AES/newspost wrote in message ...
In article t,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Why should they pay a claim if they are not required to?

Fair question -- but from a broader social point of view, if an
expensive object (like an airplane) that has some small but significant
change of causing massive damage to innocent third parties is going to
be exist and be operated at all, maybe (or for sure, IMHO) it should be
impossible for it to operate, or even exist, without at least liability
coverage for damage to others.

So maybe a legislative requirement on any company providing any kind of
aviation related insurance should be that all their policies must always
contain third-party liability coverage -- insurance on a plane should be
required to include liability coverage for others no matter who operates
it (even if it's stolen); insurance on a pilot should include liability
coverage for others, no matter what plane he operates (or in what
condition).

Seems a bit strange to require a certain type of insurance when no
insurance is required at all today.


My impression is that in Europe auto insurance coverage goes with the
car, not the driver. If so, good idea.

Same in the U.S. If you (one person) go out and buy 5 cars, you will
find that each car causes your rate to increase. The reason is because
the car creates liability indepenent of the driver.

Our governor just vetoed drivers license for undocumented immigrants on
grounds of inadequate insurance provisions: also a good idea,
independent of views on whether undocumented immigrants should be given
drivers licenses at all.

The illegal alien license was just a silly back door solution to avoid
addressing a real problem. If X number of immigrants are required to
run the state of California, then the feds need to come up with X
number of work permits. Making people live in a half-illegal status is
just stupid. If they're as needed as we're told, they need work
permits (i.e. be legal).

-Robert