Los Angeles radio tower crash kills 2

"Larry Dighera" wrote:
Since the pilot would be liable for the accident, KFI (or their
insurers)
would sue the pilot to recover damages.

In this case, it would be the pilot's estate.

If anyone here knows how to seat a jury which will take money from the
estates, meaning grieving spouses, sons and daughters of the
decedents, and award it to a media conglomerate and their insurance
company...a very lucrative career as jury consultant awaits.

FF

Which is why a new Skyhawk costs more than $200,000, while the actual cost
of the airplane would allow it to be priced at $100,000 were it not for
idiotic juries, tangled theories of liability, and plaintiff's attorneys...



"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Larry Dighera" wrote:
Since the pilot would be liable for the accident, KFI (or their
insurers)
would sue the pilot to recover damages.

In this case, it would be the pilot's estate.

If anyone here knows how to seat a jury which will take money from the
estates, meaning grieving spouses, sons and daughters of the
decedents, and award it to a media conglomerate and their insurance
company...a very lucrative career as jury consultant awaits.

FF

"Bill Denton" wrote:
Which is why a new Skyhawk costs more than $200,000, while the
actual cost
of the airplane would allow it to be priced at $100,000 were it not
for
idiotic juries, tangled theories of liability, and plaintiff's
attorneys...

Those #'s are way exaggerated. For just single-engine alone, they
were running about 1,000 units per year, or under your #'s an _annual_
bankroll of $100 million for product liability, plus whaetver their
safer Citations and stuff can add to the theoretical pot. How much of
such a huge total pot to date have they paid out in recent years?

As I undertand it, their halting of production pending passage of
product liability reform was not just the actual costs of suits, but
the growing uncertainty of future costs on an aging fleet. The law,
GARA, put an 18-yr cutoff date on liability. They cost $200,000
because they are expensive to produce, and merely $5,000 of built-in
liability cost would allow for an annual $5 million liability payout
on the S/E fleet. That $5K number I think I even read somewhere as
reasonable for Cessna volume.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote:
Which is why a new Skyhawk costs more than $200,000, while the
actual cost
of the airplane would allow it to be priced at $100,000 were it not
for
idiotic juries, tangled theories of liability, and plaintiff's
attorneys...

Those #'s are way exaggerated. For just single-engine alone, they
were running about 1,000 units per year, or under your #'s an _annual_
bankroll of $100 million for product liability, plus whaetver their
safer Citations and stuff can add to the theoretical pot. How much of
such a huge total pot to date have they paid out in recent years?

As I undertand it, their halting of production pending passage of
product liability reform was not just the actual costs of suits, but
the growing uncertainty of future costs on an aging fleet. The law,
GARA, put an 18-yr cutoff date on liability. They cost $200,000
because they are expensive to produce, and merely $5,000 of built-in
liability cost would allow for an annual $5 million liability payout
on the S/E fleet. That $5K number I think I even read somewhere as
reasonable for Cessna volume.

Fred F.


How many airplanes at $5,000.00 per?

$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002
This verdict arose from an accident that was a repeat of a well-known
problem with Cessna aircraft. When the pilot applied power for takeoff, the
seat came out of its latch and rocketed the pilot suddenly rearward while he
was holding onto the control yoke. The sudden pull back resulted in an
upward pitch of the aircraft, an aerodynamic stall, and an inevitable crash.
In this accident, the pilot suffered third degree burns, his wife had third
and fourth degree burns, and a passenger sustained crippling injuries that
caused bowel and bladder dysfunction. The jury found $80 million in
compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages against the Cessna
Aircraft Company.


$29,300,000 (Harper vs. Cessna) 1984
The deaths of a pilot and his son were caused when the seat of a Cessna 172
unlatched on takeoff, causing the pilot to lose control of the aircraft and
crash. The suit was jointly tried with other able counsel. Punitive damages
of $25 million and compensatory damages of $4,300,000 were awarded to punish
the defendant, Cessna Aircraft Company, for a defective design that had
caused many deaths and serious injuries.

"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.


Who is Cessna Aircraft's insurance company? Do they not "self-insure'?

"Allen" wrote:

Who is Cessna Aircraft's insurance company? Do they not
"self-insure'?

If they do, then Textron's SEC filings are fraudulent! I've looked at
recent filings, and they really don't cite problems here, current or
future. Actually, their ins co doesn't directly pay either. Like
even little Avemco, they would rely on "reinsurance" heavily, meaning
the risk is tossed into the worldwide aviation risk pool, like Lloyd's
of London who's never sold a single policy since the 1800's. Go to
Avemco's SEC filings and one gets a hint of how it works. You don't
see any big figure for claims payouts in financials, because it's
buried in their reinsurance arrangement.

Reg,
Fred F.

The problem is, what happens to insurance costs when it's pretty much
guaranteed you're going to be settling a blockbuster case once every ten
years or so? Right now I think the Archdiocese of Boston is unable to get
liability insurance because of all the scandals. Their insureres paid out
somewhere around $60m and said "we're outta here."

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Fred F.

"C Kingsbury" wrote:
The problem is, what happens to insurance costs when it's pretty
much
guaranteed you're going to be settling a blockbuster case once every
ten
years or so? Right now I think the Archdiocese of Boston is unable
to
get liability insurance because of all the scandals.


Maybe the problem with the Church is its inability to assure it will
go away, the word of a Servant of God notwithstanding :-) , whereas
with Cessna it could be things are looking up. NTSB stats are showing
that their singles reintroduced since the 90's are basically not
crashing, whereas each day more oldies in the fleet get X'd out under
the 18-year statute of repose for product liability. Some legal types
even say the phenomenon of blockbuster lawsuits is lately on the wane.
Who knows....

Reg,
Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote:

"Allen" wrote:
$480 million - The largest aviation verdict awarded to plaintiffs
in
history. (Cassoutt vs. Cessna) 2002

Real old news, because it was settled over 2 years ago for likely a
small fraction, as appeals courts seriously reduce these things. Nor
would Cessna pay out the settlement; they pay only for insurance.

Insurance companies aren't a bucket of free money for paying liability
claims though. You can bet if they make a payout like that they are
going to set future premiums to try to recover some of the loss, and
to reflect the possibility of future similar (or even higher) payouts.
The insurance company has to aim to collect at least as much in
premiums as they pay out.