N9391M destroyed at KOSH

[PeteMc]

3 hours ago, Aerodon said:

 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.

I sort of only *think* I know about how insurance works.  But if you've under insured your plane I get that your insurance company is only going to pay you for the value you were paying them to insure. (Duh!)   But if the plane was worth more and you can prove it, then there's no reason not to be able to go after the person that destroyed it (IMHO).  Now I get that the insurance company may go after them for the value they insured, but that shouldn't stop you from going after the additional amount (assuming you can prove the value).

[M20F-1968]

8 hours ago, bcg said:

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
 

There are other kinds of insurance that are worth looking into,  Does the Gyrocopter pilot have homeowner's insurance or an umbrella policy that provides liability coverage against which a claim can be made?

John Breda

[aviatoreb]

I carry $2M smooth and a hull value that is close if not a tad shy on replacement value of my airplane to my best guess of what it would cost me to buy mostly the same thing. I consider the $2M much more important than the hull value part just for the scary scenario that someone or something happens that causes an injured person to want to sue me for up to $2M which is much bigger than the worry about the airplane cost.  That said, I wouldn't want to be uninsured on the hull value and this is just a side remark and I sympathize tremendously of your situation. And grateful that you and family are ok.

[Fly Boomer]

11 hours ago, kortopates said:

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.

+1 regarding being over-insured.

Regarding all the talk of law suits and subrogation, I try to keep in mind that the insurance company is a business.  And, as with all businesses, their one and only motivation (really obligation) is to make money for the owners.  Litigation is usually a disaster for all involved, and the subrogation process can turn into a lengthy argument, so the insurance company is money ahead to just total the airplane, pay the claim, and move on.  It's a simple calculation to determine the company-wide ratio of payouts to premiums.  I suspect that, as long as that ratio remains a little below unity, the prevailing policy is "pay quick, and move on".  As a bonus, they also avoid the stigma of being branded a "slow payer".  When that magic ratio approaches unity of course, payout policy and/or premiums have to change.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, Sabremech said:

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. 

Not all 10,000 are vendors and doing demos.

People just flying in and out of the show are a different matter.

[GeeBee]

10 hours ago, Sabremech said:

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. 

I was an EAA President and we had fly-ins and everybody was insured. Sure it is a giant PIA, but EAA headquarters has a lot of staff. Think about it for a minute what is being proposed and even better, say it out loud. It goes like this:

Let's have a giant fly-in where the public can attend. We'll have women and children there all about among experimental and unproven aircraft and we'll have no financial responsibility requirements whatsoever.

Sound like a good plan?

[GeeBee]

This is eventually going to blow back on the deepest pockets. The EAA.

 

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

+1 regarding being over-insured.

Regarding all the talk of law suits and subrogation, I try to keep in mind that the insurance company is a business.  And, as with all businesses, their one and only motivation (really obligation) is to make money for the owners.  Litigation is usually a disaster for all involved, and the subrogation process can turn into a lengthy argument, so the insurance company is money ahead to just total the airplane, pay the claim, and move on.  It's a simple calculation to determine the company-wide ratio of payouts to premiums.  I suspect that, as long as that ratio remains a little below unity, the prevailing policy is "pay quick, and move on".  As a bonus, they also avoid the stigma of being branded a "slow payer".  When that magic ratio approaches unity of course, payout policy and/or premiums have to change.

Litigation in a subrogation case is a fixed cost to the insurance company. They will pursue it because it is their fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. 

Some years back, my wife had a slip and fall at my daughter's house. She broke her pelvis. Other than a doctor's visit and some X-Rays not much can be done other than let it heal. United Health Care was "Johnny on the spot" with a subrogation case against my daughter's home owners policy. The way out was my wife was on chemo at the time and said, "I had chemo brain, got dizzy and fell". End of case. But make no mistake about it, they subrogate and will do so without a thought because it costs them nothing, monetarily or emotionally.

[hubcap]

16 hours ago, bcg said:

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
 

In a perfect world I would agree with you. However, we don’t live in a perfect world which is why we protect ourselves with insurance. OP admits he was under insured but doesn’t want to accept responsibility. 

If you are going to be underinsured you need to be prepared for the ramifications….especially when dealing with airplanes.

[RobertGary1]

22 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Litigation in a subrogation case is a fixed cost to the insurance company. They will pursue it because it is their fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. 

Some years back, my wife had a slip and fall at my daughter's house. She broke her pelvis. Other than a doctor's visit and some X-Rays not much can be done other than let it heal. United Health Care was "Johnny on the spot" with a subrogation case against my daughter's home owners policy. The way out was my wife was on chemo at the time and said, "I had chemo brain, got dizzy and fell". End of case. But make no mistake about it, they subrogate and will do so without a thought because it costs them nothing, monetarily or emotionally.

My broker said that in his 20+ years he’s only once seen an aviation insurance co subrogate. Most likely because the net gain is probably not much. 

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, hubcap said:

If you are going to be underinsured you need to be prepared for the ramifications….especially when dealing with airplanes.

I watched a case where an older gentleman was under insured in his Maule, he had a hard landing that did some damage, no where near the insured value, but the insurance company showed up and gave him a check for insured value, had the aircraft fixed and sold it at a profit.

Be very careful being under insured if you make a claim, even a small one apparently they have the right to total the aircraft.

I would have said BS if I didn’t have personal knowledge.

[Sabremech]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

This is eventually going to blow back on the deepest pockets. The EAA.

 

Who knows. This is not the first time something like this has happened at EAA and unfortunately won’t be the last unless the event is cancelled permanently. 

[bcg]

I watched a case where an older gentleman was under insured in his Maule, he had a hard landing that did some damage, no where near the insured value, but the insurance company showed up and gave him a check for insured value, had the aircraft fixed and sold it at a profit.
Be very careful being under insured if you make a claim, even a small one apparently they have the right to total the aircraft.
I would have said BS if I didn’t have personal knowledge.

You have the option of buying it from the insurance company at salvage value. I've done that several times with vehicles.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[bcg]

Yes but you still need to fix it.  And depending upon how much it was under-insured (i.e. the size of the check you get from the insurance co.) and how much the cost to repair damage is, you might need to come up with a lot of cash - which the owner may not have.
For instance, if the Maule was worth $150K but only insured for $120K and it incurred $50K in damage, then the Insurance co would write the check/scrap it if they can get $70K or more at a salvage auction.  But, with recent inflation, the plane sells for $90 - 100k salvage, and the original owner buys it, he will be $20 - 30K short of cash to repair unless he comes up with the difference.

That's not how buying salvage works on your own claim. They give you a price and you say yes or no, you don't have to compete with others at auction. It's yours until you sign it over to the insurance company.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

This is eventually going to blow back on the deepest pockets. The EAA.

 

100% true.

Very sad, but true.

[A64Pilot]

22 minutes ago, bcg said:

That's not how buying salvage works on your own claim. They give you a price and you say yes or no, you don't have to compete with others at auction. It's yours until you sign it over to the insurance company.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
 

He did buy it back from them, because he still wanted his airplane

He had had it for a long time, it was an old fixed pitch M4 and he insured it for what he had bought it for long ago, and just kept letting the insurance renew year after year, but as he bought it cheap and had it for years it was worth a good bit more, salvage value was in excess of what the insurance company had paid him because the damage amounted to a broken Oleo strut so it wasn’t an expensive fix. They gave him something like 40K and he had to pay roughly 50K to get it back, then he had to pay to get it fixed. Value was I’d guess about maybe 60K, it was an immaculate airplane, but an older fixed pitch M4 just isn’t worth a whole lot.

Last I heard he had decided he wasn’t insuring it.

There we’re times when Maule would have unsold airplanes and you could walk up with cash and BD would sell one for likely less than he had in it because he needed the cash, so if you waited and we’re OK with an unpopular model that maybe had an unusual interior you could get a heck of a deal.

My Maule so help me came from the factory with crushed red velour interior, looked like a house of ill repute, or a pimp mobile, BD had some unusual tastes I guess.

[Jeffrey Ross]

IANAL but....

I think you are going to have a hard time getting anything beyond what the insurance company is offering, the reason I say this is you insured your plane stating it had a value of $X, should you try to sue somebody for more $$ they are going to come back and simply say "you stated your airplane was worth $X and that was the agreed value you had with the insurance company."  The only thing you might be able to get additional is stuff you had stored in or around the aircraft that wasn't part of the plane itself such as your camping gear, luggage, additional travel expenses, etc.

Hiring a lawyer gets very expensive very fast and unless you are going after somebody with deep pockets you may spend more on the attorney that you might be able to recover.  I don't even know if proving gross negligence entitles you to collect beyond the value of the aircraft but you still need to realize there are no guarantees when going in front of a judge so you can lay out the perfect case detailing that gross negligence took place, you can still lose the case, but let's assume you proved gross negligence, won the case and with that you can get more than your declared value for the airplane, next problem, do the other pilots (or pilot's estate) have insurance or the dollars to pay a judgement?  If not you'll be holding onto a worthless judgement for 20 years (Wisconsin I think the judgements expire after 20yrs).

As much as I know it sucks be thankful you and your family weren't injured.  The aggravation of dealing with the loss of the aircraft is free, the experience is free, the additional loss just sucks.

On a side note, a very good friend of mine was parked 2 planes away (further from the runway) from you in the same row but left on Thursday morning so he missed the accident,  He too got to deal with aggravation in 2021 when a plane clipped his wing taxing down a taxiway that was restricted to smaller aircraft, this happened two weeks prior to taking his instrument check ride.   As I said the aggravation is free, just be happy you and your family weren't physically injured.

[druidjaidan]

1 hour ago, Jeffrey Ross said:

IANAL but....

I think you are going to have a hard time getting anything beyond what the insurance company is offering, the reason I say this is you insured your plane stating it had a value of $X, should you try to sue somebody for more $$ they are going to come back and simply say "you stated your airplane was worth $X and that was the agreed value you had with the insurance company."  The only thing you might be able to get additional is stuff you had stored in or around the aircraft that wasn't part of the plane itself such as your camping gear, luggage, additional travel expenses, etc.

Hiring a lawyer gets very expensive very fast and unless you are going after somebody with deep pockets you may spend more on the attorney that you might be able to recover.  I don't even know if proving gross negligence entitles you to collect beyond the value of the aircraft but you still need to realize there are no guarantees when going in front of a judge so you can lay out the perfect case detailing that gross negligence took place, you can still lose the case, but let's assume you proved gross negligence, won the case and with that you can get more than your declared value for the airplane, next problem, do the other pilots (or pilot's estate) have insurance or the dollars to pay a judgement?  If not you'll be holding onto a worthless judgement for 20 years (Wisconsin I think the judgements expire after 20yrs).

As much as I know it sucks be thankful you and your family weren't injured.  The aggravation of dealing with the loss of the aircraft is free, the experience is free, the additional loss just sucks.

On a side note, a very good friend of mine was parked 2 planes away (further from the runway) from you in the same row but left on Thursday morning so he missed the accident,  He too got to deal with aggravation in 2021 when a plane clipped his wing taxing down a taxiway that was restricted to smaller aircraft, this happened two weeks prior to taking his instrument check ride.   As I said the aggravation is free, just be happy you and your family weren't physically injured.

Fundamentally it's pretty simple. My insured value has nothing to do with the other party's liability. My insurance is only on the hook for the insured value obviously, that is the limit of my insurance's liability to me. If the other party had insurance I could simply file a claim on their insurance and then it becomes a debate toward a settlement. The consultations I've had with attorneys have all basically agreed on the fundamentals of what the party's liability is, who the likely liable parties are, and my roughly estimated value being correct. They also don't believe the value to be significant enough that they would be willing to take the work on contingency and none of them accept hourly at all if we wanted to pursue it.

The gap is significant enough to be worth some headache to me. It's worth at least paying for some threatening letters from an attorney and investigating if ELA Gyro's had insurance and was responsible for Bruce's flight.

Edited August 19, 2023 by druidjaidan

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, druidjaidan said:

Fundamentally it's pretty simple. My insured value has nothing to do with the other party's liability. My insurance is only on the hook for the insured value obviously, that is the limit of my insurance's liability to me. If the other party had insurance I could simply file a claim on their insurance and then it becomes a debate toward a settlement. The consultations I've had with attorneys have all basically agreed on the fundamentals of what the party's liability is, who the likely liable parties are, and my roughly estimated value being correct. They also don't believe the value to be significant enough that they would be willing to take the work on contingency and none of them accept hourly at all if we wanted to pursue it.

The gap is significant enough to be worth some headache to me. It's worth at least paying for some threatening letters from an attorney and investigating if ELA Gyro's had insurance and was responsible for Bruce's flight.

I'd long heard from numerous sources that one of Maule's operating tactics for staying in business was to not carry insurance, and not have a lot of assets, so that they're not attractive or worthwhile as a litigant in a recovery effort.   I'm currently on a trip where we visited the location of a similar well-known and well-established aircraft manufacturer, and learned that they aren't insured, either, probably for the same reasons.    I suspect that in both cases the other business aspect of it is that the cost of the insurance would be prohibitive, anyway.

So it may well be the case that the gyro manufacturer may not be insured, as I'm told by people who would know that many of the manufacturers aren't.

 

 

[LANCECASPER]

22 hours ago, GeeBee said:

This is eventually going to blow back on the deepest pockets. The EAA.

 

And it probably should fall on EAA ultimately. As enjoyable as an all-things-aviation experience that Oshkosh is, it is still in many ways a three-ring circus. There are accidents there every year. I used to consider it controlled chaos, which it is at most times, but I think at some times it leans toward just chaos, which it did in this case.

I still go some years, but I decided almost thirty years ago that I would never take my airplane there that week. I've landed at nearby airports and gone commercially, but always felt that I didn't want to be a participant in the airshow. I understand why some people want to though.

A jury would probably decide that there are lot of things that EAA could have done to make it much safer. I would think that EAA would want to avoid the negative publicity that would go with this. Even the negative publicity that a local interview on a Troubleshooters-type segment of the local news would create, that might my picked up by a bigger news outlet. The negative publicity would not be good for EAA or GA. They may jump at the chance to head this off before it goes any further. Their worst nightmare would be a national news crew showing up at their headquarters.

[PeteMc]

On 8/18/2023 at 5:25 PM, bcg said:

When someone else damages you or your property, it's not unreasonable to expect that their insurance, not yours, will make you whole.

Well DUH!!  We've all been talking about if he was underinsured, etc., but THIS is really the bottom line. 

  

[RobertGary1]

11 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I watched a case where an older gentleman was under insured in his Maule, he had a hard landing that did some damage, no where near the insured value, but the insurance company showed up and gave him a check for insured value, had the aircraft fixed and sold it at a profit.

Be very careful being under insured if you make a claim, even a small one apparently they have the right to total the aircraft.

I would have said BS if I didn’t have personal knowledge.

It’s still your option. You can decide to fix it yourself. Over insured has a similar issue. Insurance companies will try to fix a bent up plane that shouldn’t be fixed. 

[A64Pilot]

18 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'd long heard from numerous sources that one of Maule's operating tactics for staying in business was to not carry insurance, and not have a lot of assets, so that they're not attractive or worthwhile as a litigant in a recovery effort.   I'm currently on a trip where we visited the location of a similar well-known and well-established aircraft manufacturer, and learned that they aren't insured, either, probably for the same reasons.    I suspect that in both cases the other business aspect of it is that the cost of the insurance would be prohibitive, anyway.

So it may well be the case that the gyro manufacturer may not be insured, as I'm told by people who would know that many of the manufacturers aren't.

 

 

Maule hasn’t had product liability insurance for decades and may never have. Story is every few years a Bizjet full of lawyers lands at Moultrie airport and goes over to Spence field and tours Maule and I guess does some kind of due diligence then leaves, and Maule doesn’t get sued because in truth the have nearly no assets, they are “Judgement Proof” The Type Certificate isn’t worth much, none of them are, because you have to be a manufacturer to do anything with one.

The cost of product liability insurance would put little Maule under, they haven’t really been in production for decades, they will built what they can sell which is one or two every so often, they survive only because they have very small fixed costs. The labor force works long enough to draw unemployment and is rotated in and out. I hired a bunch of Maule’s employees even though it’s a 40 mile drive for them.

I was at Sun-N-Fun one year when the TC for the Lake Amphibian wast auctioned, no one bid.

For Years when we opened Thrush Aircraft we had no Product liability insurance. The Company was structured in such a way that it had very little in assets. We bought it quite literally for less than the scrap value of the tooling, honestly. An aircraft manufacturing facility complete with tooling, the TC etc is nearly worthless, they only real value is the Production Certificate, with it you can start immediate production of parts and PMA parts if you so desire. We actually manufactured a lot of parts for PMA holders, but you will starve to death on contract work trust me, you may keep your workers fed and the lights on, but your not really going to make a profit and meanwhile the plants getting older and the roof and all kinds of things need money now.

It very difficult to make money in GA, and it’s not hard at all to lose your behind, only a fool gets into business aircraft manufacturing, I still maintain that Ag is different than people carrying GA though. The BIG money is in Bizjets, those manufacturers are making such a profit they have problems finding ways to spend it, tongue in check but Gulfstream, Cessna, Beech, Embraer etc are not hurting for cash, and it’s the Bizjets that keep them profitable, Beech probably I bet loses money on the few pistons they build but just like Embraer who still builds that little Ag plane, they do so because it’s where the business came from

Anyone lining up to buy Mooney? It really is a fine airplane, but there are dozens of fine airplanes not being manufactured and dozens of underfunded companies who say with just a little money we will start production soon, I’ve met with a couple because we had a Production Certificate and could build parts until they were able, the last group I met with were trying a production restart of the little glued together Grumman, they were building the factory in Valdosta Ga.

I don’t think they ever broke ground though.

Personally I’d love an Aero Commander 200 AKA Meyers 200, but I’m not holding my breath, but of course there is a company that any day now will start production on an improved 200  just need someone to kick in the seed money.

[A64Pilot]

GAMA report of how many GA aircraft manufactured last year, there were just about as many bizjets as pistons

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2022ShipmentReport-0223-2023.pdf

I tried cutting and pasting the table but it didn’t work, formatting was whacked out 

Oh they only report GAMA members which it seems Maule isn’t, we didn’t used to be either

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

GAMA report of how many GA aircraft manufactured last year, there were just about as many bizjets as pistons

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2022ShipmentReport-0223-2023.pdf

I tried cutting and pasting the table but it didn’t work, formatting was whacked out 

Oh they only report GAMA members which it seems Maule isn’t, we didn’t used to be either

Average airplane was $8,000,000