Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Scout26 on June 13, 2009, 07:59:31 PM
-
>facepalm<
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107188/aig-balks-at-Claims-from-jet-ditching-in-hudson
A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson
by Mary Williams Walsh
Friday, June 12, 2009
New York Times
For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.
A pleasant woman at US Airways told him not to worry; he would be made whole for his losses. But then the matter shifted to US Airways' insurer, the American International Group, operating under government stewardship since its bailout last fall.
More from NYTimes.com:
• With House Vote, Tobacco Bill Goes to Obama
• Back on Hill, Automakers Defend Dealer Closings
• How Do I Know You're Not Bernie Madoff?
"Everything went downhill," said Mr. Jorgenson, a software executive in Charlotte, N.C., whose laptop and keys have not been recovered.
When a homeowner has a burglary or a driver has a crash, all it normally takes is a call to the insurance company and a description of the loss to activate the policy. But aviation liability insurance is different. It is activated by a finding of negligence on the part of an airline. If there is no negligence, then arguably there is no liability, and no obligation to pay claims.
That poses a problem for the passengers of US Airways Flight 1549. They suffered real losses and injuries, but they are widely perceived as having been saved from sudden, violent death by their heroic and quick-thinking flight crew, led by Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger.
"Insurance companies try to protect their assets, obviously," said Bruce D. Chadbourne, a co-author of the book, "Introduction to Aviation Insurance and Risk Management," and a professor in the business school at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla. With the airline wearing a halo, A.I.G. "is going to play hardball."
A spokeswoman for A.I.G.'s property and casualty business declined to comment.
"I wish I had a hammer to get them to do the right thing," said Andrew J. Maloney, a partner in the New York firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, which specializes in aviation litigation. He is representing some of the US Airways passengers but has not filed any lawsuits. "They're riding a wave of feel-good opinion about how well the flight crew handled the bird strike."
A spokesman for US Airways, Morgan Durrant, said the airline issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so. He declined to discuss the airline's liability insurance policy or claims processes, saying the matter was pending and he did not want to jeopardize it.
Those familiar with industry practices said it would be many months before the issue of liability was resolved.
Tess Sosa, who was aboard Flight 1549 with her husband, 4-year-old daughter and infant son, said she suffered a mild concussion during the landing, and her husband was treated for a leg injury and hypothermia. The family, from New York, continues to get hospital bills, she said. But her top priority was getting the insurer to pay for therapy to reduce the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder for her and her daughter.
Because the plane was full on the day of the accident, she and her baby were seated near the wings, while her husband and daughter were far in the rear. The plane struck the water tail-first, and water began pouring in where Mr. Sosa and daughter Sophia were sitting.
Ms. Sosa, clambering over seats toward the front of the plane with her son in her arms, looked back and caught a horrifying glimpse of her husband standing in the deepening water, trying to hold their daughter above the surface.
"I can tell you, he was looking straight at me and he didn't even see me," she said. Since then she has been haunted by the image, and the feeling that in her escape she abandoned her husband and daughter.
Ms. Sosa said Sophia "remembers everything. I just want her to walk away from this knowing that we did everything we could to make it make sense." A.I.G. agents have told her that for therapy she should use her own health insurance, but it has a $3,000 deductible for mental health care.
"Why should we be paying out of pocket?" she said. "That's why they're there. They're the insurer."
Aviation insurance specialists said that an airline's liability insurer is not normally there for medical bills after a plane crash. Passengers' health insurance may indeed pay first -- for passengers who have it -- or workers' compensation for passengers traveling on business. Later, if liability is established, those insurers circle back and try to get reimbursed from the airline's liability insurer.
But that does not help accident survivors who have expenses in the meantime.
A.I.G. has told Ms. Sosa and other passengers that it would pay for therapy, but only for three sessions.
"It's like telling me, 'We aren't responsible for this. This is your trauma. You deal with it,' " Ms. Sosa said.
In one exasperated conversation with an A.I.G. claims official, she invoked the taxpayer bailout, saying she doubted Congress and the Obama administration would approve of the stonewalling. The official "told me their division didn't get a cent from the bailout," she said.
Mr. Jorgenson, the software executive, said he did not have unpaid medical bills, but was frustrated about his claims for missing possessions. He sells specialized software to hedge funds and other investment companies, and must travel frequently to financial centers, wearing expensive suits and shoes, and carrying valuable computer equipment. He recently got some of his clothing back from the airline but the shoes were ruined, he said. One suit was missing its jacket, and his cufflinks and sunglasses are still gone. He got his wallet back but not the cash it held, he said.
Because he could document losses of more than $5,000, A.I.G. sent him a second $5,000, with a letter saying he could get an additional $10,000 if he signed a statement releasing it from any further claims. Other passengers are also being asked to sign the release in exchange for $10,000.
Mr. Jorgenson said he thought this was disingenuous, because some degree of liability might eventually be established. Then A.I.G.'s policy would be in play, but the passengers would have signed away their claims.
Mr. Chadbourne said he was not surprised to see A.I.G. holding firm.
"They really cannot row their own boat, totally, because they've got other people that they are making decisions for," he said, explaining that an aviation liability policy typically spreads the risks among 8 or 10 insurers, with one lead underwriter -- in this case A.I.G. -- handling claims on behalf of the group. (Although A.I.G. is not the lead underwriter on the missing Air France flight, it is part of an insurance pool with potential liability.)
"Even though they're giving the passengers a hard time, eventually they will be compensated to some extent," he said. "There's no big pot because there's no death. But there's still mental distress, and it is a compensatable illness which, eventually, in my opinion, they deserve. They went through hell."
The cost to them in public illwill will cost them more in the long term then what they'd pay.
-
For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.
He's just fine by:
A spokesman for US Airways, Morgan Durrant, said the airline issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so. He declined to discuss the airline's liability insurance policy or claims processes, saying the matter was pending and he did not want to jeopardize it.
These people, on the other hand:
Tess Sosa, who was aboard Flight 1549 with her husband, 4-year-old daughter and infant son, said she suffered a mild concussion during the landing, and her husband was treated for a leg injury and hypothermia. The family, from New York, continues to get hospital bills, she said. But her top priority was getting the insurer to pay for therapy to reduce the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder for her and her daughter.
Need to realize: Life sucks, get a helmet. (Shamelessly stolen from Dennis Leary).
They got $5K. I doubt the hospital bills were that big for a minor leg injury and hypothermia. As far as the psychobabble.... bad things happen. To all sorts of people. God sent some birds into the path of the plane and it went down. Be happy you're breathing and able to whine about needing psychobabble. You need therapy because of your outlook on life: Who's gonna pay me for my trauma and suffering! Rather than Thank God I'm alive and that our pilots were able to save us all from a freak incident like that!
I'm sure that the remainder of the $5K can take care of their need for psychobabble. I guess that means the iPods, cell phones, purse clutter and the rest will just have to be replaced with your own money.
Again: Life sucks. Get a helmet. No fault and no catastrophic loss of life = no liability = no insurance payout.
ETA: Each PASSENGER got $5K. That means the whiny family got at least $20K. They're just fine. Helmets are $25 each.
-
Y'know, as much as I am bothered by the lack of mental health care access in this country, and as seriously as I take PTSD, my sympathy is really with the airline.
I don't understand why these people think they should get paid for this. You don't automatically get your expenses paid for someone else. No liability=no payment.
And yeah, seriously, even just the 5k the woman got for herself will cover about 75 visits with a social worker or counselor, and 28 or so with psychiatrist. Psychologist is somewhere in the middle. That is generally way more than enough to help someone get the tools needed to cope with the aftermath of one brief trauma like this.
-
There are people whose first thought at a disaster is FREE MONEY.
This goes to the point that in Israel, we had the phenomenon of people approaching the sites of bus bombings to rub themselves against the smoking wreckages, so they could claim to be covered in soot from the bombing and demand compensation from .gov.il.
I joke not.
-
There are people whose first thought at a disaster is FREE MONEY.
This goes to the point that in Israel, we had the phenomenon of people approaching the sites of bus bombings to rub themselves against the smoking wreckages, so they could claim to be covered in soot from the bombing and demand compensation from .gov.il.
I joke not.
Ok, that is officially the most f-ed up thing I have heard all week.
-
It is to be understood that I do not have any problem with people ACTUALLY injured or suffering from stress due to the bombings, shellings, and other crap getting compensation.
I do however start being bothered when newspapers publish very thinly-veiled guides on how to fake PTSD for getting compensation ["We're not suggesting you should fake it, but if you're applying for compensation, these are the symptoms that get you money..."] or, as mentioned, when people swarm the smoldering wreckage of buses for money.
-
There are people whose first thought at a disaster is FREE MONEY.
A guy I know specifically told me that he thought that way. A great guy, really; hard-working, self-motivated, and so on, loves his kids. But that's just how he thinks.
-
Yup. "I survived something unpleasant, therefore somebody needs to pay me."
Just wait. Obama will step up and give them the money they so rightfully deserve.
-
Does that mean that we all get free money if we survive Obama's presidency?
-
If you're lucky maybe you'll get to keep some of your own money. Maybe.
Does that count?
-
So, like, we're talkin' liability insurance here, right? As in the party at fault (or their insurance company) should pay up?
So which insurance company had the birds' flock policy? Why aren't "the media" going after them?
I'm disgusted. I was in a small plane "incident" once. I was on a "corporate errand," shall we say, and the client's corporate plane was heading back home at the time I was scheduled to, so they kindly suggested I cancel my commercial reservation and ride home in the right seat of a twin-engine turboprop. Cool.
Until about 10 minutes after take-off, when the pilot started making funny faces at the gauges, then he turned the plane around and shut off one of the two engines. He called in a Mayday, we got priority clearance to land, and he executed a perfect landing and we rolled back to the hanger area. He was pretty cool about it -- except that he couldn't get out of the plane for ten minutes because his legs were shaking so badly from delayed nervous reaction. I had no idea how just serious it really was to lose one of the two engines. Apparently, it is considered somewhat of a B-I-G D-E-A-L.
So these mental midgets are on a MUCH larger aircraft, that lost BOTh engines, and the pilot brought them down to a nice, safe, albeit somewhat damp landing. Nobody died. And this dude has the nerve to complain that his shoes got wet? It is obvious that the United States is no longer the same country that saved civilization from the Nazi scourge.
-
My father had two inflight fires back when he was flying our Cessna 182. Both times he shut off the fuel, deadsticked into the airport and discharged the fire extinguisher into the cowling. Who should he sue for mental anguish? Himself?
Personally, I'd be thrilled to survive a ditching in any aircraft, and getting a $5K check would be gravy.
These passengers that want to sue will find my sympathy in the dictionary between *expletive deleted*it and syphilis.
-
A guy I know specifically told me that he thought that way. A great guy, really; hard-working, self-motivated, and so on, loves his kids. But that's just how he thinks.
Proof again, as if it were needed, that no matter how together some people appear to have it, they can still be completely ate up with the dumbass.
-
So, like, we're talkin' liability insurance here, right? As in the party at fault (or their insurance company) should pay up?
So which insurance company had the birds' flock policy? Why aren't "the media" going after them?
I'm disgusted. I was in a small plane "incident" once. I was on a "corporate errand," shall we say, and the client's corporate plane was heading back home at the time I was scheduled to, so they kindly suggested I cancel my commercial reservation and ride home in the right seat of a twin-engine turboprop. Cool.
Until about 10 minutes after take-off, when the pilot started making funny faces at the gauges, then he turned the plane around and shut off one of the two engines. He called in a Mayday, we got priority clearance to land, and he executed a perfect landing and we rolled back to the hanger area. He was pretty cool about it -- except that he couldn't get out of the plane for ten minutes because his legs were shaking so badly from delayed nervous reaction. I had no idea how just serious it really was to lose one of the two engines. Apparently, it is considered somewhat of a B-I-G D-E-A-L.
So these mental midgets are on a MUCH larger aircraft, that lost BOTh engines, and the pilot brought them down to a nice, safe, albeit somewhat damp landing. Nobody died. And this dude has the nerve to complain that his shoes got wet? It is obvious that the United States is no longer the same country that saved civilization from the Nazi scourge.
Well said.
-
In many major cities, when I bus is in an accident, one of the driver's first responsibilities after making sure of the condition of the passengers is to secure the bus so that no other people can get on and claim to have been passengers who were injured in the wreck.
Some years ago several people were prosecuted in DC for attempting to make claims against metro when, after observing a bus/car accident, they stormed the bus and claimed to have been passengers injured in the accident.
-
Emergency room bills for three people can easily exceed 15,000 for routine care and exams.
But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full. You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight. Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.
Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship. I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.
-
In many major cities, when I bus is in an accident, one of the driver's first responsibilities after making sure of the condition of the passengers is to secure the bus so that no other people can get on and claim to have been passengers who were injured in the wreck.
Some years ago several people were prosecuted in DC for attempting to make claims against metro when, after observing a bus/car accident, they stormed the bus and claimed to have been passengers injured in the accident.
I have seen video footage of this from hidden cameras on the buses. The film shows people literally swarming onto the bus and flinging themselves into the seats, and then starting to moan and twitch. It would have been a hilarious parody if it wasn't absolutely accurate in depicting the events.
-
But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full. You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight. Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.
I agree that they should sue the birds.
-
I agree that they should sue the birds.
Blaming the birds is fine, but it doesn't settle the question of who should pay for the damage.
Who's in the best position to insure and guard against bird strikes on aircraft? Passengers, or airlines? That's the question that should determine who has the responsibility to pay the damages (and consequently who will take out insurance to cover the situation.)
-
Blaming the birds is fine, but it doesn't settle the question of who should pay for the damage.
Who's in the best position to insure and guard against bird strikes on aircraft? Passengers, or airlines? That's the question that should determine who has the responsibility to pay the damages (and consequently who will take out insurance to cover the situation.)
The passengers, duh. They should've rolled down the windows and shooed them away. =)
-
Bird Strikes are an act of God, sue him.
Seriously though, sometimes Stuff Happens. And nobodies liable, because it's just a freak happenstance. Yeah it sucks, but so do lightning strikes, shark attacks, mudslides, hurricanes and many other events that can't be predicted or controled.
-
Bird Strikes are an act of God, sue him.
Seriously though, sometimes Stuff Happens. And nobodies liable, because it's just a freak happenstance. Yeah it sucks, but so do lightning strikes, shark attacks, mudslides, hurricanes and many other events that can't be predicted or controled.
So there is no insurance for acts of god?
-
So there is no insurance for acts of god?
Sure there is. Hurricane and Sinkhole insurance come to mind (can you tell I live in FL?). Liability insurance ain't it though. There's probably some small market that could be filled selling "no fault of the airline crash insurance" in little kiosks at the airport. Or travlers could start asking for copies of their carrier's insurance policy, and making airlines decisions based on that info.
But AIG is the Liability insurer. They pay damages for event's that are the airlines fault. Excluding a black box recording that says "lets ram those birds" or a US Airways memo about retiring old airframes by seeding the buildings around the airport with geese, I fail to see how this is the airlines fault.
No Fault=No Liability. The airline already wen't above and beyond giving everyone $5g's.
Americans need to understand there is no "right" to be "made whole" for every bad event in their life.
-
Emergency room bills for three people can easily exceed 15,000 for routine care and exams.
But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full. You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight. Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.
Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship. I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.
Okay this isn't good. I agree with SS for once. Not good at all.
:O
The passengers were under the care of the airline. The airline or its insurance should pay for the medical treatment of the passengers. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I hire a taxi, and he hits a deer by no fault of his own, and I'm injured, wouldn't the auto insurance cover my injuries?
-
At least we can all rest easy in the knowledge that the increase in unemployment will have little effect on civil litigation attorneys..... =D
-
Some years ago several people were prosecuted in DC for attempting to make claims against metro when, after observing a bus/car accident, they stormed the bus and claimed to have been passengers injured in the accident.
aboutv 15 years ago there was an accident involving a metro training bus at georgia and missouri. just driver trainee and instructor on board . the hospital was swamped by folks who claimed to be on bus. zero prosecutions
-
But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full. You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight. Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.
If the airline was negligent, I'd agree with you. In this case, it was not their fault and only through the airline's hiring of a skilled, well trained pilot did everyone manage to survive.
Covering the medical bills would probably be a good idea for the airline company. But, where do you draw the line? Should an airline pay for someone's psych treatment for life when the accident wasn't their fault? They were generous enough to toss everyone a $5k check when they were not required to do so.
Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship. I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.
From what I understand, AIG was contracted solely to provide liability insurance IF the airline was liable. Acts of God were not part of the contract, if I read correctly. Blame the airline for not having comprehensive coverage, not the insurance company for only covering what they were paid to cover.
Some of us are aware of what insurance is covered by airlines and what is not. Every airline has terms and conditions that you agree to when you purchase your tickets. Just because you didn't read it doesn't mean it isn't binding. Some of us are responsible enough to read said binding terms and conditions, were uncomfy with the lack of certain provisions in said terms and conditions, and purchased Travel Insurance to cover those lack of certain terms and conditions.
My travel insurance covers my belongings against theft, loss, accident, act of god, terrorism, etc while I am travelling. An extra provision covers international medical, med-evac to friendly soil, kidnapping protection, etc. Hell, they even provide a number to call for "medical or security advice or assistance" if I'm feeling too lazy to bring up the State Dept's website. It's not that expensive either.
As someone else pointed out, life's tough, buy a helmet. It's no one's fault but your own if you fail to do the necessary steps in procuring a helmet that adequately fits your needs.
-
What if this weren't birds?
What if a meteorite fell through the sky and tore a wing off the plane, but everyone still lived after a ditch landing? I see no difference between birds and space debris. It's uncontrollable, untrackable and unavoidable.
If that same meteorite fell from the sky and smashed your roof, you would not be covered unless you got "act of God" insurance for your homeowner's insurance policy. Otherwise, it would be out of your pocket. If the meteorite hit you and took your arm off (leaving you otherwise alive) while you were driving, your health insurance would cover the treatments... not your auto insurance. Your auto insurance would cover the damage to your car.
Extend that to an airline. The meteorite hits you in your seat on the plane, takes your arm off. How is that any liability of the airline? It is an inherent risk of travel.
Similar risks:
-Taking off from any runway in California where earthquakes are possible.
-Taking off eastbound from Sea-Tac in Washington and flying over Mt. Rainier (a dormant volcano).
How can an airline be found at fault for random, far-fetched yet possible occurrences?
-
^^^^^ Having flown out of SeaTac countless times, I note that all the aircraft seem to give Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens a wide berth.
-
free money!! it draws the landsharks
-
^^^^^ Having flown out of SeaTac countless times, I note that all the aircraft seem to give Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens a wide berth.
Because that is how ATC routes us. Personally, I'd like to fly lower and close the mountains for a better view.
Has "act of God" been defined by insurance companies or the courts? Has it been tested in court by atheists?
-
For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.
--SNIP--
A spokesman for US Airways, Morgan Durrant, said the airline issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so.
He can't get a laptop, keys and wallet for $5K? I'm pretty sure I'd still have $3500 left over after a pretty serious upgrade of my laptop.
-
>Okay this isn't good. I agree with SS for once. Not good at all.<
Take a long shower. Use pumice. It helps... ;)
>I see no difference between birds and space debris.<
Birds are, generally speaking, softer and covered in feathers. Space debris, isn't. Hope that helps... :P
-
How can an airline be found at fault for random, far-fetched yet possible occurrences?
Isn't it the same, however, when you are driving a car with liability insurance?
I guess if there is no "act of god" clause, though, its between the passengers and the airline directly.
If I were on a jury, though, I'd certainly not find anything above actual expenses.
-
RevDisk, negligence is not the only reason for imposing liability. Liability to pay and fault are two different things. Fault is one way of apportioning liability; it is not the only way.
The fact is, in these situations, someone has to pay. Blaming the birds and saying no lawsuit should lay except against them is forcing the passengers to eat the losses. In this case, that doesn't make economic sense because the financial incentive from the losses would hit the party that can't do anything about it; imposing the cost on the airline gives an added financial incentive for the airline to find ways to mitigate the damages, which is something it is much better positioned to do than the passengers.
That's a means of turning a loss into a productive force: it drives (over time, obviously) new ways of avoiding damages. Handing the loss off to the passengers does nothing, because they have no ability to mitigate/prevent these sorts of situations. They aren't pilots, don't operate aircraft, and have no direct control over the machinery.
Jamis's analogy is quite sound: it's the norm (and has been for a long time) that passengers in the care of an innkeeper or carrier have special protections against losses, because they have to hand over control of their property and lives for a period of time.
It's fair, in addition to being economically sound, to do this because it's the airline that profits from flying the airplane. When you're operating machinery that sometimes results in damage to others that wouldn't otherwise occur, and those others have absolutely no ability to protect themselves, it's only reasonable to impose the cost of the damages on the party that profits directly from the machinery.
-
SS,
How can you apply "least cost avoider" to this situation?
It was an "act of God". It's the same as if it were struck by a meteorite (as previously mentioned).
Are you suggesting the airplane company should put ANOTHER engine on their plane just in case they get a bird sucked into two at the same time in order to "avoid" this situation?
Oh, but then I guess they'd have to put in a fourth, just in case they get birds sucked into three at the same time...
And then a fifth just in case they get 4 birds sucked into all four engines at the same time...
And then....
-
Am I the only one who notices that very often, when SS argues with people on this board, he and his opponents start talking past each other very fast, and taking this for obstinacy?
-
Am I the only one who notices that very often, when SS argues with people on this board, he and his opponents start talking past each other very fast, and taking this for obstinacy?
My response was to:
In this case, that doesn't make economic sense because the financial incentive from the losses would hit the party that can't do anything about it; imposing the cost on the airline gives an added financial incentive for the airline to find ways to mitigate the damages, which is something it is much better positioned to do than the passengers.
The airline has no means of mitigating damages from an act of God.
He was applying the "least cost avoider" reasoning to a situation which could not be avoided. He then suggested that we should harm the airlines because it would give them "added incentive to find ways to mitigate the damages."
He claims the passengers couldn't avoid the losses (unable to "do anything about it", which is untrue- they did not have to fly).
He then claims the airline could have. My question is how he can make this determination by any means other than "the airline has deep pockets, so let's stick it to them." (His reasoning that they "profit" from the airplane. Funny, I thought the passengers did too, otherwise, why are they flying?)
-
Y'know, as much as I am bothered by the lack of mental health care access in this country, and as seriously as I take PTSD, my sympathy is really with the airline.
I have to agree. Odds are any problems her 4 year old is having is caused more by her mother's/family's reaction to the incident than the incident itself. If Momma just rolled with the incident, her kid wouldn't pick up that the incident was as scary/dangerous as it was. Is PTSD treatment standard after a car accident? This was less traumatizing than many car accidents. It was over fairly quickly, nobody got hurt, the kid didn't see any bodies/serious injuries, etc... A bumpy landing, a bit of cold, a ride in the boat with all sorts of people asking if she's alright and giving her blankets and things. In my experience young kids tend to bounce back really well, especially if the incident is brief. Now if Momma continues to pull her hair out over it, then the kids can pick up on THAT and get problems that way.
At some point I'd start looking towards the individual's medical insurance, homeowner's policy in regards to claims due to injuries/loss of property due to animal action.
And yeah, seriously, even just the 5k the woman got for herself will cover about 75 visits with a social worker or counselor, and 28 or so with psychiatrist. Psychologist is somewhere in the middle. That is generally way more than enough to help someone get the tools needed to cope with the aftermath of one brief trauma like this.
I'll note that it's care to prevent PTSD, not to treat actual PTSD. Is that even a recognized treatment? I haven't heard of the military starting to do this, even though they examine people coming back pretty carefully to see if they ahve PTSD.
Personally, I think that $5k for a non-signficant injury crash landing with goods lost is perfectly fair, along with picking up the post-disaster checkup/blankets/O2/EMT services, which can be suprisingly expensive.
Has "act of God" been defined by insurance companies or the courts? Has it been tested in court by atheists?
I'm pretty atheistic, and I generally just define AoG as 'unpredictable unforseen occurance'. Deer jumping in front of your vehicle, meteor, lightning strike, etc... Some of those you can partially compensate for, indeed airlines and airports do a lot to try to prevent bird strikes.
He was applying the "least cost avoider" reasoning to a situation which could not be avoided. He then suggested that we should harm the airlines because it would give them "added incentive to find ways to mitigate the damages."
Look at it a different way. Who's in the position to make sure a plane doesn't get hit by birds? The passangers or the owner of the plane? I'd tend to say the owner of the plane.
Sure, the risk can't be avoided 100%, but it can be mitigated. Many airports have dedicated teams today, even conduct extensive landscaping operations to keep birds away from the runways, especially when planes are using it.
He claims the passengers couldn't avoid the losses (unable to "do anything about it", which is untrue- they did not have to fly).
Still, I don't want even people who were on the flight to get the idea that they're now on the gravy train. Insurance should make them whole, not be like winning the lottery.
Especially when the airline isn't really at fault this time.
-
Emergency room bills for three people can easily exceed 15,000 for routine care and exams.
But yeah, in this case, the folks who suffered any monetary loss or need for medical care should be compensated in full. You pay for a flight ticket expecting...a flight. Not to be heroically landed in a river, and then told to be grateful that you made it out of that flight alive.
Weeding out phoney claims is not a special hardship. I feel no special sympathy that AIG might have to do it just like the rest of us who drive or are responsible for premises.
If the guy in the seat next to me listens to rap or farts, or I can't sleep well on the plane, what do I get? It's not the airline's fault, but they could do more to prevent it... maybe I've got a flatulence phobia? I MUST BE MADE WHOLE FOR THE FART.
Seriously though, nobody has mentioned: the airline LOST A PLANE. That *very expensive* aircraft is not ever going to fly again. Now, tell me again how they can just "suck it up" and let people use a situation(a situation which, due to the company having good employees and good communication, ended up quite well considering the other possible outcomes) to extort from them.
-
Mak,
It is not the "least cost avoider", it is the "only person able to take measures to avoid the cost" in the context that you need to focus on.
Airlines purchase airplanes, operate them, and maintain them. This puts them in a position to update the machinery constantly. They will develop technology that improves the basic machine more efficiently in response to costs. Hence, if you impose a cost relating to some aspect of the plane's operation (ie, the cost of bird strikes), you give the airline a financial incentive to keep pushing for planes that will better avoid or survive bird strikes.
Calling it "act of god" misses the point. You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition. Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike.
It's the reacting and developing ways to mitigate or avoid that passengers can't do. Imposing the cost of a bird strike on the passenger yields zero in the way of incentive, because the passenger will only rarely bear that cost, and because the passenger is not in a position to have any direct impact on the features of the airplane. The airline will have to deal with many such incidents, and as a result will have a greater financial incentive to minimize the damage, and will also have a direct route for doing so, like adding something to the airplane.
The fairness aspect of this has nothing to do with "deep pockets." Airplanes will, in a given number of flights, impose damage on third parties who had nothing to do with the operation of the plane. That is a mathematical certainty. So why is it that we have to let people profit from this activity without requiring them to pay the damages that everyone knows will happen as a result? This is one of the longstanding civil law tort concepts that does not use fault to apportion damages.
It's a very simple idea: If you want to engage in some activity that you know will result in damages to others through no fault of their own, that's fine...but you pay for it when the damages occur, even if it wasn't your fault, because you're the one who collects the financial reward from that activity. To do otherwise is to knowingly force society to pay for things over which it has no control (other than to prohibit you from flying, or to refuse to fly, both of which are the equivalent of strong-arming the public into paying for the damages directly caused by flight, without giving a direct share in the profits.)
I don't see anyone on this thread, including me, saying people should be compensated for farts. But it's silly to argue that the damages you'd suffer from a fart and from a plane crash are the same thing. It's not a stretch to imagine mental injury that could require treatment in this case. And the loss of significant personal effects, which people almost always carry while flying, is another obvious hard loss here.
This is the problem with the urban legends about the lady who was scared by ronald mcdonald and sued for a million: it leads people to conflate the issue of when and who should pay, with the issue of what kinds of damages ought to result in payment. It's important to keep those two separate, as you might quickly find that the same people who claimed they were stopping lawsuits over spilled mcdonald's coffee effectively barred you from suing mcdonald's at all.
-
indeed airlines and airports do a lot to try to prevent bird strikes.
Actually airlines do very little since it is the responsibility of the airport per FAA guidelines to provide wildlife hazard management and while some airports do a very good job, others do the bare minimum. In this case it is irrelevant due to the birds being migratory and at an altitude where there is little option for harassment.
-
SS:
Calling it "act of god" misses the point. You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition. Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike.
Countermeasures to acts of God? =D Do you enjoy tempting fate?
How on Earth does a plane manufacturer avert damage from bird strikes? Or an airline operator avoid bird strikes?
The only way I see to accomplish that is to totally exterminate birds within 50 miles of an airport. They already have hawkers and other anti bird measures increasing predation in the immediate vicinity of the airport.
You can't screen the engines... a 1/2 pound bird entering at 400mph will rip the screen off the intake and throw it into the engine along with the bird body. You can't block the air intake. Need air to generate thrust in a jet engine.
Should planes just shift to rocket based propulsion so as to not have an air intake? Or go back to turboprops? Increase the granularity of the onboard radar so it can detect individual birds? How does the airline have liability for not having technology that hasn't been invented yet?
You're advocating California-style control over society. Baseless mandates without the infrastructure in place to support them. It's no different than the decree the CA government has made that 50% of the state's power has to come from solar in the next 10 years (or whatever the ridiculous numbers were... I forget.).
-
You can't screen the engines... a 1/2 pound bird entering at 400mph will rip the screen off the intake and throw it into the engine along with the bird body. You can't block the air intake. Need air to generate thrust in a jet engine.
Should planes just shift to rocket based propulsion so as to not have an air intake?
Let's try something else entirely: Magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster) =D Only downside is that... This sucker's electrical. You need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed. :O
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi358.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo27%2FSTC_24%2FIntrest%2FBacktotheFutureDocBrown-full.jpg%3Ft%3D1245167117&hash=2463da83722f25e9f6842bcf838bb0d658d9663b)
-
Okay this isn't good. I agree with SS for once. Not good at all.
:O
The passengers were under the care of the airline. The airline or its insurance should pay for the medical treatment of the passengers. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I hire a taxi, and he hits a deer by no fault of his own, and I'm injured, wouldn't the auto insurance cover my injuries?
But what did the airline do wrong? Seems to me they did everything the right way, despite the heroically difficult circumstances. It's a crazy bass ackwards world where doing it right makes you liable.
-
How on Earth does a plane manufacturer avert damage from bird strikes? Or an airline operator avoid bird strikes?
Obviously Sully just wasn't good enough as a pilot. He should have been able to steer around the birds without hitting any of them. He used to be a fighter pilot, right? He shoulda been able to do it.
Sue the pants off the whole lot of them.
;/
-
The fact is, in these situations, someone has to pay.
Why is that a fact?
-
But what did the airline do wrong? Seems to me they did everything the right way, despite the heroically difficult circumstances. It's a crazy bass ackwards world where doing it right makes you liable.
We are no longer a country with the rule of law, but ruled by lawyers.
Why is that a fact?
Its a fact lawyers will make money if we accept it as a fact.
-
Calling it "act of god" misses the point. You can develop countermeasures to acts of God. For example, in firearms we get better engineering and steel to minimize the damage from unforeseen overcharges in ammunition. Lightning strikes are just as much "act of god" as bird strikes, but there is still technology (including for airplanes) to help mitigate the damage of a strike.
What are these solutions that you speak of? Because birdstrikes are extremely costly to the aviation industry. I'd sure like to know, because I've had quite a few near misses with the feathered rats and expect to hit one or more in the future (which I'd rather avoid due to the mess and damage).
Or go back to turboprops?
Oh, and turboprops are not immune to bird strikes. From wikipedia:
The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike was on October 4, 1960, when Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, a Lockheed L-188 Electra flying from Boston, flew through a flock of common starlings during take off, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed shortly after take-off into Boston harbor, with 62 fatalities out of 72 passengers. Subsequently, minimum bird ingestion standards for jet engines were developed by the FAA.
The L-188 is a four engine turboprop aircraft.
I don't know if a P&W PT-6 would be affected, though, as they draw air from the rear of the engine, IIRC.
-
Or go back to turboprops?
Go Zeppelin.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flatrock.org.nz%2Ftopics%2Fflying%2Fassets%2Fhindenburg.jpg&hash=913c5a2dd5ae138975e76c6788f43360643e45d9)
-
Why is that a fact?
Ditto.
SS, I would love to see some law that backs up your theory that we can and should sue companies for not yet having developed and implemented as yet non-existent technologies in an attempt to avoid an incident that is triggered by an intervening cause and that is, with current technology, unavoidable.
Sounds like the "you're f---ed, whatever you do" standard of care. Oddly, that one has never cropped up in any cases I've come across.
-
Headless,
It is a fact because it is undisputed that there was damage - that means someone is going to eat the cost. It wouldn't be called "damage" otherwise. The lost briefcase will either be replaced for money, or the use that gave it value in the first place will be foregone. Damages do not cease to exist because you choose not to fork over cash; the loss itself represented value, which was why someone paid for the product in the first place. Loss is also why people seek medical treatment.
AZredhawk, your post is a perfect example of why it is fruitless to impose the cost on consumers. The average passenger doesn't have any idea how to design an airplane better; that's why for all the costs they'll suffer (unlikely as they are) due to existing airplane designs, there will be no productive result. Impose the costs of airplane accidents on the owner of the plane, however, and over time the owner has every incentive to promote and adopt new technologies that help minimise the damage or avoid the accident. Saying that the airline should pay the costs when there's an airline accident involving the airline's plane is not "California style control." It imposes the costs on the only party that has the ability to do something about it, and leaves it up to the market whether that cost actually results in improved airplanes. In any case, the incentive has some productive value, whereas imposing the cost on the passenger does nothing.
Bridgewalker,
You would have to skip all the tort law on independent contractors, animals, unusually dangerous activities (changing over time), and products liability to miss the parts where liability is traditionally imposed without a finding of negligence. This is called "strict liability" traditionally, and that's exactly what it means: No matter what, you pay for damages caused by whatever activity is at issue. It has nothing to do with whether you should have done something else; the argument about incentives for new technology is policy rationale, not law, of which there is already more than enough to justify holding people liable in some circumstances without fault or negligence of any kind.
According to my law school notes, we learned some of these cases on the subject:
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330
Siegler v. Kuhlman, 473 P.2d 445 (1970)
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963)
Gray v. Manitowoc Company, 771 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1985) seems particularly close to the point, if my rusty notes are correct.
-
Headless,
It is a fact because it is undisputed that there was damage - that means someone is going to eat the cost. It wouldn't be called "damage" otherwise. The lost briefcase will either be replaced for money, or the use that gave it value in the first place will be foregone. Damages do not cease to exist because you choose not to fork over cash; the loss itself represented value, which was why someone paid for the product in the first place. Loss is also why people seek medical treatment.
I don't disagree that there will be a loss for someone. Losses are a natural result of taking risks (and make no mistake, air travel has certain unavoidable risks associated with it). My contention is with your assertion that someone should pay because of the loss. "Pay" implies money changing hands.
Tell me why you think someone should pay someone else because of the plane crash.
AZredhawk, your post is a perfect example of why it is fruitless to impose the cost on consumers. The average passenger doesn't have any idea how to design an airplane better; that's why for all the costs they'll suffer (unlikely as they are) due to existing airplane designs, there will be no productive result. Impose the costs of airplane accidents on the owner of the plane, however, and over time the owner has every incentive to promote and adopt new technologies that help minimise the damage or avoid the accident. Saying that the airline should pay the costs when there's an airline accident involving the airline's plane is not "California style control." It imposes the costs on the only party that has the ability to do something about it, and leaves it up to the market whether that cost actually results in improved airplanes. In any case, the incentive has some productive value, whereas imposing the cost on the passenger does nothing.
This is based on two false premises. First, you assume eliminating all risk is both possible and desirable. Second, you assume that it's possible to design goose-proof jet engines that still fly.
-
Or go back to turboprops?
Haven't you seen Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? =|
:lol:
-
As I recall, Strict Liability is not applied to cases by their nature, but rather under whatever legal regime exists in that state (or country).
As such, to claim the airline owes it because of "strict liability" is ignoring what the law happens to be.
For that matter, it also ignores whether the airline should pay those losses, because strict liability simply says they have to, not whether they should be responsible for them.
-
caused
The operative word.
-
Headless,
Someone will pay - just not necessarily in cash, as people can choose to pay in foregone use of goods or disabilities. It is still a cost, operatively, the same thing as "payment." Cash represents goods and services. Hence, someone is going to pay - that's why it's called "damage." The only question is who is going to pay, not whether there will be a payment. Just because not every payment/cost/whatever-you-want-to-call it will be in cash doesn't make the lost goods and services qualitatively different from cash out of pocket.
My argument about incentives is not based on either premise you cite. It is only based on the premise that, given that we obviously have to make someone pay, it's best to make the party pay who is most capable of doing something about the risk (there's no question that it would be good to reduce this risk).
That way there's at least some productive incentive that results from these foreseeable events, rather than straight-up waste.
mak,
Strict liability has been imposed in common law for a long, long time. Every set of laws varies slightly, including for airlines - (they are under an extra high duty of care towards passengers and cargo, not strict liability.) My point is that it's not at all exceptional to force parties to pay damages even when there's no negligence or fault. And sometimes it's even a good idea, like it would be in this case. I'm saying it's a good idea to make the airline pay these costs.
Bridgewalker,
That's the usual argument in strict liability cases, but it's hard to argue that this damage was not caused by a plane crash (why the plane crashed would only matter if fault mattered)
-
Go Zeppelin.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flatrock.org.nz%2Ftopics%2Fflying%2Fassets%2Fhindenburg.jpg&hash=913c5a2dd5ae138975e76c6788f43360643e45d9)
Hindenburg notwithstanding, I would *love* to fly aboard a dirigible.
I don't disagree that there will be a loss for someone. Losses are a natural result of taking risks (and make no mistake, air travel has certain unavoidable risks associated with it). My contention is with your assertion that someone should pay because of the loss. "Pay" implies money changing hands.
Tell me why you think someone should pay someone else because of the plane crash.
This is based on two false premises. First, you assume eliminating all risk is both possible and desirable. Second, you assume that it's possible to design goose-proof jet engines that still fly.
I agree completely. If I may add:
It has been argued here that compensation for losses may not actually be paid in cash, and that forcing the airline to compensate those losses is somehow less offensive because of the absence of a cash transaction. However, anyone who's ever filed a tax return knows that anything that you gain from is considered income(i.e. a transaction, cash or otherwise). What's the difference here, in the reverse?
stuff
Why again should the airline bear the burden of funding research? You continue to assert that they must pay, despite a clear lack of blame, as some sort of punishment for not having accident-proof aircraft. Are there accident-proof aircraft in production? None of which I am aware. If there were such, would airlines buy them? Certainly yes, as the airline which did not buy such an airplane would be in a tough situation with customers. If you follow your line of reasoning further, the airlines should not be held culpable at all - it should be the aircraft manufacturer who should pay. After all, they designed a plane that *could* go down. There has to be some personal assumption of risk in getting on a plane, in a bus, on a car. Things happen that are no one's fault. Move on.
-
There has to be some personal assumption of risk in getting on a plane, in a bus, on a car. Things happen that are no one's fault. Move on.
Indeed.
Ya know, there's an easy way to ensure that airplanes never crash: don't fly them. Ever. US Air could shut down it's operation entirely and never fly another passenger anywhere ever again. Voila! Instant zero-risk!
Would that be a good thing? Perhaps in a lawyer's world it is. No existence, therefore no liability. Right?
Back in the real world, we understand that risk cannot be eliminated, not if we want to get anything done. We balance risks against rewards and make an informed decision about how to proceed.
Unfortunately for the lawyers, balancing risk against reward isn't something that can be institutionalized or codified. It isn't something that can be decided ahead of time. Weighing risk is a judgment call, something we must each do for ourselves, based on our own unique circumstances, needs, priorities, and risk-tolerance.
We don't need, and we definitely don't want, lawyers trying to make these decisions for us.
-
SS, I would love to see some law that backs up your theory that we can and should sue companies for not yet having developed and implemented as yet non-existent technologies in an attempt to avoid an incident that is triggered by an intervening cause and that is, with current technology, unavoidable.
http://overlawyered.com/2006/06/jurors-award-2-million-in-childs-mower-death/
“Jurors award $2 million in child’s mower death”
by Walter Olson on June 16, 2006
Lawyers successfully urge a Virginia jury to send a message:
Justin Simmons was killed in April 2004 in Daleville, north of Roanoke, when a mower operated at his daycare center rolled backward while going up a slope and over the child….
The jury held MTD responsible for not designing a mower that automatically stops its blades whenever it rolls backward. No such mower exists or has ever been tested, [company attorney John] Fitzpatrick said.
The company also argued that the operator of the mower, whose wife was the daycare provider, had ignored safety warnings. (”Jurors award $2 million in child’s mower death– company to appeal”, AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jun. 15).
-
The mind... it boggles. I think I need to lie down for a bit now...
-
Whenever I momentarily think our jury system might be a good thing, I read articles like this and return to sanity.
The problem is that too many attorneys (sorry, BW, but this is my belief) have devoted too many years to creating an indelible impression in the minds of a large segment of the population (the unreasoning segment that these same attorneys prefer to have on juries) that insurance company money is somehow "free" money because the actual person isn't really paying the judgment, after all, it's "only" coming from the insurance company.
-
Yeah, mostly you can't even mention that there is insurance at a trial, much less the amount of insurance involved for the other side. It's hard enough to figure out what the limits are, and usually you only find out because the defense offers its limit and says so....
-
Bridgewalker,
That's the usual argument in strict liability cases, but it's hard to argue that this damage was not caused by a plane crash (why the plane crashed would only matter if fault mattered)
If you're going to talk about "strict" liability, you might consider "strict" use of correct terminology, too. In the case at point, the plane technically did not "crash." The aircraft made an unpowered landing on water.
-
Yeah, mostly you can't even mention that there is insurance at a trial, much less the amount of insurance involved for the other side. It's hard enough to figure out what the limits are, and usually you only find out because the defense offers its limit and says so....
On the other hand, I once served as an expert witness in a trial wherein the presiding judge simply refused to hear ANY testimony as to who did what, who SHOULD have done what, or who should NOT have done what. All he knew was that some people had to pay to repair a fairly new building. He recessed at 10:00 a.m. and told all the attorneys involved to come back at 2:00 p.m. with a list of how much insurance their clients carried.