Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:05:55 -0500, Bush
wrote:

That's the killer, I guy I know just picked up a really, really nice
V35 Bonanza for 50K since the owner was getting premium quotes of
14-18K. I ran my numbers though AOPA and came up with $930 per year,
hull and liability.

Mine runs about $1600 for 80 grand with Hull, liability, and medical.
However it takes 750 TT (up 50 since last year), 200 retract, 20 or 25
make and model, and an instrument rating (also new) for some one else
to fly it unless they are a named pilot. Adding a named pilot with
1800 TT with no (fender benders) and instrument rated, but only 20 in
retract was nearly $500

These premiums seem pretty low. What liability limits are we talking about?
Smooth or per injured party? 2 million liability with 100K per person might
be pretty inexpensive in a 4 passenger aircraft whereas 2 million smooth
might be pretty expensive in a 2 passenger aircraft. In the first case the
company is extending 400,000 in insurance and in the second extending
2,000,000 in insurance.
Howard

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news9MBi.62496
:


"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

In article ,
Judah wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news9MBi.62496
:


"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
"settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.

When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an uninsured
individual?

It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
"settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.

When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an
uninsured
individual?

It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I would
repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which they
know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it would reduce
the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect. The real benefit
would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I
would repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which
they know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it
would reduce the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect.
The real benefit would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

I'm not a legal expert, but I believe the bigger issue is that there is no
downside in a contingency lawsuit. There need to be consequences brought to the
loser of a legal action if he initiated it.


Otherwise the legal system stands to protect the rich instead of the
innocent...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I
would repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which
they know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it
would reduce the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect.
The real benefit would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

I'm not a legal expert, but I believe the bigger issue is that there is no
downside in a contingency lawsuit. There need to be consequences brought
to the
loser of a legal action if he initiated it.


Otherwise the legal system stands to protect the rich instead of the
innocent...

Yes, fixing that is in my top three, and I have heard an emotionally
compelling argument to apply that fix to criminal law as well. However, I
remain comfortable about keeping the strict liability issue as my first
priority.

Peter