Perez Hilton: On Monday, Erin Andrews was finally awarded $55 million in her lawsuit against Marriott Hotels for the high-profile stalking case from 2008. Erin was victimized and violated when a man named Michael David Barrett videotaped her through a peephole in a Marriott hotel...
Well despite the big win, the blonde beauty may not be seeing as much of her winnings as you might think!
That's because the jury split the blame 51% to Barrett and 49% to Marriott. Seeing as how Michael isn't anyone special, and he spent 30 months in jail from 2010-2012, we doubt he's able to cough up $28 million anytime soon.
The other problem is with the hotel chain as TMZ reports that Marriott will most likely appeal the verdict which could lead to a smaller settlement. Since there's no physical injury and the payment was awarded on the grounds of emotional distress, there's a chance an appeals court could overturn the verdict for being such an excessive payout.
Legal sources have predicted that the case will most likely settle in the ballpark of $20 million between the sportscaster and hotel company.
Unfortunately for the 37-year-old, when a case goes to trial, lawyers rake in about 40% of the final take which means if it does go to settlement, she would be left with about $12 million. On top of that though, Erin would be responsible for the costs for preparing the case which is estimated to be about $1 million.
Oh yeah, and in cases involving emotional distress without any physical injuries, the award is taxable meaning the $11 million Andrews would be left with could turn into $6 million.
It's no chump change, but we find it despicable if the hotel tries to weasel their way out of responsibility by settling.
19 comments:
The hotel will do exactly that in trying to settle and weasel out and settle. The insult really is that the IRS sees this as income when that money coming from anyone to her would have already been taxed. I hate the IRS.
The Feds will get a ton of it, this is why going on a game show is an exercise in futility.
I'm pretty old, but it might comfort the victim to know that I don't pause ror ewind a romcom DVD when tits show up.
Emotional indifference to the spectacle.
So they only way to ultimately get some decent dough, is not to settle. So when you ultimately have to settle, something like real money will have been left over to ease your loss... or something.
In my understanding the hotel is on the hook due to vicarious liability because its employee (probably contra policy) told the scumbag peeping tom Ms. Andrews's room number. They're on the hook for a huge sum due to a legal fiction created to access deep pockets so why shouldn't they try to pay as little as possible?
Big government is everywhere, taking credit and siphoning your money away from you.
Lem, most people settle because its a guaranteed result and trial is an expensive roll of the dice. In this case Ms. Andrews had nothing to lose. The lawyers get a third but I don't understand the $1million in costs number. I cannot imagine how trying this case generated $1 million in costs.
" we find it despicable if the hotel tries to weasel their way out of responsibility by settling. "
Who is we?
I don't think the Hotel should have anywhere near half of the responsibility. They weren't trying to expose her, it was just a dumb clerk who screwed up, and if played correctly, I think the peeper could have gotten most clerks to give up the information.
If the hotel or another rich entity did it on purpose for some gain then yea give her millions, but in this case, it should be 75% peeper, and the award should be $100,000 max. It's not like being nude ruins your career on television. Emotional distress? Spare me. It's called life. The negative emotional distress would be more than neutralized by the check. And if the amount was in that neighborhood, no lawyers, no TV coverage, and far fewer people would be looking for that video. If the video was so distressful, why would you want to make a big case of it and get it seen even more? Money - that's why.
So my question to her is: Would you pass up the money to have that video never happen. I bet she wouldn't, but regardless, penalties and rewards should not be based on what the emotional sensitivity of the victim, but what a reasonable person would endure. It's just more money earned on her looks.
This idea of blaming the employer, which means it's employees, it's stockholders, it's customers, and it's vendors for what an individual does, even when it's against company policy is nuts and pure theft by lawyers. Why not blame the cell phone company, the peephole manufacturer, and the state where it happened,... oh yea, and the U.N.?
I think this case should have settled for ~$5-$10 million. A good rule of thumb, from my experience, is that after a jury verdict, depending on the amount and breakdown, the parties end up settling for ~half of the amount awarded by the jury. The defendant has leverage, being able to appeal for years. It's less than half if the jury went postal and awarded a huge, unwarranted, punitive damage sum.
When this happened I was like a father and she was my daughter. I was saddened and outraged. Having worked for a large hotel chain as a house dick, and being familiar w/ SOP, Marriott fucked up. I have worked almost exclusively defending companies and individuals in tort suits. I am pretty conservative in that regard. I bet Marriott tried their best to settle this for the $5-10 million I mentioned previously. This is HORRIBLE publicity for them.
We have news personalities that put their colonoscopies on TV. The best thing for a career these days is a sex tape, and beautiful women of every background are doing porn. I'm not saying any of that is good, but it makes the emotional distress thing a highly subjective personal issue that every defendant should not be subject to. Just like exposing a lady's petticoats might have gotten a decent settlement back in the day. What was done to her might have been very distressing to her, but that doesn't mean it should have been or was actually damaging. I'm pretty uncomfortable being naked, but I'd take her exposure for the money in a second. There are no real disclosures in seeing a person naked. It's pretty much exactly what you imagine. If anything, a man suffers (or celebrates) a much more serious disclosure of information when seen naked.
Nick, when the defendant wins, the plaintiff does the same thing. Try to find an appealable issue and lean on that to exact some small settlement.
I'm with Ms. Andrews regarding the emotional distress. Just because there's a ton of people taking off their clothes, literally and figuratively, on tv and in TMI society generally doesn't that's the new "reasonable person" standard. I'm glad to see that privacy is still valued and that an infringement like this is subject to punitive damages and an award for emotional distress.
Not sure of the theory or theories against the hotel. If it was pure vicarious liability, then I don't like the award against the hotel. Vicarious liability is a legal fiction designed to access the deep pocket employer of an errant employee who causes damages to a third party. However, the hotel might have (1) failed to have a policy protecting its patrons privacy (though this seems unlikely), (2) negligently hired the clerk (not backgrounded him), (3) negligently trained the clerk (not told him about the policy).
Imagine if the plaintiff was a Muslim woman and the video showed her in a pair of shorts and t-shirt, not at all sexual, but to her, terribly emotionally distressing.
Some people are super-naked in public and some people are super-covered in public but these fringe standards apparently (at least for this jury) haven't affected the "reasonable person" standard for a reaction to being peeped - and filmed - naked in the privacy of a hotel room.
Amartel, How much do you surmise Marriott offered to settle this prior to trial?
I misspelled "its" 5 times in one paragraph at 3:33 above. I'm very upset and embarrassed. My lawyer says that Lem owes me at least $5 million now, and I'm coming after the rest of you too. I was under the impression this was all private in here. I feel violated.
Nd, Not that I ever doubted but that is SUCH a defense question! Every claims rep wants to know that, and have the supporting analysis I excruciating detail. And the cost analysis. And then talk it through on the phone. I don't know enough about the details of this case. There's a big difference between if it's just vicarious liability v. an independent theory of liability. Plus tons of variables such as the personalities involved and if they make good witnesses, the specials the plaintiff could blackboard, stuff like that. I do think the ED award is excessive, punitive. And I'd like to see the verdict form and whether the jury had the option to separate out the damages among the defendants. I'd also like to know if the hotel clerk was named as a defendant and if not, why not.
Amartel, Great analysis. I too deal w/ claim reps and while some are pleasant to work w/, that is the exception. The sharp ones don't micromanage. Don't nickel and dime. But, as you know, there are a lotta ham n' eggers.
Post a Comment