Originally Posted by
Elvis90
If ALPA were required to cover damages, it has substantial insurance coverage precisely for this type of situation. There are assertions out there that are dead wrong when they say that ALPA’s insurance would not apply to this case.
ALPA has never assessed its membership to pay for litigation, awards, verdicts, or settlements. There is no reason to assume that it would do so in this case.
Does anybody else get tired of the wording on some of these? I don't think "what is being said out there" implies insurance couldn't apply toward this, but rather the insurance coverage will not be adequate to cover the potential damages leaving a large shortfall that would need to be picked up by ALPA members.
The next paragraph is meaningless as well. I have never been in an automobile accident. Doesn't mean it wont happen tomorrow.
Sheesh, it seems the writers for ALPA use the Clinton philosophy...write/speak in such a fashion so that if the roof caves in you can rely on the technicalities of what you said/didn't say later (ie "We never said the insurance would cover all of this. We just said we had insurance that is targeted for such lawsuits!") Talk like things are peachy. ALPA is innocent! Maintain that position no matter what until the gig is up and there is no more hiding. I think this is out of that Edwards guys playbook as well. lol