Who is casa's Insurer???

[Up-into-the-air]

I have been trying to find out "Who is casa's Insurer??", but a search on the casa web site was un-productive. Lots of stuff on Carrier s Liability Insurance and other matters relating to operators and nothing about casa's responsibility for their insurance.

As this is a large item, I looked at the 2010-2011 annual report again, where all items above $10,000 appear [according to casa] and I guess insurance is a reportable item, but no insurer!

The only reference is the following:

"The Commonwealth indemnified CASA in relation to liabilities associated with acts or omissions that occurred before the expiry of two deeds of indemnity in July and August 1998. Since then, commercial insurance has been arranged to cover those risks. In 2010–11 CASA held aviation and general liability, professional indemnity, directors’ and officers’ liability, and a range of other corporate insurance.

Aviation and general liability: Aviation and general liability insurance provides coverage for injuries caused to third parties or to the property of third parties as a result of negligence arising out of the performance of CASA’s functions under the Civil Aviation Act, the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 and other applicable legislation.

Professional indemnity: CASA’s professional indemnity insurance covers claims arising from breaches of duty by a CASA officer.

Directors’ and officers’ liability: In 2010–11, CASA held insurance protecting directors and officers from liability for the consequences of wrongful acts as defined in the policy "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No insurance Company or Broker listed.

Curious???? and Curiouser!!!

[Jabawocky]

My bet....... WE ALL ARE :\

And it is probably way cheaper that way too

[Selcalmeonly]

Someone with VERY deep pockets - I suspect! :hmm:

[Kharon]

A sort of bulk deal the Commonwealth does. They/we (Australia) carry a fairly substantial insurance bill. I would look at the Budget to see how they have offset what must be a huge bill. CASA is probaly mixed in with the high risk jobs, war, flood, fammine and peeing in the corner cover.

There is probably a discount for a 'bundle' of general insurance costs.

There are no hidden costs in the CASA budget.

The background music - "Oh, it's called 'Believe it if you like', same old band; just a jazzed up standard with different front man; yes dear. the fat one with the cigar".

CASA Integrity Survey. (http://www.kwiksurveys.com?s=OCLNNH_eda4d7e5)

[gobbledock]

Comcare is the bucket of money that covers them when somebody litigates against them, which is fairly regular. No individual external insurance company covers them as obviously the insurance company would go broke.
Naturally it is the taxpayer who provides the money that goes into the tin.
I am not sure of the exact process but any payout CASA make that is kept under 100k escapes scrutiny or in depth explanation, anything over 100k and someone at CASA receives a pineapple, allegedly.

Good old taxpayer topping up that slush fund and filling the trough to the brim
There truly is a pot if gold at the end of the CASA rainbow! (or perhaps a pot of pony pooh).

[Dangly Bits]

Lloyd's of London.

[jas24zzk]

If it ain't lloyds, you'll probably find like many organisations this size, that they are self insured, hence why you don't see it reported in the stats.

[spinex]

Comcover is the Commonwealth insurance fund, which operates much like many large corporations, ie there is an element of self insurance, which is in reality much like a massive excess, but over and above that there are commercial insurers lurking in the background, largely via Lloyds agencies I believe. Comcover Insurance & Risk Management - Department of Finance and Deregulation (http://www.finance.gov.au/comcover/index.html) will tell you everything you might want to know and more - that is if you're really short of bedtime reading.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Years ago, used to be Lloyd's brokers, paid for an annual trip to London for the Director, but last time I noticed it was Comcover.
With an excess of $100,000.00 per. claim for litigation cover, when CASA loses.
Generally all you will see in the CASA annual report is the total of the excesses, not total CASA legal expenses, of matters where this cover is applicable.
Tootle pip!!

[Up-into-the-air]

The following from the current Senate (12th February 2012) has some information from Anastasi, when asked a question by Senator Eggelston of Western Australia:

Mr Anastasi: CASA has brought no action against those persons or the company. On odd occasions it has been either Polar Aviation and Mr Butson’s applications either to the tribunal or to the Federal Court. Obviously, when a party is aggrieved with an administrative decision of the authority they can seek review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I said, I am happy on notice to give you information about our legal costs in the tribunal proceedings. But in terms of the Federal Court proceedings, again commenced by those parties against CASA, we are not privy to Comcover’s legal expenditure.I have looked at various casa annual reports and can find no reference to Comcover as casa'a insurer. It will be interesting to see if casa declare this in next years annual report!!!

Senator Eggleston says (in part):

What bothers me is that this is a small company. CASA represents the Commonwealth government and has used the financial resources of the Commonwealth government to try to shut down this very successful and respected airline in the Pilbara. I would like to have—and I ask for it to be provided on notice—a detailed summary of the costs incurred by CASA in the various legal actions against Polar Aviation.

[KRUSTY 34]

Certainly it was Lloyds years ago, but methinks after an incident in '93, they may heve revised their relationship.

On that occasion CAA (CASA's predecessor) issued a Permissable Unsrevicability Schedule (PUS) for an aircraft engaged in RPT in the central west of NSW. In the aftermath of the crash of said aircraft on one dark and stormy night, the legal representatives of the victims used the findings of the Coroners inquest to sue CAA. An ex-gratia payment of $20 million was made by Lloyds (on behalf of the CAA) to the families of the 5 pax involed, with the proviso of course that no further action be taken. The families of the two crew members recieved nothing. The $180,000 that was supposed to be provided as part of their superanuation insurance was withheld by the insurer because of the doubt that he company was operating the aircrat in accordance with their AOC!

The FOI who issud the PUS was summarily liquidated, the organisation's name was changed to CASA, and the same incompetants running the show simply carried on.

Frankly, I'm surprised they can get insurance at all!

[Frank Arouet]

Stop calling me Frankly.

And CASA have learn't nothing from that experience and continue cannoning off the pockets of life, (and death).

Black ball in the top pocket!

[jas24zzk]

Seriously Frank................


frankly my dear.................... ROFL

[gobbledock]

It is Comcover that foots the bill for 'most things CASA', which means ultimately us , the taxpayers. CASA also like to limit 'payouts' to under 100k as that way the figures stay off the books and are not queried in the Senate. Sneaky.

Dear Senators -- Some of you are astute individuals, some of you are bureaucratic parasites that in my eyes are equal to human excrement.
To those of you with integrity ( we know who you are :ok:) please keep digging and you will find that this organisation is a basket case filled with sociopath's with large ego's who use the public purse to fund their personal grudges and vandetta's against select industry victims. All you have to do is make CASA and it's employee's accountable in the court of law for any deliberate crime or action and the place will change overnight. Currently there is no incentive for them to change as no accountabilty exists. Keep fighting the fight.

[Up-into-the-air]

The information continues to flow from the 14th February 2012 Senate RAT hearings (Page 72 for the Hansard report), Paul Phelan has published this yesterday:

Filling in the information gaps (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/filling-in-the-information-gaps/)

The upshot of this is that why should "we" as the community be backing an un-insured party in an action, that on the face of it was started by a dis-gruntled FOI with ideas of his own.

WELL!!! done casa!!!!

and

Should we be supporting this un-named casa person???

What of the internal casa legal advice???

[peterc005]

Personally, my limited dealings with CASA have been positive. I look forward to my Flight Safety magazines in the mail too.

It is too easy on the internet for anonymous and disgruntled people to whine.

I can't recall CASA being sued in the past, but I could be wrong.

Can someone enlighten me about major pieces in litigation CASA has been involved with?

Gambling, Insurance and Options are all based on the Law of Probability. The insurance company is like a bookie, taking a margin on the probability. If you are big enough to wear the risk, it makes sense mathematically to self-insure and avoid paying the margin.

[Frank Arouet]

Give it away pete.

I have a second hand bridge in Sydney for sale if you're interested. Make me an offer mate! :suspect:

Again, read the link below while you ponder your options.

Filling in the information gaps (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/02/filling-in-the-information-gaps/)

If you are big enough to wear the risk, it makes sense mathematically to self-insure and avoid paying the margin

Except it's illegal for a government majority stakeholder entity to do so. Do they have public liability insurance and is this self funded. Bugga me! even a Pub has liability insurance for drunks.

[aroa]

Like the "Strict Liability" ditty that CASA always sings, they obviously have another.
Yes folks its the" Deny Liability " song.
Put in a simple request like an MLO payment for costs incurred due CASA buggery and their failed court case, have you.?

The words go like this...
" CASA denies it owes ANY liability,
And if you commence any legal proceedings
(the taxpayers pocket will be up-ended)
And any action will be defended.!!"

Chorus "OoooH... we've got a bucket of moneeee
And oodles of time to kiilllll
We can make a Mt Everest
Out of a little mole-hillll."

"Justar$e" comes out of a barrel of taxpayers dollars..!! Attn: Dept of Finance.
:mad::mad::mad:

[peterc005]

@Frank - I haven't checked, but I guess CASA is a Government Authority enabled by an Act of Federal Parliament i.e. no shares or shareholders.

I have no idea what this "... majority stakeholder" thing is you are referring to.

You make some reference to "... illegal for a government majority stakeholder entity to do so" (having insurance).

I think you are wrong about this, but am not sure. Can you please supply a reference to substantiate your point?

Put up or shut up.

[gobbledock]

@Frank - I haven't checked, but I guess CASA is a Government Authority enabled by an Act of Federal Parliament i.e. no shares or shareholders.
I have no idea what this "... majority stakeholder" thing is you are referring to.
You make some reference to "... illegal for a government majority stakeholder entity to do so" (having insurance).
I think you are wrong about this, but am not sure. Can you please supply a reference to substantiate your point?
Put up or shut up.
Peterc#*t005, Frank owes you no explanation nor does he need to provide you any reference.....why don't you pi#s off.

[peterc005]

If he can't substantiate the points he made he is "talking ****".

The statements he made don't sound right to me. As a matter of fact they sound illogical, uninformed and just plain stupid.

Please provide references to the points by me raised above or retract the statements. It's very simple, were they facts or just a crazy rant?

Put up or shut up.

[Frank Arouet]

Trolls eh!;

Responsible to nobody and answerable only on that day of reckoning. (but usually to cowardly to fess up).

Understand this people, there is an active and vigorous investigation headed by a team of industry experts and realists into the affairs of our regulator, and when the **** hits the fan, as it eventually will, this troll and his "untouchables" will cop it fair and square in the face.

I reserve the right to say, "I TOLD YOU SO" when the politics of the day are forced into taking an action to rid the industry of this vermin infested brothel once and for all.

The investigation and recommendations are aimed to abolish the CASA and replace it. Not "freeking" fix it! How many burnt bridges do we need to repair?

Does anybody really think Truss or whoever takes over this poison chalice will want a BLOODY GREAT SMOKING HOLE IN THE GROUND on their watch?

Now I'm going back to study my Flight Safety Magazines.

[blackhand]

Was talking to an AWI today, seemed just like a normal human.
Call me naive, but I haven't experienced or heard directly about any "bad" CASA Inspectors.
Do not misunderstand, I have been RCA'd a few times and have had to comply with the regs.

Cheers
BH

[LeadSled]

I can't recall CASA being sued in the past, but I could be wrong.

Peterc005,
You certainly are, wrong, that is. Why you don't hear about it is the propensity to settle out of court, with very stiff confidentiality clauses as a condition of the settlement.
Tootle pip!!