company was controlling the defense of the case, Andrews could settle with the hotel owner so that she agrees to take the full insurance limits and is assigned the hotel owner's claim against the insurance company for the excess verdict. In some cases, the insurer can be liable to its policyholder when it takes a case to verdict and the award exceeds policy limits if a settlement within policy limits had been available. The hotel owner might be able to assign that claim to Andrews in return for Andrews's agreement not to execute the judgment against the hotel owner's non-insurance assets.

I would suspect that it'll be worked out something like what you're suggesting. I don't think either party wants this whole sordid mess to continue. Someone made the point earlier in the thread that it was probably less about the money than about taking a stand and being vindicated. Sort of like Carol Burnett and the National Inquirer. If that's true, they'll find a way to settle and move on.

 

[orangecuse]

Marriott doesn't own the hotel. The hotel is probably held by a corporation that will file bankruptcy because it lacks the funds to cover the judgment. This is probably covered by the hotel owner's general liability insurance, as I assume the theory of liability is negligence on the part of the hotel. Basically, Andrews probably won't get much more than the full limits of available insurance.

One creative possibility is that, assuming the insurance company was controlling the defense of the case, Andrews could settle with the hotel owner so that she agrees to take the full insurance limits and is assigned the hotel owner's claim against the insurance company for the excess verdict. In some cases, the insurer can be liable to its policyholder when it takes a case to verdict and the award exceeds policy limits if a settlement within policy limits had been available. The hotel owner might be able to assign that claim to Andrews in return for Andrews's agreement not to execute the judgment against the hotel owner's non-insurance assets.

Most jurisdictions hold that the standard CGL policy definition of "bodily injury" does not include coverage for emotional distress without accompanying physical injury. However, there are a few states that do broaden the definition to include mental anguish either by finding the policy to be ambiguous or finding that "sickness or disease" encompasses mental injury. Although there are exceptions, many jurisdictions require physical injury in order for liability to attach for emotional distress damages. I don't know if Tennessee is one of them. It's most likely that if indeed there's coverage for this mental anguish only claim, it isn't coming from the underlying CGL policy, but rather some form of excess or umbrella that broadens both coverage and indemnification.

 

[CusefanATL]

I heard that in Tenn, if she died and the hotel was found liabile, she would be eligible for $5mil.

$55 mil is an insane number and she does not deserve that much. Her situation sucks, dont get me wrong but why not make it $100 billion?

Also - not a fan of her showing up everyday in court with no makeup and bland clothes. That was an act.

 

[orangecuse]

Civil law is supposed to be about compensating an injured party for a loss, not a convenient alternative to winning the lottery. Juries should not be allowed to award damages, for the decision and the award should both be made on law, ie by a judge, rather than the emotional leanings of a dozen laypeople, trying to ensure that there will be a large award made when it's ultimately their turn to sue. Tort reform is desperately needed in the US. In other countries they redistribute the wealth through taxes and social programs. In the US they do it with lawsuits.

There have been many times I've been a participant at pre-trial settlement hearings, etc. where judges just want you to settle the case (clear their docket, etc) when the liability is nil/highly doubtful, especially, when the damages are not very significant. Where a judge(s) have said, you won't appeal this case because it's not economic feasible to do so.

 

[CusefanATL]

Marriott doesn't own the hotel. The hotel is probably held by a corporation that will file bankruptcy because it lacks the funds to cover the judgment. This is probably covered by the hotel owner's general liability insurance, as I assume the theory of liability is negligence on the part of the hotel. Basically, Andrews probably won't get much more than the full limits of available insurance.

One creative possibility is that, assuming the insurance company was controlling the defense of the case, Andrews could settle with the hotel owner so that she agrees to take the full insurance limits and is assigned the hotel owner's claim against the insurance company for the excess verdict. In some cases, the insurer can be liable to its policyholder when it takes a case to verdict and the award exceeds policy limits if a settlement within policy limits had been available. The hotel owner might be able to assign that claim to Andrews in return for Andrews's agreement not to execute the judgment against the hotel owner's non-insurance assets.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Also - not a fan of her showing up everyday in court with no makeup and bland clothes. That was an act.

Seriously. Did you just type that. Did you really think she was going to show up dressed like this?

 

[CusefanATL]

Seriously. Did you just type that. Did you really think she was going to show up dressed like this?

no. that is a complete overeaction to my post.

 

[CusefanATL]

 

[Cowtown]

I heard that in Tenn, if she died and the hotel was found liabile, she would be eligible for $5mil.

$55 mil is an insane number and she does not deserve that much. Her situation sucks, dont get me wrong but why not make it $100 billion?

Also - not a fan of her showing up everyday in court with no makeup and bland clothes. That was an act.

I agree $55 mil is gross. I'd suspect her appearance in court was not inappropriate, however, based on having to defeat the notion that she a.) had set the whole thing up as a publicity stunt (as suggested by one of the defendant's lawyers), and thus b.) that she was pursuing the lawsuit as a gold-mining operation.

edit: if something similar had happened to Miley Cyrus, can you imagine what she'd show up looking like?

 

[Ozcuse]

I agree $55 mil is gross. I'd suspect her appearance in court was not inappropriate, however, based on having to defeat the notion that she a.) had set the whole thing up as a publicity stunt (as suggested by one of the defendant's lawyers), and thus b.) that she was pursuing the lawsuit as a gold-mining operation.

edit: if something similar had happened to Miley Cyrus, can you imagine what she'd show up looking like?

Miley would dress up as the Bible so when she had to take the witness stand she could touch herself.

 

[Moontan]

maybe they didn't think he was a total stranger to her. he probably made up a story no? i ask to be next to my friends all the time.

I make sure not be adjoining any others in my group.

 

[Moontan]

Also - not a fan of her showing up everyday in court with no makeup and bland clothes. That was an act.

So, all women have to wear makeup? I'll bet that your Mrs. wouldn't like that dictate.