Hull/Liability Insurance Recommendations

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

Rick,

Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate
and
won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that
the
insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the
pilot's
family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to
trial
against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
Thanks for the insite!

Mike
MU-2


I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
Collins.

Dave Stadt wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

Rick,

Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate

and

won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that

the

insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the

pilot's

family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to

trial

against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
Thanks for the insite!

Mike
MU-2



I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
Collins.

What part of the estate are they going after and in what state? When I
bought my Skylane share, my partner and I talked with two local
attorneys (NY state) about incorporating to help avoid some of the
personal liability. They both advised that this was unnecessary as the
only significant assets that either of us had were homes jointly owned
wiht our spouses, 401K plans, life insurance policies and company
pensions. We were told that none of the above could be touched via a
liability suit. They said to carry reasonable insurance (we had $1MM
smooth) and not worry about it.

We were told that the only assets they could go after were assets that
we owned solely, which for me was a pickup and a motorcycle. Everything
else was jointly owned with my wife and, if the attorneys were correct,
immune from litigation since my wife had no ownership position in the
airplane.


Matt

I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial
(and perhaps appeal) and they win (pilot is found negligent) the insurance
company pays up to the policy limit. At some point, the insurance company
is going to try to settle. My question is whether any case has gone to
trial against the pilot's estate after the insurance company paid out or
offered $1MM. The jury doesn't care about the insurance company but is
likely to be sympathetic to the pilots widow and children. My understanding
is that the insurance company is obligated to defend the pilot and generally
offers the policy limit to settle. The plaintiff then has to decide between
taking the $1MM now or taking the multi-year risk of going to trial and
risking the jury being sympathetic to the pilot's family and possibly
getting little or nothing. Also the plaintiff's legal fees will likely be
much higher if the case goes to trial, perhaps 50% instead of 33. Most
people are not in a postion to gamble the $1MM so they settle for the policy
limits.

I asked about this at a seminar by an aviation insurance broker and he said
that, as far as he knew, nobody had ever gone after the pilot or his estate
after the insurance company had offered the ($1MM) policy limits.

Mike
MU-2



"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
m...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

Rick,

Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate
and
won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that
the
insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the
pilot's
family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to
trial
against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
Thanks for the insite!

Mike
MU-2


I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
Collins.

Averages are often misleading, and throwing it out with a quip about whether
it matters or not does not mean that you didn't just use it as evidence that
the problem isn't getting worse. It detracts from your other arguments by
lowering your credibility.

At any rate, we don't care what the attorneys make (at least the rational
don't really care). What matters is the amounts of the awards that are going
out, and how reasonable they are.


"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
. com...
Actually a contingency is one third, after expenses. Once you figure
in the time involved in putting together the suit, unless the damages
are huge and liability is a slam dunk, and the fact that the
plaintiff's attorney has to bankroll the case for two to five years,
it's not enough money to make a person a target. In this day an age,
it simply isn't.

But, but, but...

That can't be the case. Plaintiff's attorneys are working to help the
injured little guy (and the chilluns). I know cus I saw it on TV.

Actually we may get to the day when the only ones left in our society
with
enough assets to be targets are the attorneys.

Howard

Howard,

If you look at the stats, the average income for attorneys has been
dropping the last several years. Don't know how that fits anything in
the discussion g.

All the best,
Rick


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.



"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Doug wrote:

No harm in getting a quote from Avemco.

If your time isn't worth anything.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net...
I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial


It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
interest.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

Bill Hale

"Bill Hale" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to
be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to
trial


It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is
to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth
their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your
best
interest.

Don't kid yourself, the insurance company is going to defend their interest.
They could care less about your assets.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

Bill Hale

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:16:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

The jury doesn't care about the insurance company but is
likely to be sympathetic to the pilots widow and children.

Well, at least in my state, the jury CAN'T know about the insurance
comany. They can guess (we had a pretty good idea, the time the woman
is suing her boyfriend and now husband who was driving the car, and he
didn't say a peep in his own defense but if anyone mentions
insurance, the judge is very unhappy, with the possibility of a
mistrial or sanctions.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Bill Hale wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net...

I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial



It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
interest.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

I don't think there is any logic at all when it comes to our tort system...

Matt

Dude wrote:

I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.

That's the first time I've heard anyone say that. In that case, I withdraw my remark,
but I will state that my experience with AVEMCO has been that they are very high. The
last quote I got from them was over double what I am currently paying.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.