I tend not to find any credence in the idea that a past accident makes someone more likely to have problems in the future unless the cause of that accident can be traced to carelessness, incapacity or neglect. Even then a pattern of behavior would be more indicative of that person being a higher "risk".
Even though I've been fortunate (and careful too) enough not to have had any accidents, incidents or violations myself, it still bugs me every time I see this listed as a requirement in pilot job postings. If it said "no at fault accidents" I don't think I'd give it a second thought. Just laziness or ignorance on the part of insurers and employers perhaps? After all, Sully and Skiles have an accident on their records. Not only would I ride in the back of either of their airplanes, I'd hire or insure them too!
westhawk