If the pilot's personal property is at stake here this is a big wakeup call to all pilots to restructure their finances/assets such that it's not owned in their name but in a trust.
He was/is covered by Fugro's insurance. In any event you can take out Non-Ownership Liability insurance to cover you for damage done and injuries suffered if you are at fault but there is a problem with the owners insurance...... easier than messing about restructuring assets etc...
....only the lawyers who will still be sending their grandchildren to private schools on the benefits of this one.
hope this can be sorted without the lawyers making to much money
Whats wrong with lawyers making money? Everyone needs to live. If you want/need a good lawyer then you have to pay the price. Same as a good plumber, electrician etc....... What I hate is lawyers making money unscrupulously - no evidence of that here.
according to an ABC news report, was because 'the pilot was negligent for failing to ensure the plane (sic) was safe to fly'.
This is obviously rubbish. This is NOT one of the reasons the pilot was found to be negligent. Another example that you should not believe everything you read in the press...
The conviction appears harsh and maybe it should be appealed for all our sakes
Well it's not a "conviction". But I'm sure it will be appealed by Fugro's insurers if only due to the amounts involved (cost/benefit).
Di