In light of Colgan 3407???
02-17-2009, 07:06 PM
#11
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,405
Originally Posted by TPROP4ever
Thanks Rickair,
I agree the odds are that these tragedies dont happen often, I was just curious about what kind of exposure we as pilots subject our family to. I guess being new to this industry, and in light of this event, it made me think, can they take our house from my wife or sue her, because we were married, if I were unfortunate enough to be involved in something like this. The good news these tragedies are rare (no doubt due to the training and professionalism we operate by), but when you see news of a major crash like this it makes one wonder...it sounds like this one could have happened to any of us. Any aviation lawyers have any advice?
I agree the odds are that these tragedies dont happen often, I was just curious about what kind of exposure we as pilots subject our family to. I guess being new to this industry, and in light of this event, it made me think, can they take our house from my wife or sue her, because we were married, if I were unfortunate enough to be involved in something like this. The good news these tragedies are rare (no doubt due to the training and professionalism we operate by), but when you see news of a major crash like this it makes one wonder...it sounds like this one could have happened to any of us. Any aviation lawyers have any advice?
02-18-2009, 04:23 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
The practical reality is that in the vast majority of cases, the pilot and his family wont be touched. Some of the reasons:
Bottom line is that while the pilot may be named in the lawsuit, the target will, far more than 90% of the time, be the company. Joe Pilot is just too much bother to go after.
But I guess we all have our own risk tolerances.
- Respondeat superior. That's the legal principle that makes the company responsible for the actions of its employees. The principle has old roots in the recognition that the employer generally has more ability to pay than the employee (deeper pockets). The practical flip side is that, although the UPS driver (even on the ground) is personally liable when he hits a pedestrian, the company, not the driver, will be the target in the vast majority of situations.
- Companies and their insurers are easier to both settle with and collect from.
- If the passengers sue the pilot and win, they can only get at what the pilot owns (if the spouse is a trust fund baby and the pilot has no legal interest in the trust, they can't touch it). Community property states may have an effect on this. If this is a practical concern, see a financial planning attorney.
- All states have exemption laws, some more generous than others, which protect a certain amount of property owned by individuals and their families.
- These cases are expensive for the plaintiff's lawyers. The picture we generally get of the greedy plaintiff's lawyer going after everyone in every case and getting a lot of money is somewhat of a fiction. A case like this can cost the plaintiff's attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring - out of his own (or his firm's) pocket. Investigators and expert witnesses don't come cheap. So, if the company is bankrupt and there is no insurance available, figure out what the chances are that plaintiff's attorney will shell out $100K to go after you. And, if you're worth that kind of money, chances are you've already been to a financial planning attorney to reduce your exposure.
Bottom line is that while the pilot may be named in the lawsuit, the target will, far more than 90% of the time, be the company. Joe Pilot is just too much bother to go after.
But I guess we all have our own risk tolerances.
02-18-2009, 05:40 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by rickair7777
They can sue you (if you survive) or your estate (if you don't). In most states this means your wife is on the hook also (community property). Generally they cannot make you homeless... you get to keep a house and other basic necessities, as well as retirement funds.
02-18-2009, 05:51 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by rickair7777
go to aopa.org
sign up
enroll in their ATP legal insurance
fly safely
floss
brush
gargle
spit...
Um, no...that's some pretty bad advice. That legal services plan will help you deal with the FAA if you get violated. It does NOT provide liability or hull loss insurance, not even for GA (much less airline operations).
$ 99 for legal coverage is a great deal if you don't have union services available.
Liability/hull loss insurance for the $ 22 million dollar jet you fly would be unreachable by a typical pilot.
When is flossing, brushing, gargling and spitting ever bad advice???
-smoothie, a former ZVer
02-18-2009, 08:07 AM
#15
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,405
Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop
Ah mesa rick,
$ 99 for legal coverage is a great deal if you don't have union services available.
Liability/hull loss insurance for the $ 22 million dollar jet you fly would be unreachable by a typical pilot.
When is flossing, brushing, gargling and spitting ever bad advice???
-smoothie, a former ZVer
$ 99 for legal coverage is a great deal if you don't have union services available.
Liability/hull loss insurance for the $ 22 million dollar jet you fly would be unreachable by a typical pilot.
When is flossing, brushing, gargling and spitting ever bad advice???
-smoothie, a former ZVer
02-18-2009, 06:53 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Agreed,
but, you'll eliminate the plaintiff's attorney effort to prove negligence on your part if you didn't violate aviation regulations (because of your legal defense, paid for by the union or aopa in this case).
i don't have the funds to pay for insuring multi-million dollar jets, so i can't worry about things beyond the depths of my pockets and my control...
but, you'll eliminate the plaintiff's attorney effort to prove negligence on your part if you didn't violate aviation regulations (because of your legal defense, paid for by the union or aopa in this case).
i don't have the funds to pay for insuring multi-million dollar jets, so i can't worry about things beyond the depths of my pockets and my control...
02-19-2009, 04:03 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop
Agreed,
but, you'll eliminate the plaintiff's attorney effort to prove negligence on your part if you didn't violate aviation regulations (because of your legal defense, paid for by the union or aopa in this case).
but, you'll eliminate the plaintiff's attorney effort to prove negligence on your part if you didn't violate aviation regulations (because of your legal defense, paid for by the union or aopa in this case).
The AOPA LSP will take care of almost all of your defense in the case of an FAA certificate action against your pilot certificate or seeking a civil penalty. It will also take care of almost all of your defense for certain actions that a state or local government might take.
But it will not take care of your legal defense in a civil lawsuit brought by a passenger or the family of the deceased.
02-19-2009, 08:35 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop
I hear you and rick loud and clear.
What's the harm in preventing or clearing any finding of an faa violation prior to the civil case?
What's the harm in preventing or clearing any finding of an faa violation prior to the civil case?
1. The FAA may not even bring a certificate action - no effect on the civil case.
2. The FAA brings a certificate action. The most likely result is that you will lose - harmful effect on your civil case.
3. If the FAA brings a certificate action and you win - it will not help you in your civil case.
02-20-2009, 04:44 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: retired
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by NoyGonnaDoIt
Originally Posted by SmoothOnTop
I hear you and rick loud and clear.
What's the harm in preventing or clearing any finding of an faa violation prior to the civil case?
That depends on how you look at it. Three scenarios:
1. The FAA may not even bring a certificate action - no effect on the civil case.
2. The FAA brings a certificate action. The most likely result is that you will lose - harmful effect on your civil case.
3. If the FAA brings a certificate action and you win - it will not help you in your civil case.
" Alex, I'll take 'No violation/certificate action for $ 99' ! "
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
