Matt Barrow wrote:

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

George Patterson wrote:

Charles Oppermann wrote:


The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
than fuel costs.


Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.


Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past several
years, that fits.


Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
costs.


Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
deaths door?

Do you recall WHAT it did?

Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?

Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that of
making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.

GFY.

GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.

Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
cost of insurance for owners and pilots. As a matter of fact one could
assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
trial lawyers.

The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.