Signature is evil

[OHAEDO]

I’ve posted my email and phone if someone needs help.

Not responding to commentary from folks trying to prove a point.

Haedo OFFLINE.  If Mike Elliott wants me to come over and share turbo fan safety in piston world I’m happy to.

safety número uno.

fly safe boys and girls and tail winds.

 

Edited June 5 by OHAEDO

[LANCECASPER]

8 minutes ago, OHAEDO said:

I’ve posted my email and phone if someone needs help.

Not responding to vacuos commentary from piston folks

Haedo OFFLINE.  If Mike Elliott wants me to come over and share turbo fan safety in piston world I’m happy to.

safety número uno.

fly safe boys and girls and tail winds.

 

The word is actually vacuous, not vacuos, but what do I know I'm just a piston folk . . .lol

Considering the definition of the word, it's hilarious that it's misspelled. 

[LANCECASPER]

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

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. 

I think the outcome in court would have been different had it been gross negligence.

https://legaldictionary.net/gross-negligence/

On a post here on April 12, 2019 he mentions, "It's unintentional internal damage . . ". How did it go from unintentional to gross negligence?

Others on here have had towing incidents that damaged the nose gear and they caught it on pre-flight . . .  before start-up and taxi where the majority of the damage took place. I doubt that those other Mooney owners that caught the damage on pre-flight had x-ray vision. Was the nose gear damage the fault of the FBO? It sure seems like it. 

But going after them for a half million dollars on an $800,000 airplane, and turning down $235,000, makes me wonder who is trying to take advantage of whom.

[LANCECASPER]

 If Mike Elliott wants me to come over and share turbo fan safety in piston world I’m happy to.

Were you going to teach us in the lowly piston world how to do crosswind landings in a HondaJet?
https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/318693

[MikeOH]

15 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I think the outcome in court would have been different had it been gross negligence.

https://legaldictionary.net/gross-negligence/

On a post here on April 12, 2019 he mentions, "It's unintentional internal damage . . ". How did it go from unintentional to gross negligence?

Others on here have had towing incidents that damaged the nose gear and they caught it on pre-flight . . .  before start-up and taxi. I doubt that they had x-ray vision. Was it the fault of the FBO? It sure seems like it. But going after them for a half million dollars on an $800,000 airplane, and turning down $235,000, makes me wonder who is trying to take advantage of whom.

Well, your own cite provides the answer to your question as unintentional:

"Gross negligence does not refer to acts undertaken with intent to harm another, but acts for which the perpetrator knew, or should have known, would result in injury or damages to another person."

Where did the $500,000 come from?  I didn't see that was the amount he was after.  I also thought somewhere in this history I read the damage was not immediately apparent.  Further, is your point that simply because someone doesn't spot damage caused by another that the negligent party is no longer responsible???  I sure hope not!

[LANCECASPER]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, your own cite provides the answer to your question as unintentional:

"Gross negligence does not refer to acts undertaken with intent to harm another, but acts for which the perpetrator knew, or should have known, would result in injury or damages to another person."

Where did the $500,000 come from?  I didn't see that was the amount he was after.  I also thought somewhere in this history I read the damage was not immediately apparent.  Further, is your point that simply because someone doesn't spot damage caused by another that the negligent party is no longer responsible???  I sure hope not!

No two separate points.

After the incident he said it was unintentional, I didn't. 

His post lists everything he was going after. ($235,000 + $50,000-$60,000 + $213,000)

Obviously the court didn't see gross negligence or he would have won the case.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

No two separate points. His post lists everything he was going after. ($235,000 + $50,000-$60,000 + $213,000)

Ah, thanks.  What part of those amounts do you think were unreasonable?

[LANCECASPER]

41 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, thanks.  What part of those amounts do you think were unreasonable?

A tear down inspection (on the high side $40,000 including R & R), new prop ($20,000),  new nose gear (maybe nose gear doors) ($10,000) would have made him whole. Whatever that would have cost back in 2019. Let's go way out there and say it was $100,000 including hiring a ferry pilot to fly it back gear down to Kerrville. 

Signature's insurance offered $235,000.

While it's true he lost the use of the airplane, he had insurance coverage for that.

Since he's asking for a new engine new prop and new nose gear it's a bit hard to ask for loss of value when you are using all new parts and it's being done at the factory.

The $213,000 included his expert witness.

 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

A tear down inspection, new prop,  new nose gear would have made him whole. Whatever that would have cost back in 2019.

They offered $235,000

While it's true he lost the use of the airplane, he had insurance coverage for that.

Since he's asking for a new engine new prop and new nose gear it's a bit hard to ask for loss of value when you are using all new parts and it's being done at the factory.

The $213,000 included his expert witness.

 

Hmm, I thought the $235,000 was the cost to fix.  Where did he indicate that he was covered for loss of use (the $50,000-$60,000)?  And, wouldn't the insurance company deserve to get their money back even if he was (subrogation)? As far as loss of value: two airplanes, otherwise identical, one has never had an incident, the other has had $235,000 in repairs by the factory...are you honestly telling me you'd pay just as much for the one that has been repaired?  If legal costs are allowable to be recovered then why wouldn't the $213,000 be included?

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, MikeOH said:

Hmm, I thought the $235,000 was the cost to fix.  Where did he indicate that he was covered for loss of use (the $50,000-$60,000)?  And, wouldn't the insurance company deserve to get their money back even if he was (subrogation)? As far as loss of value: two airplanes, otherwise identical, one has never had an incident, the other has had $235,000 in repairs by the factory...are you honestly telling me you'd pay just as much for the one that has been repaired?  If legal costs are allowable to be recovered then why wouldn't the $213,000 be included?

Read through his posts - it's all there.

 

[Texas Mooney]

8 hours 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. 

It is perfectly legal for the City/FBO to make these insurance demands and terms in the hangar lease.  Federal funds have no bearing.

The trend for Hangar Leases to require that you name the City/FBO as an "Additional Insured", agreeing to hold the City/FBO harmless, to indemnify the City/FBO, and to waive subrogation clauses has been going on for 25 years and gaining momentum.  Here is an AvWeb article from 2002 updated in 2019.

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/does-your-hangar-lease-void-your-insurance/

8 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

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.

Good point.  Apparently many pilots either do not read the terms of the Hangar Lease which they willingly sign and accept or they do no understand the terms which they have accepted. 

You state that the Signature hangar lease contracts are "terrible" but many municipal airports have similar contracts.  "Exclusions" of Lessor liability and "hold harmless" clauses are typical in many leases.  Even more common are "Waivers of Subrogation" (i.e. - your insurance pays first with no chance to "subrogate" or charge repair costs later back to the FBO). 

Just a quick internet search.  If I am reading this right, the Georgetown TX hangar lease specifically holds the City and its employees harmless for any liability INCLUDING GROSS NEGLIGENCE.  See below

https://airport.georgetown.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2015/08/3.7.14-City-of-Georgetown-Airport-Ground-Lease.pdf

The next City airport/FBO leases ALL have exclusions that hold the Lessor (City and/or FBO) harmless for anything but "gross negligence of the Lessor" and "willful misconduct". The addition of "sole" and "willful" by some of the City's/FBO's make it even more impossible to prove.  See below the sample online Hangar Leases for Temple, TX, Crane County, TX, the Ogden City Airport, Lakefield, OH and Southwest Wyoming Regional Airport Airport.

https://flytemple.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/City-of-Temple-T-Hangar-Lease-Sample-2024.pdf

https://www.co.crane.tx.us/upload/page/9053/Non-Resident Hangar Lease Agreement.pdf

https://www.mercercountyohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Hangar-Info-Hanger-Agreement.pdf

https://sweetwaterfbo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Aeronautical-Use-Hangar-Lease-2019-Form-Fill-REVISED.pdf

https://ogdencity.com/DocumentCenter/View/14937/FORM---Ogden-FBO-Lease-Agreement-10-July-2020-00095243xA467D

An even greater number of City/FBO hangar leases require "Waivers of Subrogation".  I.E.- your insurance pays first and don't even try to get the City/FBO insurance to pay your insurance company back.  Kerrville-Kerr Airport is a perfect example right in the heart of Mooneyland.  From the KERRVILLE-KERR COUNTY AIRPORT 1674 HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT:

"The policy shall include an Additional Insured endorsement, Waiver of Subrogation endorsement,"

https://www.kerrvilletx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42280/SAMPLE_1674-Hangar-Lease_230331

There are so many online examples of airports requiring Additional Insured endorsements and Waiver of Subrogation that I am not going to even list any more.

I suspect that the trend is for more, not less of this - especially with publicly owned airports City Councils and Private Equity owned FBO's looking to reduce costs and especially reduce liability.  It is not going away. 

 

 

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Read through his posts - it's all there.

 

I have.  I'm wondering what is wrong with my summary; to wit, what problem do you have with his claims?  That's where this back-and-forth started; you seem to think he's being greedy and I'm not sure why?

[Schllc]

9 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

A tear down inspection, new prop,  new nose gear (maybe nose gear doors) would have made him whole. Whatever that would have cost back in 2019.

They offered $235,000

While it's true he lost the use of the airplane, he had insurance coverage for that.

Since he's asking for a new engine new prop and new nose gear it's a bit hard to ask for loss of value when you are using all new parts and it's being done at the factory.

The $213,000 included his expert witness.

 

Maybe 500k wasn’t the right number, but no way that a tear down, a new prop and nose gear would make him whole on a brand new plane with damage history. That seriously depreciated the value of the plane. 
I don’t think I would feel a whole lot different if it were my brand new plane. 
I can tell you from first hand experience that he sold it for a significant discount, and no one else was offering anything better. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

I have.  I'm wondering what is wrong with my summary; to wit, what problem do you have with his claims?  That's where this back-and-forth started; you seem to think he's being greedy and I'm not sure why?

Go ahead and re-read my posts and you'll see why I feel that way. You don't have to agree.

[LANCECASPER]

1 minute ago, Schllc said:

Maybe 500k wasn’t the right number, but no way that a tear down, a new prop and nose gear would make him whole on a brand new plane with damage history. That seriously depreciated the value of the plane. 
I don’t think I would feel a whole lot different if it were my brand new plane. 
I can tell you from first hand experience that he sold it for a significant discount, and no one else was offering anything better. 

I agree he was owed something for loss of value. But try selling any new airplane without damage a year after you buy it and see what the depreciation is. You know what you could buy a used Acclaim Ultra for back then since you owned one. .  or two . . . or three. . lol. The depreciation hit is heavy the first 2-3 years.

So part of what he lost by selling it was depreciation and part loss of value. He could have kept the airplane after all new parts were installed. But asking for $500,000 on an $800,000 airplane that was repaired with new factory parts at the factory just seems excessive. No one has to agree with that, but that's my opinion.

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Go ahead and re-read my posts and you'll see why I feel that way. You don't have to agree.

I did read your posts; that's how this started!  I didn't see any explanation as to WHY you feel that way.  Your 'argument' seems to be "just because it's a BIG number".  Obviously, I don't have to agree. I was just trying to see if there was any logic behind your 'feeling'. That's all. No need to explain if you can't

[LANCECASPER]

I did read your posts; that's how this started!  I didn't see any explanation as to WHY you feel that way.  Your 'argument' seems to be "just because it's a BIG number".  Obviously, I don't have to agree. I was just trying to see if there was any logic behind your 'feeling'. That's all. No need to explain if you can't

I already did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MikeOH]

 

Ok, your last paragraph in your response to Schllc answers my question.

[Echo]

On 5/31/2024 at 5:59 PM, GeeBee said:

They are not evil, but their business makes them that way (Thank you Jessica Rabbit).

You speak only as the policy holder. Have you ever been an aggrieved victim? 

My barber was out jogging. A woman insured by USAA driving from behind lost control of her vehicle while changing her radio, he ran all the way up into a yard of home but her car still managed to strike him on the front lawn. USAA denied all liability despite police citations to the driver, then said, they only owed him medical bills and not lost wages because he was over 65 and could draw Social Security. They also denied him expenses of his barber chair rental. Only when they were shown the doors of the court house did they want to settle. Dealing with him fairly, justly and responsively would have been far cheaper, but more important, the ethical thing to do.

Ben done movie.  Tired old scenario.  Move on.  What else do you have?  Tired of this broken record GeeBee....

[Echo]

Aggrieved Victom.  Are you friggin' serious?  REALLY?  Pssssst.

[Parker_Woodruff]

49 minutes ago, Texas Mooney said:

 

You state that the Signature hangar lease contracts are "terrible" but many municipal airports have similar contracts.  "Exclusions" of Lessor liability and "hold harmless" clauses are typical in many leases.  Even more common are "Waivers of Subrogation" (i.e. - your insurance pays first with no chance to "subrogate" or charge repair costs later back to the FBO). 

 

 

 

Those municipalities are almost never in the business of pulling your airplane in and out of hangar.  Signature is often doing this or even requires that they be the ones doing this.  The City of Kerrville isn't pulling anyone's plane in our out of a hangar.

[Texas Mooney]

13 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Those municipalities are almost never in the business of pulling your airplane in and out of hangar.  Signature is often doing this or even requires that they be the ones doing this.  The City of Kerrville isn't pulling anyone's plane in our out of a hangar.

I am sure that you are right that it varies by location.  But if the City demands those lease terms then it provides easy cover for the privately owned FBO's to demand the same terms.

On the subject of Kerrville it is a good thing that the City is not pulling planes out.. It sounds like the FBO, Kerrville Aviation, owned by Joe Kennedy (and not the City), crashed 2 jets together in spectacular fashion last month. - one jet engine jammed in and through the cockpit of another jet.  If it costs us lowly "piston folks" something approaching $100K to fix our humble Mooney's after a gear-up then this sounds like it is in the $millions. 

If they don't already do it currently, I bet Kerrville Aviation in the future will demand that their customers name the FBO as an "Additional Insured", agreeing to hold the /FBO harmless, to indemnify the FBO, and to waive subrogation clauses !

 

[GeeBee]

10 hours ago, Echo said:

Ben done movie.  Tired old scenario.  Move on.  What else do you have?  Tired of this broken record GeeBee....

Broken record? That means it happens a lot. Maybe that should tell you something.

Maybe you missed the one where American Airline's insurance company tried to blame a 9 year old girl for being the victim of a perv flight attendant. Want to tell me how wonderful they all are again?

"The airline on Wednesday said in a statement about the filing, "Our outside legal counsel retained with our insurance company made an error in this filing." 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/american-airlines-backtracks-filing-blamed-9-year-filmed/story?id=110466927

The insurance company knew exactly what they were doing to avoid a payout and were only to happy to put forth such a legal defense as to blame a 9 year old girl. 

The record is broken because the same recording keeps happening.

[Schllc]

10 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

You know what you could buy a used Acclaim Ultra for back then since you owned one. .  or two

I do know because I bought this one, and sold it, and bought one without damage history and sold that one. The one with damage history was 30% less to buy and sell. 
the one without damage history sold for what it was purchased new. 

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Were you going to teach us in the lowly piston world how to do crosswind landings in a HondaJet?
https://aviation-safety.net/asndb/318693

Ouch…