What happens after an Accident

francisco collazos

francisco collazos

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
354
Display Name
Display name:
ciscovet
I'm sure by now everyone has seen or has gotten a text/email from some close family member:frown2::mad2: about the plane that got stuck in the powerlines. Looks like a lot of people were without power and schools are closed as well. Just wondering what if anything happens to the pilots in terms of liscensure, bills from local/state ems or power company, and possible lawsuits? Will insurance cover this accident or not?
 
Stuff happens, and it depends on the particular agencies involved.

I was involved in a mcyc accident (run over by semi, OUCH), and didn't get any bills from the city involved.

My wife was in a much smaller mcyc accident, in an unincorporated area, and we received two bills from the fire and PD for "securing the scene".

Sorry for the non-answer, but it just depends on where you are.
 
The incident at GAI will be interesting to follow due to the extent of the affected population. Almost 100k without power for hours, hospitals were affected, schools closed, plus the cost of the recovery. I certainly hope he recovers (and the passenger too) but I would not want to be in that pilot's shoes right now.
 
Racerx said:
I think a 709 ride is a minimum
Click to expand...
Why? Do you have to retake the driver test if you’re in an accident? The answer is no. If there is negligence involved then quite possibly a 709 ride is coming but for an accident the answer is no.
Now, referring to the Mooney in the power lines. Negligence MAY be involved. I wasn’t there so I’m not going to pass judgement.
 
francisco collazos said:
...Will insurance cover this accident or not?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't insurance cover it? up to the limits of the policy, of course. I imagine they'll receive a check for the full hull value, and the liability limits may be tested due to the property damage.

I say again, "Why wouldn't insurance cover it?"
 
So if your on an instrument approach and you go below minimum altitude for the approach does that count as negligence? And if it does ,are you still covered by insurance?
 
The owner will get the hull value.

The police/fire/EMS will get get reimbursed for the rescue, if they would normal charge for such services in that area.

The utility company will be reimbursed for their part in the rescue.

If there is anything left over on their liability side, the utility company could readily sue for that and maybe settle for what is available. If he has an umbrella policy that doesn't exclude aviation activities, that could be in play.

If he has significant personal assets, there could be additional lawsuits above the policy limits.
 
midwestpa24 said:
If liability insurance didn't cover negligence, there would be no point in insurance.
Click to expand...

Yep. Insurance is a wonderful thing. It lets you sleep at night knowing that if some idiot does something stupid you are covered, even if that idiot is you!
 
I left out an important cost - the cost of removal of the airplane.

My guess is that by the time all the direct costs for this accident are covered, they will be at or close to $1M in liability payouts.

There might be a countersuit if it can be determined that the tower was inadequately marked/lighted.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
If he has significant personal assets, there could be additional lawsuits above the policy limits.
Click to expand...

My limited understand is this is why you would generally want your insurance limits to be similar to your assets.
I am certain there are exceptions but I think this works for most people.

The idea as I understand it is, that the insurance company won’t pay unless the injured party’s (potential plaintiffs) agree to an insurance settlement in return for not suing. If the plaintiff won’t agree and decides to sue then the insurance company uses the money the plaintiff turned down for the defendant’s defense.

Generally this means it doesn’t make any sense to turn down the insurance money that will now be used to counter the legal fees the plaintiff will have to pay to sue for a chance at winning, especially when the defendants assets are equal to or less than the what the insurance could pay.

One exception I believe is, it is possible to sue for future income. But I think this rare as most attorney’s/plaintiffs realize in most cases the only reason to do this is to punish the defendant as collecting future income is difficult. Most defendants that get sued for future income just end up in the homeless shelter with little or no income for the defendant to recover. I am aware of one incident where this occurred and it is a really sad situation with no winners for an event that really was just an unfortunate accident.

Brian, Not an expert on this.
 
midwestpa24 said:
If liability insurance didn't cover negligence, there would be no point in insurance.
Click to expand...
If liability insurance didn't cover ignorance, would there be no point in insurance?

Just asking, you know, for a friend.
 
"I called minimums, saw nothing and powered up to go missed. The engine barked once and quit, there was no time to restart or call anyone. Then we saw a flash and slid along the wires into a tower"
(they did have 7 hours to 'recall' this account)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"I called minimums, saw nothing and powered up to go missed. The engine barked once and quit, there was no time to restart or call anyone. Then we saw a flash and slid along the wires into a tower"
(they did have 7 hours to 'recall' this account)
Click to expand...

Over a mile BEFORE the minimums?
 
The pilot has already made statements that were probably best not said. No comment would have been his best statement. Lying however is probably the worst thing you can do on several levels.
 
The pilot who flew my airplane into a 2000 ft transmission tower resulted in five separate lawsuits all involving either transmission from the tower or money generated from the tower…this was as a leaseback to a club operating as an LLC. All listed me personally as well and are ongoing…yes hitting this public utility infrastructure really ramps up potential claimants…or subrogation parties.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
If he has an umbrella policy that doesn't exclude aviation activities, that could be in play.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if any umbrella policies exist that include aviation. I cannot find one and would appreciate a lead.
 
brcase said:
One exception I believe is, it is possible to sue for future income. But I think this rare as most attorney’s/plaintiffs realize in most cases the only reason to do this is to punish the defendant as collecting future income is difficult. Most defendants that get sued for future income just end up in the homeless shelter with little or no income for the defendant to recover. I am aware of one incident where this occurred and it is a really sad situation with no winners for an event that really was just an unfortunate accident.

Brian, Not an expert on this.
Click to expand...
Somewhat understandable, why would you work if the governments takes 35% and 25% go to someone else. Of course doesn’t divorce result in the same situation, the ex sued for future income?

Don’t forget some assets are protected, like primary residence and retirement savings.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Somewhat understandable, why would you work if the governments takes 35% and 25% go to someone else. Of course doesn’t divorce result in the same situation, the ex sued for future income?

Don’t forget some assets are protected, like primary residence and retirement savings.
Click to expand...
In many states, your primary residence is fair game. In Ohio, they rarely force sale, but you can have a huge lien that prevents transfer.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
"I called minimums, saw nothing and powered up to go missed. The engine barked once and quit, there was no time to restart or call anyone. Then we saw a flash and slid along the wires into a tower"
(they did have 7 hours to 'recall' this account)
Click to expand...

He may have a JPI 830 or similar that records engine parameters.
 
dfw11411 said:
I'm curious if any umbrella policies exist that include aviation. I cannot find one and would appreciate a lead.
Click to expand...
They exist but are a specialty coverage that only few underwriters provide. Ten years ago the premiums I saw were north of $15k for a basic aviation umbrella. Another option I've seen used is to raise your per-person coverage to the maximum offered by your current policy.
 
Warlock said:
The pilot who flew my airplane into a 2000 ft transmission tower resulted in five separate lawsuits all involving either transmission from the tower or money generated from the tower…this was as a leaseback to a club operating as an LLC. All listed me personally as well and are ongoing…yes hitting this public utility infrastructure really ramps up potential claimants…or subrogation parties.
Click to expand...

Scummy lawyers at their best, again. Insurance should seek to find a full and final settlement. Do you need a personal attorney now outside of the LLC?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
In many states, your primary residence is fair game. In Ohio, they rarely force sale, but you can have a huge lien that prevents transfer.
Click to expand...

Would that be a lien on your property or a judgment on your name? I would imagine it would be a judgment that would be discovered by a title company upon selling. Judgments do expire, and it’s possible to sell a property with an exception, but the buyer would have to agree to this as well. Given nothing is on the property itself, unsure how this would work. Also what if there is a married couple who owns the home, if the one at fault died, would that transfer or would there be an estate formed.
 
Busflyer said:
Why? Do you have to retake the driver test if you’re in an accident? The answer is no. If there is negligence involved then quite possibly a 709 ride is coming but for an accident the answer is no.
Now, referring to the Mooney in the power lines. Negligence MAY be involved. I wasn’t there so I’m not going to pass judgement.
Click to expand...

Why? Because they can (per 49 USC 44709). Nobody is discussing cars. The purpose of the 709 ride is to validate the pilot certificate held matches his or her skills and knowledge, as well as to suss out whether any negligence was involved in the incident under investigation.

Our local FSDO 709'ed our renter pilots 100% of the time if there was an incident/accident, however minor. Once it got on their radar, they took action promptly. The ride is benign, less than a full checkride, and the ones I was in view of were conducted professionally and without undue stress. Still, though, it's a "defend your certificate moment", so it's not without stress. :)

(My own off-field landing did not trigger a 709 for myself, so I think this may be a regional variation, or I stayed off of the FSDO radar successfully with no injuries or claims.)
 
The Owner/Operator may find out just how well the maintenance logs are kept up.
Discovering their responsibility and what the Techs enter can be eye opening.

One fatal the Insurance Co. initially declined coverage because of improper components in the aircraft. A carpet!


Every policy questionnaire I’ve seen asks “ Valid Airworthiness Certificate?”
The Cert itself has “ valid only if aircraft is maintained per FAR 21,43 and 91”
or similar.

Many of the laws vary by state.
 
mandm said:
Scummy lawyers at their best, again. Insurance should seek to find a full and final settlement. Do you need a personal attorney now outside of the LLC?
Click to expand...
Of course as I am named personally.
 
Is the FAA still at arm's length on this? NTSB still own this one? I was guessing that was the case, since it was IFR in IMC? Until it's sorted the FAA could conceivably have some culpability. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top