Hull/Liability Insurance Recommendations

"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

Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:
"Dave Butler" wrote in message
...

The webmaster may have made the original error, but I'm with Jim on this
one. The person/company who hired the webmaster failed to do basic quality
control on the web presentation. I'll avoid doing business with companies
for similar reasons. It shows a lack of attention to detail.


Which is sad for you. As an aircraft owner you may have just bypassed the
best aircraft insurance company out there. We've done the research. No
company will insure our fleet of airplanes at affordable prices except AUA.
Some will not insure them at all.

Having a personal recommendation from someone I know [like you ;-)] overrides
considerations of grammatical and spelling errors on web sites. I'm talking
about when I want to buy a widget, I google for widgets, and I'll bypass any
sites with obvious errors. I'll keep your recommendation in mind next time our
insurance comes up.

DGB

Don Tuite wrote:

On what planet is $60k the top of the middle class?

This one.

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

Bob Noel wrote
fwiw - most of the airplane owners I know have a net worth less
than 1 million, with most of that being the house.

That's certainly consistent with my experience.

Michael

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

Jose,


The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
carry insurance.


I find that position morally reprehensable.

Jose

I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
for them to carry to protect their potential victims?

I have not given the perspective you raise a great deal of thought
and, as I said, I'm interested. For the last several years, I've
looked at insurance issues from the point of view of airplane owners
managing risk in an appropriate manner as it applies tho them and
their families. You raise a point worth exploring as, with
automobiles, most states require drivers to carry some insurance to
provide for their potential victims and automobiles (per accidents per
million miles traveled) have been shown to be significantly safer than
general aviation aircraft.

I'm also concerned with the fact that the cost of flying has always
seemed to increase at a rate much faster than inflation, and mandating
insurance for pilots would spike it once again. It's a heck of an
interesting area for discussion.

All the best,
Rick

"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