I Want My Own Bird

One thing they know is that the higher the covered amount, the more likely a
lawyer will take a case for a percentage and pursue it vigourously.

This is why the states have started requiring malpractice insurance. The
insurers and the plaintifs attourneys watched in horror as all the doctors
started to go without insurance. This kept the insurance companies from
making money, and made it risky for the lawyers to take cases when they may
never collect.

If you want to be a really responsible person, then go for the high amounts,
but if you want to avoid a suit, by as little as you need to protect your
assets.



"Howard Nelson" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug" wrote in message
m...
It is hard to compare insurance premiums. For instance, what is HIS
liability limits compared to yours. You don't know, they could be
high. What is your deductible? (Mine aircraft is $10k). I just won
the hail lottery (house insurance) on my roof, and was comparing
insurance rates with neighbors. I have a high deductible and higher
liability (insure for what you can't afford to loose). Next door
neighbor has lower permiums, but minimum deductible and LOW liability.
She thinks she's getting a better deal just because "her premiums are
lower".

Anyway, cursory insurance comparisons aren't very accurate unless the
policies have identical terms and they almost never do.

Yes, Liability coverage plays a big part. Insurance on my C182 is well
above
2K for clean record/IFR/1000hrs. I could get it around $700 for same hull
coverage with minimum liability. Personally I would like to be able to buy
more liability insurance but max seems to be about 2m smooth. Insurers
must
know something.

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

Dave S wrote:

Actually, while not discounting the very real cost of "trash trippers"
and those who see the legal system as a lottery reward for their own
stupidity...there is another factor to consider.

The underwriters invest the premiums they recieve. When the returns on
that investment perform sub-par, they need to increase premiums to make
up for the shortfall in investment income. In effect, your premium is
actually subsidized through investment, and when the subsidy comes up
short, the policyholder pays. This sort of effect has been felt
throughout the healthcare malpractice-liability industry as well. Its
true that there are lots of judgements for "**** happens" rather than
negligence, but you can also notice that premiums take a sharp hike when
the economy (and investments) is (are) down.

That being said, be thankful they didnt jack your rates in relation to
an actual claim!!.

Dave

Jay Honeck wrote:

That's very true. My premiums only went down about 15% after my first
year of ownership, but the big difference was having my pick of insurers
rather than being limited to one or two who were willing to write the
risk.



That's true with many types of insurance.

Hotel/motel insurance, for example, is seen as a very high risk
endeavor. As a result, there are just two major players left in the
business.

Not surprisingly, they just jacked us $900 per year (which is about
what we had been paying per month) -- and I have no recourse but to
suck it up and pay it. Mind you, we've never had a claim of any kind
-- they just hiked us because, well, because they could.

Which is why I hate product liability and ambulance chasing attorneys
almost beyond measure. I'm sure some trailer trash "tripped" and fell
at a hotel last year, and the *******s sued the poor saps for $20
million -- and now we ALL have to pay for it.

I really can't believe that any pilot in their right mind would want a
product liability attorney a heartbeat away from the presidency. Has
everyone forgotten that these are the same a**holes that almost
eliminated aircraft manufacturing in this country?


Whether you think that high liability insurance cost is due to trial
lawyers or to bad insurance company investments is usually a function of
your political orientaton, as illustrated by Jay here. He really just
wanted to take a shot at the Democratic ticket.

However, the only answer that is actually supported by factual evidence
is that liability insurance rates are mostly a function of how insurance
company investments do in the stock and bond markets, not to any
asserted explosion of jury awards -- especially since most of them get
reduced significantly, and actual lawsuit payouts are a tiny fraction of
premiums. The insurance companies have a nice game going there, they
get people like Jay to cover for their poor investment returns, then
successfully direct his anger at an imagined cause that isn't even a
factor in the real world but suits their purposes. If every business
could fool their customers like that, we'd have a hell of an economy.

For example, Jay is "sure" that some "trailer trash" won 20 million
somewhere for tripping over something, but he doesn't cite an actual
award that was paid -- and you would bet that in his business, word of
that would spread fast.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...

For example, Jay is "sure" that some "trailer trash" won 20 million
somewhere for tripping over something, but he doesn't cite an actual
award that was paid -- and you would bet that in his business, word of
that would spread fast.

Well it is near the election and politics seems to be on the table.

What I do know is that J. Edwards has a publicized net worth north of $30m.
Much of that money (after taxes) could be in the hands of the injured
infants he has said he was aiding. I would be more impressed with his
commitment if he had retained for himself an hourly rate of $200/hr after
expenses. Lets see $60m/200 = 300,000 hours = 21428 14hr days = 4285 5day
weeks = 82 years with no vacation. Nope, I don't think that accurately
represents his work schedule.

Of course the actual outcome is a trial system so filled with FUD that the
defendant's insurance company many times simply writes a check for some
intermediate amount rather than fighting in courts.

The current system of liability and litigation in this country makes a
10-20% payoff sometimes needed in countries less enamored of the "rule of
law" seem like a bargain. Hence we see some productive companies and
individuals running for the door and others just ease back and do the
minimal needed to get by or retire early. Not a good long term program for
the country.

Howard



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 10/8/2004

In article , xyzzy
wrote:

Whether you think that high liability insurance cost is due to trial
lawyers or to bad insurance company investments is usually a function of
your political orientaton, as illustrated by Jay here. He really just
wanted to take a shot at the Democratic ticket.

However, the only answer that is actually supported by factual evidence
is that liability insurance rates are mostly a function of how insurance
company investments do in the stock and bond markets,

well, given how the stock markets and bond markets performed in the
past twenty years, I would have expected to see liability rates
plummet instead of rising. hmmmm...

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , xyzzy
wrote:

Whether you think that high liability insurance cost is due to trial
lawyers or to bad insurance company investments is usually a function
of your political orientaton, as illustrated by Jay here. He really
just wanted to take a shot at the Democratic ticket.

However, the only answer that is actually supported by factual
evidence is that liability insurance rates are mostly a function of
how insurance company investments do in the stock and bond markets,

well, given how the stock markets and bond markets performed in the
past twenty years, I would have expected to see liability rates
plummet instead of rising. hmmmm...


Insurance company's are limited where they can invest premium dollars.
They mostly have to invest in interest rate sensative investements.

Have you SEEN interest rates lately???

ET

In article , ET
wrote:

However, the only answer that is actually supported by factual
evidence is that liability insurance rates are mostly a function of
how insurance company investments do in the stock and bond markets,

well, given how the stock markets and bond markets performed in the
past twenty years, I would have expected to see liability rates
plummet instead of rising. hmmmm...


Insurance company's are limited where they can invest premium dollars.
They mostly have to invest in interest rate sensative investements.

Have you SEEN interest rates lately???

Yes. Did you forget what the rates were in the 70's and 80's?
High interest rates, yet liability insurance still went up.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Whether you think that high liability insurance cost is due to trial
lawyers or to bad insurance company investments is usually a function of
your political orientaton, as illustrated by Jay here. He really just
wanted to take a shot at the Democratic ticket.

I wouldn't vote for a product liability attorney if he was running for city
council -- let alone the presidential ticket.

For example, Jay is "sure" that some "trailer trash" won 20 million
somewhere for tripping over something, but he doesn't cite an actual award
that was paid -- and you would bet that in his business, word of that
would spread fast.

You need to see EVIDENCE of this phenomenon? You really do need to read the
newspaper once in a while.

There's a huge case going on right now, here in Iowa City, where the father
of a girl who was injured in a car accident is suing the Highlander Inn
(another local hotel) for MILLIONS of dollars, because they (*gasp!*) served
the driver alcohol at a wedding reception!

Of course, there's a god-damned liability attorney behind it all, playing on
the grief of a father in an attempt to pad his own pockets, with no regard
to the fact that they're going to put the Highlander Inn out of business.
Everything the founders of that business have worked a lifetime to achieve
is now at stake, at incredible expense, and for what?

An accident.

Oh, but I forgot: "Accidents" don't happen anymore. Especially not when
the drive is under-insured. The idiot who drank himself into oblivion, and
then got behind the wheel, apparently doesn't have deep enough pockets to
satisfy these scum. (He also killed his best friend -- whose parents are,
of course, also suing.)

This is just ONE example, of the hundreds I (and anyone with a functioning
brain stem) could quote.

It's sickening, it's wrong, it's devastating small businesses -- and we ALL
pay for it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

There's a huge case going on right now, here in Iowa City, where the father
of a girl who was injured in a car accident is suing the Highlander Inn
(another local hotel) for MILLIONS of dollars, because they (*gasp!*) served
the driver alcohol at a wedding reception!

Totally off-topic, sorry: is it legal to (*gasp!*) serve alcohol to 19-year-olds
at wedding receptions in Iowa?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
newsBbbd.241057$D%.10372@attbi_s51:

Whether you think that high liability insurance cost is due to trial
lawyers or to bad insurance company investments is usually a function
of your political orientaton, as illustrated by Jay here. He really
just wanted to take a shot at the Democratic ticket.

I wouldn't vote for a product liability attorney if he was running for
city council -- let alone the presidential ticket.

For example, Jay is "sure" that some "trailer trash" won 20 million
somewhere for tripping over something, but he doesn't cite an actual
award that was paid -- and you would bet that in his business, word
of that would spread fast.

You need to see EVIDENCE of this phenomenon? You really do need to
read the newspaper once in a while.

There's a huge case going on right now, here in Iowa City, where the
father of a girl who was injured in a car accident is suing the
Highlander Inn (another local hotel) for MILLIONS of dollars, because
they (*gasp!*) served the driver alcohol at a wedding reception!

Of course, there's a god-damned liability attorney behind it all,
playing on the grief of a father in an attempt to pad his own pockets,
with no regard to the fact that they're going to put the Highlander
Inn out of business. Everything the founders of that business have
worked a lifetime to achieve is now at stake, at incredible expense,
and for what?

An accident.

Oh, but I forgot: "Accidents" don't happen anymore. Especially not
when the drive is under-insured. The idiot who drank himself into
oblivion, and then got behind the wheel, apparently doesn't have deep
enough pockets to satisfy these scum. (He also killed his best friend
-- whose parents are, of course, also suing.)

This is just ONE example, of the hundreds I (and anyone with a
functioning brain stem) could quote.

It's sickening, it's wrong, it's devastating small businesses -- and
we ALL pay for it.

I'm with you....

It has recently been ruled hear in Texas that the plaintiff in a civil
case can demand to know how much your liability insurance covers!!!
Totally negating any reason to have much more liability insurance than
the bare "minumum". The scum will go for every dime the insurance
covers, then "convince" the jury that the only way to "punish" the
defendant is to award a large amount ABOVE that!!!


Disgusting!!!

ET

Dave Butler wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

There's a huge case going on right now, here in Iowa City, where the
father of a girl who was injured in a car accident is suing the
Highlander Inn (another local hotel) for MILLIONS of dollars, because
they (*gasp!*) served the driver alcohol at a wedding reception!


Totally off-topic, sorry: is it legal to (*gasp!*) serve alcohol to
19-year-olds at wedding receptions in Iowa?


Good catch Dave.

Actually the driver was only 18 when he was served acohol by the
Highlander Inn (he's 19 now). Interesting that Jay left that bit of
information out of his rant.

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2004/...e-715207.shtml

or

http://tinyurl.com/6624g

Further googling reveals that Iowa has a dram shop law, which
specifically makes establishments liable for actions of patrons they
serve alcohol to. This law also requires them to carry insurance
against this liability, so the owners of this place that helped an 18
year old illegally get stinking drunk can't say they didn't know about
their potential liability. This looks like exactly the kind of case
that dram shop laws were designed for.

It sounds to me like Jay's anger needs to be directed at Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (who was really pushing these laws many years ago) not the
lawyer who files a case under this law -- this is exactly what it was
for. Or does he think the law should have been passed but never invoked?

Plus, I suggest Jay wait and see how much, if anything, is actually paid
out in this lawsuit. Its easy to get headlines filing lawsuits with
large numbers. Jury awards with large numbers get big headlines and get
remembered too. But when the final payment is much less, either reduced
on appeal or settled, the headlines are smaller or nonexistent, so the
big number sticks in peoples' memories, even if it's not an amount
anybody actually paid.