Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

your statement: "Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance
companies frequently reward policy holders ...".

I'm afraid you are missing the point about liability and risk.

Let's go back to the house analogy. Assume you own a house, and you have
homeowner's insurance. If you add smoke detectors to your house, your
insurance company will generally give you a premium reduction, as you have
taken reasonable steps to reduce the possibility that they will have to pay
for a fire claim on your house.

But if you go out and put a giant fence out in front of your house to
protect against cars crashing into your house, you probably will not get a
premium reduction. Since the driver of the car would be liable for the
damages to your house, and the insurance company would not be liable, and
would not have to pay anything, it would be of no advantage to them if you
put up the fence, so why should they give you a premium reduction?

Note: We are discussing only two cases and general liability principles,
practices may vary, prices not good in Alaska and Hawaii, etc. I really
don't want to get into a "but what if this happened" discussion, please...





"JohnMcGrew" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Denton"
writes:

I've only owned one house, but my homeowner's policy covered replacement
housing. I've forgotten the exact amount, but it was paid on an "$X per
day"
basis. But you have to remember that it is the pilot who is ultimately
liable. Depending upon your policy, you may be able to sue the pilot for
any
damages not paid by your homeowner's insurance, including replacement
housing.

Yes, your stuff will get replaced, and you will have somewhere to live in
the
meantime. But you will never be compensated for the inconvenience and
time
lost from your life.

"Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on
their
(KFI's) insurance premiums as well."

Actually, no. The radio station is only required to paint and light the
tower in accordance with FAA regulations. As long as they do that, they
are
under no liability if an airplane crashes into the tower, guy wires, etc.

Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance companies frequently
reward
policy holders for behavior or investments that reduce risk. For example,
I
pay less for health insurance because I do not smoke and am not
overweight. I
get a discount on my homeowners insurance because of my fire and security
alarms. I have little doubt that a radio station would get a discount for
installing strobe lights, or taking other actions beyond what the
regulations
require. The only question is exactly how long would it take to recoup
that
cost in saved premiums over time.

And yes, the pilot is finanically responsible for the tower. However,
that
doesn't mean that the radio station will ever get to collect. Did the
pilot
have enough insurance or assets to cover the cost of cleaning up the
damage and
replacing the tower? If it is found that the pilot violated some aspect
of his
policy (like being intoxicated, for instance) the pilots insurance may not
pay
out at all. That's why the radio station has insurance in the first
place. If
everyone was adequatly covered, they wouldn't need insurance in the first
place.

As for the tower being a hazard: Yup, that wasn't an ideal location at
all.
But then again, our airspace is full of stuff in less than ideal
locations.
Towers at that location have survived half-a-century next to the airport
without a hit. It was legally marked. It's on the charts. It's even in
Microsoft Flight Simulator! The radio station is hardly responsible.
John