N9391M destroyed at KOSH

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, druidjaidan said:

Right about now I'd take any attorney to help advise us, let alone an aggressive one. We've been turned down by all 5 attorneys we've reached out to.

Just one opinion among many. to be taken with a grain of salt . . .

If your insurance company will give the insured value of your airplane plus whatever contents you lost, which should be covered by your airplane or homeowner's policy and you can put this behind you without a prolonged fight, the sooner you and your family can close this horrible chapter and move on. Fights that take years and run up huge legal bills build up anger and frustration. Pass on all information that you've gathered to your insurance company so they can go after any other parties, that's part of what you pay them to do.

Although this was a horrible situation that you and your family have experienced, it could have been so much worse. You all walked away with your lives. Not minimizing that there was loss of life for others, but most total losses don't end this well for the airplane owner.

[druidjaidan]

That would definitely be the least stressfull way to handle it. We'd likely be out of flying for a few years at least due to the gap in insurance vs actual loss.  The emotional part of me has a hard time swallowing that I just got robbed for ~$35k because someone else crashed. Honestly, I'd probably already have taken that route if the insurance release didn't require us to forgo any additional claims against the 3rd parties in the future. That requirement also makes me disinclined to help the insurance company at all

[Pinecone]

Have you tried to find out who the insurance company is for the gyro company?

It may be as easy as filing a claim with them.  Especially if you are only filing for the difference.  That should be happy to pay that and not a full claim for the entire cost of the airplane. 

Let your insurance worry about recovering what they pay you.

[bcg]

On 8/17/2023 at 2:43 PM, druidjaidan said:

Right about now I'd take any attorney to help advise us, let alone an aggressive one. We've been turned down by all 5 attorneys we've reached out to after the consultation reviewing our options (from simply helping ensure we don't sign something we shouldn't, up to could we litigate). Roughly the answer has been basically: "we don't do hourly only contingency, and your claim doesn't have injuries so no matter the viability we won't help"

Just a suggestion that may or may not help but, look for defense attorneys instead of plaintiff's attorneys.  Defense lawyers bill hourly whereas plaintiff's attorneys always want the bigger payday that comes with a contingency on an injury claim.

Also, most contract/business attorneys will have the skills needed to review the docs and make sure you're not signing something you shouldn't.  You've already seen that finding someone to litigate this will be nearly impossible, there's just not enough in this for most attorneys and honestly, if you paid hourly it would significantly cut into your payout to the point that you definitely won't be whole at the end. 

I'm not an attorney, just someone who did IT consulting in their former life and 90% of my clients were law firms, most of those plaintiff's attorneys.  My wife also worked as a paralegal for a few plaintiff's attorneys so I've got some familiarity with the profession.  I have a guy I use for business stuff now that I would call were I in your shoes.

I'm really sorry this is turning into such a nightmare for you.  Unfortunately insurance companies often resist doing the right thing.  Property claims should be easy, and usually are but, sometimes they just dig their heels in over something stupid.  I would bet that the issue your facing right now is that there are multiple insurance companies arguing over who is actually liable for the claim.  If that's the case, and you have adequate coverage, your least stressful option is going to be to file on your own insurance and let them subrogate the claim.  I've had to do that in the past and got a check once they worked it all out to cover what my insurance didn't originally, my insurance got that money from the subrogation.

[bcg]

On 8/17/2023 at 3:13 PM, druidjaidan said:

That would definitely be the least stressfull way to handle it. We'd likely be out of flying for a few years at least due to the gap in insurance vs actual loss.  The emotional part of me has a hard time swallowing that I just got robbed for ~$35k because someone else crashed. Honestly, I'd probably already have taken that route if the insurance release didn't require us to forgo any additional claims against the 3rd parties in the future. That requirement also makes me disinclined to help the insurance company at all

Sorry, I should have read further before my first reply.  Have you pushed back on that requirement?  The first offer from an insurance company isn't always the best they'll do.  They're probably requiring that so that they can subrogate and collect from the other insurance themselves, which you want them to do.  The question I think you need to ask them is if they will be going after the full amount of your loss or only what they've paid you.  If they're going after the full loss, what happens to the additional money collected, your policy probably says they have to give it to you.  If they're only going to go after the claim amount then I would ask them for language that allows you to collect from the other insurance for costs above what was covered by your policy but still allows them to go after what they've paid you.

Insurance companies suck, if they would just do what's right we wouldn't need so many lawyers.

[EricJ]

On 8/17/2023 at 12:43 PM, druidjaidan said:

Right about now I'd take any attorney to help advise us, let alone an aggressive one. We've been turned down by all 5 attorneys we've reached out to after the consultation reviewing our options (from simply helping ensure we don't sign something we shouldn't, up to could we litigate). Roughly the answer has been basically: "we don't do hourly only contingency, and your claim doesn't have injuries so no matter the viability we won't help"

I have a friend who has been deep in the aviation insurance business for many years.   I asked about this situation and the likelihood of recovery via litigation and got the same response you've been given, that if it is property only there's little likelihood of success.

The same litigants you'd be interested in will be facing much larger problems from the families of the two fatalities. 

 

[PeteMc]

@druidjaidan Did you ever find out the name(s) of the Rotorcrafts' insurance companies?  Hope they were not also insured by your insurance company.  If so, I wonder if that may be why their low balling and wanting you to sign that you won't go after the "other" insurance co.  

[LANCECASPER]

37 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

@druidjaidan Did you ever find out the name(s) of the Rotorcrafts' insurance companies?  Hope they were not also insured by your insurance company.  If so, I wonder if that may be why their low balling and wanting you to sign that you won't go after the "other" insurance co.  

It doesn't sound like they are low-balling, just willing to pay for the agreed-upon hull value that it was insured for.

[hubcap]

On 8/17/2023 at 3:13 PM, druidjaidan said:

I mean absolutely no disrespect, and I sympathize with you, but you weren’t robbed, you were underinsured.

[druidjaidan]

1 hour ago, PeteMc said:

@druidjaidan Did you ever find out the name(s) of the Rotorcrafts' insurance companies?  Hope they were not also insured by your insurance company.  If so, I wonder if that may be why their low balling and wanting you to sign that you won't go after the "other" insurance co.  

There is no insurance on the rotorcraft . So we're talking about my insurance that wants me to forgo pursuing the rest of the liability.

[druidjaidan]

48 minutes ago, hubcap said:

I mean absolutely no disrespect, and I sympathize with you, but you weren’t robbed, you were underinsured.

I don't disagree that I was underinsured, but this argument is just victim blaming. Insurance would have protected me from being "robbed", but it doesn't change the fact that the liable party(ies) will get away with it.

[bcg]

I mean absolutely no disrespect, and I sympathize with you, but you weren’t robbed, you were underinsured.

It shouldn't be his insurance covering this though.... w
When someone else damages you or your property, it's not unreasonable to expect that their insurance, not yours, will make you whole.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

I once saw an underwriter, USAIG, go over the insured hull value, but only because the owner had asked for a sizable increase in value after a major panel upgrade. But the owner’s request to increase hull value had gone unanswered for a number of months despite having submitted receipts to substantiate.
In this case, i thought the insurance company did the right thing by paying out more but not nearly the full amount.
I felt they had some obligation to do so since they let the request go unanswered for so long.

I imagine there is a scenario by which the owner could sue the parties responsible for additional losses beyond what are recoverable from his insurance. But obviously the insurance companies have first rights to collecting their losses first. Plus i imagine they can add their own subrogation expenses to what they sue for leaving little if anything for the owner to argue for.

Clearly only the lawyers make out in these cases.

Sadly we can all learn something here by the need to adequately insure our planes. But there are disadvantages to over insuring as well. There is a point where damage is severe enough any owner would prefer to get a check to go plane shopping rather than rebuild one so broken that not only will take a long time but after being fixed the damage stigma will significantly decrease it’s market value for a long time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, druidjaidan said:

I don't disagree that I was underinsured, but this argument is just victim blaming. Insurance would have protected me from being "robbed", but it doesn't change the fact that the liable party(ies) will get away with it.

Part of feeling as a victim is feeling helpless over what happened - it  just came out of nowhere. No one expects an aircraft to fall out of the sky and land on their parked airplane. And the aircraft falling out of the sky isn't your fault in any way.

But just looking at it objectively had it been a tornado that destroyed the airplane, the financial situation would have been the same. I think one thing I've gained from this is that if I self-insure for part of the airplane's value I could find myself in the same situation. I may choose to do that,  but it's good to go in eyes wide open knowing what could happen if I did.

While you may not find an attorney to take this on a contingency basis, after understanding your situation better, I think I would hire an attorney to write a demand letter to EAA explaining your situation. For what you are asking their insurance to pay, I'm sure it's is a very small portion of their policy limits. EAA won't know that the attorney you hire to write the letter isn't on board with a contingency agreement. At the very least EAA may provide all of the information for everyone else involved.

[amillet]

After reading this thread, I ran a V ref report on my aircraft. Using that value, shows I am close to $40,000 under insured! I just sent a message to my insurance company to see if I can increase the hull value mid way through the coverage period. 

[natdm]

After reading this thread, I ran a V ref report on my aircraft. Using that value, shows I am close to $40,000 under insured! I just sent a message to my insurance company to see if I can increase the hull value mid way through the coverage period. 

I already did that and they won’t insure me for more. And I know I’m about $30k over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aerodon]

1 hour ago, druidjaidan said:

There is no insurance on the rotorcraft . So we're talking about my insurance that wants me to forgo pursuing the rest of the liability.

I had to think about this for a moment.  I guess it is fair that your insurance company pays out what you were insured for, and then goes after the other party.  If you don't give up your right to pursue the other party, you could have the situation that both you and your insurer are filing a claim against the other party.  A good recipe for confusion.

So you have to pick a route, either you file a claim against the other party for the full value, to take the money and run.

 

Aerodon

 

[kortopates]

It shouldn't be his insurance covering this though.... w
When someone else damages you or your property, it's not unreasonable to expect that their insurance, not yours, will make you whole.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

Getting a ‘fair’ settlement, absolutely. Being made ‘whole’ is probably an illusion. But in this case the rotorcraft has no insurance.
Although the other colliding airplane may or may not be responsible it could take a long time to determine who’s responsible for what portion of the Mooney’s losses.
Meanwhile the Mooney owner is out his plane and the only near term option is arriving at a settlement with his insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jetdriven]

I don't think they can make you sign something foregoing your right to recover from the other pilots.  Most likely they want to be the only party to recover their payout.  

[GeeBee]

I'm still wondering how the EAA can allow anyone to be a part of the fly-in let alone a vendor and not have liability insurance. If that is the case, count me out, forever until it changes.

 

[Sabremech]

18 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I'm still wondering how the EAA can allow anyone to be a part of the fly-in let alone a vendor and not have liability insurance. If that is the case, count me out, forever until it changes.

 

How do you check and verify the insurance on 10000 airplanes? I work the insurance side for EAA for the Warbirds and we have to verify they have insurance, that it’s current, and has verbiage that states on the COI, Airshow flybys, formation flight and static display approved. I deal with about 250 airplanes that say they’re flying in the show and it’s absolutely nuts the first four days. I don’t know how the ultralights work or EAA main show for that matter. I have too much on my hands with just the warbirds. 

[Echo]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

I don't think they can make you sign something foregoing your right to recover from the other pilots.  Most likely they want to be the only party to recover their payout.  

The first line of recovery is from YOUR carrier for insured loss to limits. The carrier then surrogates to recover IF liability was with other entity. You CAN piggyback to recover uninsured loss and expenses that relate to your loss. They have a duty to you as policyholder. 

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, druidjaidan said:

There is no insurance on the rotorcraft . So we're talking about my insurance that wants me to forgo pursuing the rest of the liability.

I asked my aviation-insurance-knowledgable friend about this and my understanding is that probably the insurer is offering a total loss case where the policy pays out in full, and then the insurance company owns the aircraft and the rights to pursue any recovery from subrogation to other parties.  This is basically the purpose of the insurance, so that they take on the damage by paying out the policy so that you aren't burdened with pursuing that amount of the damages. 

 

11 minutes ago, Echo said:

The first line of recovery is from YOUR carrier for insured loss to limits. The carrier then surrogates to recover IF liability was with other entity. You CAN piggyback to recover uninsured loss and expenses that relate to your loss. They have a duty to you as policyholder. 

If piggybacking with the insurer for damage beyond the policy limits is possible, that sounds like an avenue that could be pursued with the insurance company.   The mechanics of it seem less favorable than pursuing on your own, since it increases the costs overhead and both sides stand to gain less.

It does sound like the unfortunate best path is to take the policy payout and do with it what you can.

[Echo]

There are insured costs and there are uninsured costs. Uninsured costs are often at a much higher ratio. Insurance is NOT going to make you whole. Insurance protects you from catastrophic loss. 

[druidjaidan]

3 hours ago, Aerodon said:

I had to think about this for a moment.  I guess it is fair that your insurance company pays out what you were insured for, and then goes after the other party.  If you don't give up your right to pursue the other party, you could have the situation that both you and your insurer are filing a claim against the other party.  A good recipe for confusion.

So you have to pick a route, either you file a claim against the other party for the full value, to take the money and run.

 

Aerodon

 

1 hour ago, Echo said:

The first line of recovery is from YOUR carrier for insured loss to limits. The carrier then surrogates to recover IF liability was with other entity. You CAN piggyback to recover uninsured loss and expenses that relate to your loss. They have a duty to you as policyholder. 

This is part of the reason I want to get an attorney to advise me. I've read that both Washington (my home state) and Wisconsin (where the incident occurred) both appears to apply something called the "Made whole doctrine".  

"In Wisconsin, the made whole rule is a legal doctrine that requires an injured party to be made whole before any insurer can recover anything. Garrity v. Rural Mut. Ins. Co., 253 N.W. 2d 512 (Wis. 1977). Thus, in situations where an injured party’s damages exceed the limited pool of funds from which he or she can recover, the injured party is given priority over the subrogated party."

I don't know how that works in practice tbh. It seems complicated to say the least, how is my insurance to know what my total claim is or to agree on what my total claim is  A lot is somewhat subjective or not strictly determined, what is the actual value of the plane, what will my acquisition costs be, etc. It seems like I'd need to get them to agree to a value, even if that value exceeds my insured amount, and I'm not sure what incentive the insurance company would have to do that at a value higher than my insured value.  

It may not actually work that way at all, hence wanting to get a lawyer to clearly provide what options we have and push back if we haven't reached the limits of what we should be pushing our insurance to do. So far though I've had very little luck getting a lawyer willing to take hourly work to provide that advise and write some demand letters to see if we can get things moving.

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I'm still wondering how the EAA can allow anyone to be a part of the fly-in let alone a vendor and not have liability insurance. If that is the case, count me out, forever until it changes.

 

In theory, they require all vendors to provide proof of insurance and indemnification. If this was a demo flight I expect that the EAA will try to force ELA gyro's insurance to cooperate at some level. Right now that is kind of the final path to resolving this via a 3rd party insurance settlement rather than via our own (underinsured) insurance and eating the loss.

However, I don't know how to navigate to that outcome if it's even possible. But it's an avenue we are looking into. I don't know what stops ELA's insurance from going "nope, ELA didn't authorize Eric as a representative to provide a demo flight so we're not liable" other than litigation.