Signature is evil

[GeeBee]

29 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Likely true.

Your earlier statement indicated you felt otherwise, "They are not evil, but their business makes them that way".

Simple, every business seeks to minimize expenses and maximize profit. In the insurance business there is only one way that happens. You can't cut enough salaries, or heads, or overhead. The real expense is....claims.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

More often than the other way around, I see claims where there's a valid claim and then I look at what was paid and say "wow...they went above an beyond on what should have been paid."  I can really only think of one or two cases in recent years where I may have chosen a more liberal reading of the policy than an adjuster chose.  Usually it's the other way around and I'm pleasantly surprised at what's paid (and in one particular case, I've wondered if a claim that was paid was even a valid claim).

One nice thing about aviation insurance is many people involved in GA claims handling are pilots and/or A&Ps.  As are many of the underwriters I deal with on day to day basis.

[Schllc]

I don’t have a grievance with a single person in the insurance industry I have interacted with across my entire career.  My grievance would be with how the companies operate, and their inability to be responsible for bad assessments.  
Higher reserves,  limited returns,  and  some rational fee structure that can be mitigated with the reserves are some things that could help. 
In what world can an equal policy that cost $19,000 last year and goes to $85,000 in one year with no losses in history of the property, be considered fair or reasonable?
Bonus was it was for a 2.5 million dollar property and has a $250,000 deductible.

this situation is not unique to me, it’s all over the state  

that is a poorly managed industry that needs reform.  

 

[OHAEDO]

For the benefit of the community:

- Was offered $235k by their insurance.  I said no because of loss of value ($213k) + loss of use ($60k) + the pain of going thru this and them not being helpful or amicable or ethical.  That’s me - I fight.  Win or lose. 
-  There is a video and it’s blatant they’re at fault.  Kevin Kammer told me - there’s no way one sees that damage during pre-flight (eg it’s sheared from the top)

- Gross negligence in FL means they willfully intended to cause harm.  So they hide in legal verbiage to avoid liability.  So the line man can run the fuel truck into your airplane and ????.  Crazy.

 

RECOs:

1.  Check your lease agreement for negligence verbiage

2.  If you can’t find an FBO w a negligence standard - I wouldn’t let them tow my Mooney

3.  I’m angry - sad and embarrassed.  I embrace my weakness and am ultimately happy I had my day in court against these evil folk.  Win or lose that’s a win. 
 

tail winds!

Edited June 1, 2024 by OHAEDO

[Fritz1]

Omar, thank you for sharing this, this is really ugly, gross negligence equals intent in FL. I will be even more cautious from now on and walk the extra mile to avoid tugs with tow bars. Dumb question: If this airport has received federal funds, will this lease agreement hold up if challenged, might want to discuss with AOPA legal since this incident may just be the tip of an iceberg that is growing in size. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

2 hours ago, OHAEDO said:

For the benefit of the community:

- Was offered $235k by their insurance.  I said no because of loss of value ($213k) + loss of use ($60k) + the pain of going thru this and them not being helpful or amicable or ethical.  That’s me - I fight.  Win or lose. 
-  There is a video and it’s blatant they’re at fault.  Kevin Kammer told me - there’s no way one sees that damage during pre-flight (eg it’s sheared from the top)

- Gross negligence in FL means they willfully intended to cause harm.  So they hide in legal verbiage to avoid liability.  So the line man can run the fuel truck into your airplane and ????.  Crazy.

 

RECOs:

1.  Check your lease agreement for negligence verbiage

2.  If you can’t find an FBO w a negligence standard - I wouldn’t let them tow my Mooney

3.  I’m angry - sad and embarrassed.  I embrace my weakness and am ultimately happy I had my day in court against these evil folk.  Win or lose that’s a win. 
 

tail winds!

Are you saying you think they intended to damage your plane?  Or are you describing the definition of the level of action (or non-action) that gross-negligence requires?  While it's negligence, calling it gross negligence might be a stretch.

Do you think the insurance company's offer was unreasonable?  That seems like a pretty substantial amount to me.  Was the repair additional or what was the split between diminution of value and the repair?

The Signature hangar lease contracts are terrible and here's a prime example of why insurance companies are charging aircraft owners to give them a Waiver of Subrogation.

[OHAEDO]

25 minutes ago, Fritz1 said:

Omar, thank you for sharing this, this is really ugly, gross negligence equals intent in FL. I will be even more cautious from now on and walk the extra mile to avoid tugs with tow bars. Dumb question: If this airport has received federal funds, will this lease agreement hold up if challenged, might want to discuss with AOPA legal since this incident may just be the tip of an iceberg that is growing in size. 

I need to spend time on this like one needs a Lobotomy but I’ll drill into that angle and see

[Fritz1]

ah, learn't a new word today, waiver of subrogation, sounds heavy, will check my hangar lease and my insurance policy

[jetdriven]

We had to pay $250 extra to have a waiver of subrogation for the air venture cup to the EAA so that I guess we can’t sue them, i’m neither can our insurance company.. But meanwhile, you can give rides in a rotorcraft and kill some people and you’re not required to have insurance at all.

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, OHAEDO said:

Was offered $235k by their insurance.  I said no because of loss of value ($213k) + loss of use ($60k) + the pain of going thru this and them not being helpful or amicable or ethical.  That’s me - I fight.  Win or lose. 

I guess we all live with our choices.  I'm guessing you were pro se or, if you had a lawyer, disregarded their advice.  As long as you feel good about getting nothing instead of almost 90% of the maximum you were entitled to* being offered by the evil empire, more power to you.

(*I'm including the loss of use on  the assumption it was provable; I'm discounting the pain and suffering since, while it's possible there is one,  I'm not aware of a state where it would be recoverable in a property damage case. [People's Court 101])

[OHAEDO]

29 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I guess we all live with our choices.  I'm guessing you were pro se or, if you had a lawyer, disregarded their advice.  As long as you feel good about getting nothing instead of almost 90% of the maximum you were entitled to* being offered by the evil empire, more power to you.

(*I'm including the loss of use on  the assumption it was provable; I'm discounting the pain and suffering since, while it's possible there is one,  I'm not aware of a state where it would be recoverable in a property damage case. [People's Court 101])

I think I might be confusing you.  I apologize.  AEROLaw at all times felt we could breach the GROSS negligence threshold.  So that fact + my rule of life to fight evil whether is $.10 cents of $xxxx applies.  As stated, that part is personal.  But I am flying a Turbo fan, so there's the whole proof and pudding thing.  LOL.

$235k was repairs

$50-$60k on loss of use was mechanical (e.g. receipts, mortgage etc...)

$213k was expert witness. On the loss of value to an airplane with <20 hours on it.

There were many many many more costs I incurred which did not claim.  I was simply trying to get to zero.

Hopefully I've explained the facts a little better for you.

 

My ONLY aim here is to help the Mooney Community, not trying to win petty arguments of lean of peak or rich, I've got ZERO interest in that.

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, Fritz1 said:

ah, learn't a new word today, waiver of subrogation, sounds heavy, will check my hangar lease and my insurance policy

You must (almost certainly do) have better insurance. I was nickled-and-dimed for every person coming near the plane. 

[Fritz1]

appreciate lessons learn't and understand how OP feels, was caught in a similar situation between auto shop and car insurance company last year, only goal was to come out zero zero, took me 6 months, experience gained is priceless 

[dkkim73]

26 minutes ago, OHAEDO said:

So that fact + my rule of life to fight evil whether is $.10 cents of $xxxx applies.  As stated, that part is personal.  But I am flying a Turbo fan, so there's the whole proof and pudding thing.  LOL.

...

My ONLY aim here is to help the Mooney Community, not trying to win petty arguments of lean of peak or rich, I've got ZERO interest in that.

Makes sense to me. While living well is the best revenge (and you seem to be doing that in addition!) there is a salutary value in fighting evil. The fact that a few percent of people are willing to engage with a thug/bully/mugger protects everyone else. And once they realize you're a pipe-hitting m(.*)f(.*) instead of cynically maximizing against a constraint, they might treat you differently. 

Tailwinds to you as well,

D

[midlifeflyer]

58 minutes ago, OHAEDO said:

I think I might be confusing you.  I apologize.  AEROLaw at all times felt we could breach the GROSS negligence threshold.  So that fact + my rule of life to fight evil whether is $.10 cents of $xxxx applies.  As stated, that part is personal.  But I am flying a Turbo fan, so there's the whole proof and pudding thing.  LOL.

$235k was repairs

$50-$60k on loss of use was mechanical (e.g. receipts, mortgage etc...)

$213k was expert witness. On the loss of value to an airplane with <20 hours on it.

There were many many many more costs I incurred which did not claim.  I was simply trying to get to zero.

Hopefully I've explained the facts a little better for you.

 

My ONLY aim here is to help the Mooney Community, not trying to win petty arguments of lean of peak or rich, I've got ZERO interest in that.

Yes, a more complete picture definitely helps.

[LANCECASPER]

It sounds like a business matter became too personal from what feelings were in 2019 compared to what they became over 5 years. The lesson that I take from this is that I only have so much mental energy to spend and that's why I have insurance is to let them take care of it. If I am paying all of these premiums and I am the one that ends up in court, something has gone way off the rails. If I don't get every penny that I feel is fair, at least I got most of what I should have and I can move on and think about other things. 

 

 

These posts were taken from when the incident happened back in 2019:

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/29725-n711pp-new-m20v-gear-collapse-kopf/

 

[OHAEDO]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

It sounds like a business matter became too personal from what feelings were in 2019 compared to what they became over 5 years. The lesson that I take from this is that I only have so much mental energy to spend and that's why I have insurance is to let them take care of it. If I am paying all of these premiums and I am the one that ends up in court, something has gone way off the rails. If I don't get every penny that I feel is fair, at least I got most of what I should have and I can move on and think about other things. 

 

Perfectly rational and sensible thots my friend.

As I have stated repeatedly - personal decision.

I have to sleep well, and not fighting evil is one of them I wouldn't be able to sleep with.  I exhorted, helped, was friendly, to no avail.

Also, the dollars, while significant and hurtful, are not material, so that plays into it too.

I won't let evil doers run amok with me.  But that's just me.  Prefer to leave $250k on the table.

[OHAEDO]

OK, I have answered and endeavored to add to you gents and ladies.

omarhaedo@mac.com

3059340123

If I can be of value to this wondrous community.

Signing off and wishing you all the best

[Texas Mooney]

Unclear and unanswered - this happened 5 years ago and was repaired 4-5 years ago.  The OP's insurance at the time would have repaired the plane.  So the supposed/claimed $235K to repair the plane was already paid long ago.  If the OP's insurance company was able to subrogate the expenses back to Signature's insurance company, then they would have done it years ago.  I have to assume this lawsuit against Signature now 5 years after the fact was by the OP and not by his insurance company - maybe someone knows.  If so, the claim of $235K would be double dipping.  And no insurance pays for loss of resale value.

No-one wants their plane dinged and what happened was unfortunate, but the OP agreed contractually in the Hangar Lease to "hold harmless" Signature except for gross negligence.  This is pretty typical in business transactions - over 4 decades my legal counsel would always try to negotiate for it - because it is a very high hurdle to prove (as intimated by @Parker_Woodruff above).  Either he didn't read his hangar lease or understand it and now wants to believe the terms should have been different.  I think AEROLaw was naive and gave bad advice that "we could breach the GROSS negligence threshold" as evidenced by the Court ruling.

 

 

[Schllc]

What they did to this plane was absolutely gross negligence. 
it may not seem that way to people outside of aviation, but when your only job is to move planes around, it would be expected they understand the limits, especially when they are clearly marked on the plane where the tow bar is attached. 
these “agreements”, are like the Apple user agreement. You don’t really have a choice, and they could say anything they want in there, you don’t have an alternative. 
one thing I can guarantee you,  they spent at least 3x what the OP was asking for fighting the case for five years. 
I avoid signature whenever possible. 

[OHAEDO]

16 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

Unclear and unanswered - this happened 5 years ago and was repaired 4-5 years ago.  The OP's insurance at the time would have repaired the plane.  So the supposed/claimed $235K to repair the plane was already paid long ago.  If the OP's insurance company was able to subrogate the expenses back to Signature's insurance company, then they would have done it years ago.  I have to assume this lawsuit against Signature now 5 years after the fact was by the OP and not by his insurance company - maybe someone knows.  If so, the claim of $235K would be double dipping.  And no insurance pays for loss of resale value.

No-one wants their plane dinged and what happened was unfortunate, but the OP agreed contractually in the Hangar Lease to "hold harmless" Signature except for gross negligence.  This is pretty typical in business transactions - over 4 decades my legal counsel would always try to negotiate for it - because it is a very high hurdle to prove (as intimated by @Parker_Woodruff above).  Either he didn't read his hangar lease or understand it and now wants to believe the terms should have been different.  I think AEROLaw was naive and gave bad advice that "we could breach the GROSS negligence threshold" as evidenced by the Court ruling.

 

 

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

16 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

  And no insurance pays for loss of resale value.

 

 

 

Yes, it can be claimed and paid on the liability side of the at-fault party’s policy

[GeeBee]

In the state of Georgia, it is the law, called "diminished value".

[Texas Mooney]

19 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Yes, it can be claimed and paid on the liability side of the at-fault party’s policy

Oops - I should not have said "no insurance" will cover it.  I know that my USAIG specifically excludes and won't cover it - they call it "Consequential damage"

[PT20J]

What I’m trying to understand, is how oversteering damage cannot be seen during a preflight. The leg stops should hit the stop on the truss and if the force breaks a stop off the leg, it can dent a tube on the leg and possibly a tube on the truss. (The leg tube is the smaller tube, so it usually takes the brunt of it). This can all be fairly easily inspected.

Did Kevin explain how the damage could be otherwise?