Family awarded $3.5 million in Citation crash

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
the suits to go forward.

From AOPA
A February 2005 crash has resulted in a $3.5 million out-of-court settlement
for the family of a Circuit City buyer who was a passenger on the flight to
Pueblo Memorial Airport, Colorado. All eight aboard the aircraft were
killed. The payment will be made by Circuit City and Martinair, the
Richmond, Virginia-based manager of the aircraft. The NTSB has not
determined a cause for the accident, but pilots mentioned icing shortly
before the crash while on an approach to Runway 26R in IMC conditions.

[Gene Seibel]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
> the suits to go forward.
>
> From AOPA
> A February 2005 crash has resulted in a $3.5 million out-of-court settlement
> for the family of a Circuit City buyer who was a passenger on the flight to
> Pueblo Memorial Airport, Colorado. All eight aboard the aircraft were
> killed. The payment will be made by Circuit City and Martinair, the
> Richmond, Virginia-based manager of the aircraft. The NTSB has not
> determined a cause for the accident, but pilots mentioned icing shortly
> before the crash while on an approach to Runway 26R in IMC conditions.

Lawyers would always rather get their cut without actually having to go
to court and do some work.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before
> allowing the suits to go forward.

I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court case. I
don't know if this precludes the use of the NTSB staffers as expert
witnesses.

But would appear that the fact that the NTSB hadn't yet reached a
conclusion would have no bearing on the legal case if its conclusion
couldn't be cited.

The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
to determine an accident's cause.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:

>The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
>the suits to go forward.

Is there any evidence that the family had filed suit?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in >:
>
>>The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before
>>allowing
>>the suits to go forward.
>
> Is there any evidence that the family had filed suit?
>

I'll be damned your right...

"Harmon's estate did not sue the companies. The settlement was reached out
of court before any documents were ever filed. The agreement reached last
month releases the companies from any further claims in Harmon's death."

....but some of the others involved have.

"The families of two other Circuit City employees from Virginia killed in
the crash, David Joseph Coffman and Aaron Iskowitz, have filed lawsuits that
are pending. The lawsuits allege the Cessna's wing de-icing and ice
detecting mechanisms were defective."

[Jose[_1_]]

> I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court case.[...]
> The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
> to determine an accident's cause.

It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On 13 Dec 2006 09:44:35 -0800, "Gene Seibel" > wrote
in om>:

>Lawyers would always rather get their cut without actually having to go
>to court and do some work.

Implicit in that point of view is the notion that the family's
attorney was working on a percentage basis.

Other motivations for an early settlement may be the fact that the
family will receive their payment sooner, and there is less likelihood
of the family learning of the amounts of settlements in similar cases.
So the result may be that Circuit City's costs are reduced.

[peter]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
> the suits to go forward.
>
> From AOPA
> A February 2005 crash has resulted in a $3.5 million out-of-court settlement
> for the family of a Circuit City buyer who was a passenger on the flight to
> Pueblo Memorial Airport, Colorado.

There's not much the courts can do about *out-of-court* settlements
made voluntarily by the parties involved.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
> the suits to go forward.

An out-of-court settlement never sees a court, which is why it's
called an _out-of-court_ settlement.

I wonder why Circuit City and Martinair caved in so easily. What did
they do that makes them liable for anything?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:19:22 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.

Except when the NTSB is investigating military and governmental
accidents. :-(

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> An out-of-court settlement never sees a court, which is why
> it's called an _out-of-court_ settlement.

Wrong again. An out-of-court settlement can be reached between
the litigating parties at any time ("out-of-court") during the
litigating process, if the plaintiff has commenced litigation.
How is it that you can be an expert on absolutely everything?

F--

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> Wrong again. An out-of-court settlement can be reached between
> the litigating parties at any time ("out-of-court") during the
> litigating process, if the plaintiff has commenced litigation.

The essential point is that the court does not make the decision. The
decision is made outside the court.

> How is it that you can be an expert on absolutely everything?

I can't. But I know useful things about a lot of topics.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I wonder why Circuit City and Martinair caved in so easily. What did
> they do that makes them liable for anything?

They became defendants in an aviation-related accident. The odds are
stacked against them if a jury sees it. Facts no longer matter.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>>
> I can't. But I know useful things about a lot of topics.

You certainly have not shown that to be true on this venue.

[Ron Natalie]

Jose wrote:
>> I recall reading that NTSB analysis could not be cited in a court
>> case.[...]
>> The idea is weird, though, considering that part of the NTSB's mandate is
>> to determine an accident's cause.
>
> It removes a source of pressure on the NTSB to alter their findings.
>

Presumably the gov't is immune to such influence. The major reason
that the NTSB is immune to being used in court is so that people
who provide support to the investigation know they aren't jeopardizing
pecuniary interests by doing so.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
>> the suits to go forward.
>
> An out-of-court settlement never sees a court, which is why it's
> called an _out-of-court_ settlement.
>
> I wonder why Circuit City and Martinair caved in so easily. What did
> they do that makes them liable for anything?
>

What makes you think they weren't? The casual evidence points more
to them being responsible than Cessna.

[Stefan]

Ron Natalie schrieb:

> Presumably the gov't is immune to such influence. The major reason
> that the NTSB is immune to being used in court is so that people
> who provide support to the investigation know they aren't jeopardizing
> pecuniary interests by doing so.

It's more than that. If it comes to a criminal investigation, then the
accused has certain rights. (A lawyer's assistance, the right to say
nothing, etc., different rights in different countries.) Now if someone
who expects to be blamed to have made a mistake in the accident and
therefore has to expect to be accused in court assists the NTSB to
investigate the case, and then later these results are used in court,
this would jeopardize his rights in court. Or, vice versa, if he wanted
to keep his rights, then he had to refuse to help the NTSB, jeopardizing
their effort to enhance safety.

Stefan

[Ross Richardson[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>The courts really ought to require that all the facts are in before allowing
>>the suits to go forward.
>
>
> An out-of-court settlement never sees a court, which is why it's
> called an _out-of-court_ settlement.
>
> I wonder why Circuit City and Martinair caved in so easily. What did
> they do that makes them liable for anything?
>

It is cheaper in the long run to settle out of court than get stuck in a
protracted court case that could take forever and lawyers are billing by
the hour.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:35:35 -0600, Ross Richardson
> wrote in
>:

> ... lawyers are billing by the hour.

Most tort cases are taken on a contingency basis.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:35:35 -0600, Ross Richardson
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> > ... lawyers are billing by the hour.
>
> Most tort cases are taken on a contingency basis.

Those are the plaintiff's laywers who are working on contingency. The
defendant's lawyers are billing by the hour. They may be billing the
defendant, or they may be billing the defendant's insurance company, but
either way they're getting paid $100 each time they pick up the phone or
shuffle a piece of paper.

Insurance companies are pretty cold-hearted. They look at the "defend vs.
settle" issue from a pure risk management actuarial point of view. If they
settle now, it'll cost $X and they know it's done with. If they defend,
it'll cost $Y for sure in legal and administrative expenses, and the
potential and unknown liability will be on the books for years.

I was once a defendant in a personal property damage suit. My homeowners's
policy covered my defense. It was actually sort of interesting. The
insurance company sent me a letter that basically said, "We agree that your
policy obligates us to pay for your defense, but we do not yet agree that
we are obligated to cover the actual liability should the plaintiff
prevail".

That put me in an interesting position of still having some skin in the
game. By letting the suit continue, I still had a contingent liability; if
the plaintiff won, and the insurance company ultimately decided they were
not going to cover the lability, I might still be on the hook for damages.
The only way I had to erase the contingent liability would be to settle out
of my own pocket (which, of course would make my insurance company happy,
since they would then be off the hook). The suit was for $10k; a loss
would be painful but not catastrophic for me and I thought we had a good
chance of winning (a rational component of the decision). There was also a
purely emotional component involving inter-personal relationships that I
won't go into here (all the parties knew each other prior to the suit)
other than to say that I'd be damned if I was going to let that ******* get
anything out of me. That's the sort of bad decision-making that the
insurance companies don't let cloud their judgement.

My insurance company's main defense strategy after interviewing me and
deposing the plaintif (i.e. racking up some legal expenses) was to
counter-sue a third party. I wasn't particularly happy with the third
party they chose to go after, but my choice at that point was to go along
with it (since they were paying for the defense, they got to pick the
defense strategy) or settle out of my own pocket. I went along.

This third party of course had their own liability insurance (and much
deeper pockets than I do). Their insurance company sent me a remarkably
similar letter to the first one in which they in turn agreed to pay for my
defense but did not commit to accepting any ultimate liability.
Eventually, the third party's insurance company settled the case for about
half of what the plaintiff was seeking.

The case then took a bizarre turn when shortly (like about a week) after
they agreed to the settlement, the plaintiff died (reportedly of a brain
tumor). They made the payout to the plaintiff's estate.

Two friends of mine were co-defendants in the original suit. Unfortunately
for them, their insurance carriers didn't even agree to pick up their
defense costs. One of them hired their own lawyer and was out of pocket a
lot of legal expenses. The other decided to go it alone and handled his
own defense. Neither of the two insurance companies who defended me had
any interest in providing legal services to my co-defendants (nor would I
expect them to) but they did reap the benfits of the suit going away when
the third-party insurer paid off the plaintiff's estate.

I just looked up Circuit City (CC/NYSE). With a market cap of $4.14
billion, there were certainly some deep pockets involved. The $3.5 million
may well be below the deductable on their liability policy. This was a
decision made by laywers, accountants, and risk managers who are used to
dealing with very large numbers. Keep in mind there were 8 people on
board, so there's potentially 7 more lawsuits in the works. The story
isn't over yet.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> What makes you think they weren't?

The presumption of innocence.

> The casual evidence points more to them being responsible than Cessna.

What exactly happened?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> What makes you think they weren't?
>
> The presumption of innocence.
>
>> The casual evidence points more to them being responsible than Cessna.
>
> What exactly happened?
>
They flew around in rime icing conditions for an extended period
waiting to get approach clearance.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> They flew around in rime icing conditions for an extended period
> waiting to get approach clearance.

What should they have done? Can you declare an emergency in a
situation like that? Should they have done so?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> The presumption of innocence.

The "presumption of innocence" does not apply to civil
litigation. Stick to topics you know much about.

F--

[Jay Beckman]

"TxSrv" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> The presumption of innocence.
>
> The "presumption of innocence" does not apply to civil litigation. Stick
> to topics you know much about.
>
> F--

If only he would...

Jay B

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> "TxSrv" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>> The presumption of innocence.
>>
>> The "presumption of innocence" does not apply to civil litigation. Stick
>> to topics you know much about.
>>
>> F--
>
> If only he would...
>
....he would be cold, stone silent.

[Jay Beckman]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "TxSrv" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The presumption of innocence.
>>>
>>> The "presumption of innocence" does not apply to civil litigation.
>>> Stick to topics you know much about.
>>>
>>> F--
>>
>> If only he would...
>>
> ...he would be cold, stone silent.
>

No more callers, we have a winner...

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

TxSrv writes:

> The "presumption of innocence" does not apply to civil
> litigation.

A plaintiff has to show that he has a valid claim against a defendant.
That is a presumption of innocence. If someone sues you for
defamation, he has to present evidence supporting his claim. Absent
such evidence, you do not have to do anything to prove that his claim
is unfounded.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.