UPS crash lawsuits.
 

Sounds like those affected are lawyering up. Named in the suits is the captain of the doomed jet, or more precisely his wife and estate. Plaintiffs are alleging he had a responsibility to not fly a defective aircraft. Also mentioned was that he continued the takeoff with some sort of alarm (bell?) sounding. Likely a fire bell as the engine was separating (after V1).
Of course you can sue anybody for anything if you can find an ambulance chaser devoid of a moral compass (not difficult). But it concerns me that if it made it in front of a jury anything is possible.
Is there a precedent for this?

As I recall this issue happened previously (Lexington, comair, circa 2006) and the FO lived when everyone else passed. Not sure on the outcome.

everyone should have an umbrella policy just for this type of thing.

We've been sued, had individual crew members sued etc here at DAL for many different things, some would make you laugh. Here's how it goes down in court (I'm not a lawyer, but have been involved with this when I was back in the cubes). Judge - does the company (employer) have a procedure in place for this? Lawyer - Yes. Did Capt "X" follow the procedure? Lawyer - Yes. That's about as far as it gets.

They'll try to sue UPS, Boeing, mechanics, tug driver, manufacturers, crew and the seagull sitting on the light post. It's ridiculous but its an unfortunate by-product of our overly litigious society.

Our country is in dire need of Tort reform

Losing party having to pay would do wonders.

An attorney agreeing to sue the spouse of a deceased crew member without concrete irrefutable evidence that suggests malice or negligence should be disbarred.
Was the airworthiness release signed? Was the takeoff continued following a post-V1 warning?
We all know those pilots did as they were trained to do and were faced with an irrecoverable situation. Now a widow has to deal with this mere months after the loss of her husband.

Shakespeare was right.

Most of us should have an umbrella in general.

But none of us could remotely hope to acquire sufficient private insurance to cover liability for an airline crash. Maybe possible you could cover a settlement in a case where one or a few people had non-fatal injuries.

Reality is that we rely on common defense with the airline. They actually have a big incentive to provide common defense... the absolute last thing they want is a pilot making a deal with the plaintiffs to testify *against* the company.

Also worth noting that there's really no benefit to the company of throwing the pilots under the bus, they will still own all the liability for the behavior of their employees (manufacturers can benefit from blaming pilots).

In the case of a widow, not sure how that would work. Although the company would do the heavy lifting in a case like this one, and presumably it would all get rolled up into one case and the company's defense in this instance would also tend to cover the pilots. UPS will try to shift at least some blame to boeing for faulty design and how they managed the know defect.

Best insurance is don't crash (yes I know the UPS guys had no influence in this case). Guess if you're really paranoid you could structure your family assets in a strong trust (not the kind we use for inheritance planning).

The IPA has contract language that says UPS will indemnify/hold harmless a crewmember or their estate for any monetary judgment rendered against a crewmember or the Company arising out of the crewmember's performance of duties as a crewmember, as long as those duties were within the normal scope of his employment and no intentional misconduct is determined.

Time will tell how that language ultimately plays out in this particular tort.

I suspect the NTSB investigative hearing for 2976 on May 19-20 will provide additional information that the three crewmembers were as much victims in this as any of the poor individuals/businesses on the ground.

An umbrella policy is NEVER a bad idea though...

yep. lawyers are disgusting. one guy in a wheelchair in california has filed 1,800 lawsuits alone. plenty of law offices willing and encouraging this behavior. guy wheels around from store to store with a measuring tape. if the bananas are 2” further from the scale than prescribed, lawsuit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/socal/s/aeX8Dxi2TZ

https://courthousenews.com/lawsuit-to-block-california-ada-abuse-laws-on-thin-ice/

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A California Court of Appeals presiding justice said on Tuesday that she saw no reason why the court should revive a lawsuit filed by three wheelchair-bound men over a series of laws aimed at cracking down on abuses of Americans with Disabilities Act.

“My clients are serial litigators,” plaintiffs’ attorney Dennis Price, a co-founder of the firm Seabock Price, which specializes in ADA lawsuits, told the three-judge panel. “They are incredibly unpopular.”

But, he added, “constitutional rights cannot be burdened by overuse.”

Presiding Justice Helen Zukin called Price’s argument “not persuasive.”

“This is something that should be directed toward the Legislature,” Zukin told Price. “I do not see a constitutional violation here.”

Passed in 1990, the landmark federal Americans with Disabilities Act includes a provision allowing private plaintiffs to sue businesses and government entities for ADA violations — a set of stairs without a ramp, a parking lot without an accessible space, or a bathroom without an accessible stall.

In most states, plaintiffs can only secure injunctive relief and attorneys fees. But a California law gives winning plaintiffs an automatic $4,000 per violation. This spurred a small cottage industry of serial plaintiffs, who sue dozens of businesses for numerous violations, however picayune — a toilet paper dispenser installed five inches too low, or an accessible parking space a foot too narrow.

A 55-year-old internet marketer has filed at least 231 lawsuits in Los Angeles County in a single year, targeting hole-in-the-wall restaurants, liquor stores, laundromats, and convenience shops — often multiple businesses on the same block in a single afternoon. He is one of seven serial plaintiffs represented almost exclusively by Manning Law, an Orange County firm whose clients have collectively filed more than 9,000 lawsuits across Southern California over the last decade.

I generally don’t condone violence as a solution, but I think I could make an exception.