Answer:
Whilst it is true that Michael David Barrett as pleaded is of all accusations levelled on him, such as stalking Andrews in three cities and altering peepholes in hotel rooms in Nashville and Columbus, Ohio, to secretly shoot videos of the sportscaster while she was in her birthday suit.
Trespass against the sportscasters' person amongst others, it is hard to believe that Andrews did not intend to use the suit as an opportunity to make some money off the hotels involved.
She had filled a suite for seventy-five million dollars against Michael and the hotels involved. She was however awarded fifty-five million dollars in damages. The question is if this case only involved David Barett, would she sue for that much? Even if he had a Personal Liability Insurance and or a Homeowners Insurance, there is practically no way it the sums insured would have satisfied the demand of her suit.
It's difficult not to stand with the affected companies in their appeal against the award of fifty-five Million dollars to the Plaintiff. The companies in their defence stated that Michael David Barrett was a determined offender.
He not only altered the keyholes to enable him to take the videos but did so thrice. He, therefore, must be punished nonetheless.
On another hand, this conversation opens up the question about how hoteliers should take surveillance more seriously. How is it that in all the three hotels, not one of the surveillance cameras caught David in the act?
If he recorded her, it was most likely from outside the door not within the apartment.
<em></em>
Cheers!
