Product Liability Suits Force Shipment Ceasation Of MSA Carburetors Used On Lycoming, Continental and Franklin Engines

Product Liability Suits Force Shipment Cessation Of MSA Carburetors
Used On Lycoming, Continental and Franklin Engines

AIRCRAFT CARBURETOR, PARTS SHIPMENTS STOPPED
(http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505)
The company that makes the majority of carburetors and associated
replacement parts for the most popular general aviation engines
says it's stopped shipping as of Nov. 1 because it can't afford
the insurance. Precision Airmotive's MSA carbs are used on most of
the Lycoming, Continental and Franklin engines currently in
service and are also put on new engines. Precision spokesman Alan
Jesmer told AVweb in a podcast interview
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20071105a&kw=Related) that the
action resulted from the company's being named in numerous
lawsuits, regardless of the involvement of its products in the
incidents that gave rise to the suits. The cost of dealing with
the litigation marginalized the business. "Precision has seen its
liability insurance premiums rise dramatically, to the point that
the premium now exceeds the total sales dollars for this entire
product line," he said. Since the supply of carbs and replacement
parts for the majority of piston-powered aircraft can't simply be
allowed to dry up, Jesmer said Precision's action was a wake-up
call to the rest of the industry to get involved with the issue
and he expects some sort of resolution in the next week or so.
http://www.avweb.com/990-full.html#196505


Here's the manufacturer's statement:

http://www.precisionairmotive.com/pr-carbdiscon.htm
November 1, 2007

Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float
carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This
unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain
product liability insurance for the product line. Precision
Airmotive LLC and its 43 employees currently manufacture and
support the float carburetors used in nearly all carbureted
general aviation aircraft flying today. Precision has been the
manufacturers of these carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved
carburetors were designed as early as the 1930s and continue to
fly over a million flight hours a year. After decades of service,
the reliability of these carburetors speaks for itself.

Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums
rise dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the
total sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we
have absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry
as a whole would be able to help address this issue faced by
Precision Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation
companies. Our efforts have been unsuccessful.

This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the
design approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, Precision
Airmotive has been unable to obtain product liability insurance
for the carburetor product line. While we firmly believe that the
product is safe, as does the FAA, and well-supported by dedicated
people both at Precision and at our independent product support
centers, unfortunately the litigation costs for defending the
carburetor in court are unsustainable for a small business such as
Precision.

Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has
been left with no choice but to cease production and support of
its float carburetor line.

We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the
industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation
and to provide future support for this product line. There is a
substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our
distributors, which should be sufficient to support the industry
for a short time.

14800 40th Avenue N.E. · Marysville , WA 98271 · USA · Phone:
(360) 651-8282 · Fax: (360) 651-8080


Tort Reform is a difficult issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform
The tort reform agenda
In general, tort reform advocates contend that there are too many
frivolous lawsuits.

The legal definition of a frivolous lawsuit is a legal action that
cannot reasonably be supported under existing legal precedent or
under a good-faith argument for a change in the law, or one that
has no basis in fact.[1] The term has acquired a broader
rhetorical definition in political debates about tort reform,
where it is sometimes used by reform advocates to describe
successful tort lawsuits that critics believe are without merit,
or award high damages relative to actual damages.

Tort reform advocates argue that the present tort system is too
expensive, that meritless lawsuits clog up the courts, that per
capita tort costs vary significantly from state to state, and that
trial attorneys customarily receive an unusually large percentage
of the punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs in tort cases.
High-profile tort cases are often portrayed by the media as the
legal system's version of a lottery, where trial lawyers actively
seek the magic combination of plaintiff, defendant, judge, and
jury.

Advocates of tort reform also complain of unconstitutional
regulation caused by litigation. Proponents further argue that
litigation is used to circumvent the legislative process by
achieving regulation that Congress is unwilling or unable to pass.
A few of the changes frequently advocated include limits on
punitive damages, limits on non-economic damages, limiting the
collateral source doctrine, use of court-appointed expert
witnesses, elimination of elections for judges, reducing appeal
bond requirements for defendants faced with bankruptcy, "venue
reform", which limits the jurisdictions within which one can file
a lawsuit, limits on contingency fees, the adoption of the English
Rule of "loser pays" (the defeated party must pay both the
plaintiff's and the defendant's expenses), and requiring that
class action lawsuits with nationwide plaintiffs be tried in
federal courts, eliminating awards for pre-judgment interest.


It's clear from this advertisement, that something needs to be done:

http://www.atra.org/
ATRA Critical of Hellhole Lawyer's 'Heart Attack' Ad
Palm Beach, Florida-based personal injury lawyer Craig Goldenfarb
has taken trolling for new clients to an arresting new low -
cardiac arrest, that is. His advertisement, appearing on some taxi
cabs, suggests that people who have heart attacks in public places
should sue others for liability.

Neither Goldenfarb's ad nor Web site offers any information about
the personal choices that can lead to heart attacks, such as
eating or drinking or smoking too much and not getting enough
exercise. Apparently he'd rather we blame someone else for our
problems, and that mindset helps make Palm Beach and Miami-Dade
counties the collective judicial hellhole they are (see ATRA's
Judicial Hellholes® 2006 report which cited South Florida among
the nation's worst, most unfair jurisdictions in which to be
sued).

In a news release, ATRA director of communications Darren
McKinney said he found the ad's "opportunistic, ambulance-chasing
mentality" to be "truly sickening" and rhetorically asked: "So who
can I sue?" He added that "ATRA intends to keep reminding
consumers, taxpayers and voters in judicial hellholes that they
ultimately bear the costs for the lawsuit abuse that the Craig
Goldenfarbs of the world foment."



What has happened to the US? While it's a different issue, usury is
apparently no longer illegal either. I can recall when charging 10%
interest was considered usury and punishable under the law. Today
credit card companies routinely charge 25% interest. If that's not
unconscionable or exorbitant, what is?

I would characterize it as laissez-(un)faire capitalism.