Hudson survivors may Sue US Airways
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 ethics
Final 3, -try not to be insulting- I am just stating an opinion just like you but I can do it without being personal.
So we should just sue airlines when aircraft get diverted or cancelled in bad weather? Is that also what travel insurance is for? When is it just a case of bad luck? Act of nature? Everything has risks and unfortunately we now have a world where people have to blame and sue for just about anything. You seem to condone a blame culture and this is what I am talking about. Airlines insure for all sorts of reasons but there is a limit for what they are responsible for and what the insurance companies will pay.
Ever wonder why insurance premiums across the board have gone up so much, or the cost of doing business cost so much?
I am responsible for my own actions and have house, car, travel and life insurance and pay a premium so if the worst happens, I have some help in most cases. I couldnt sleep at night blaming and sueing a company that really was not responsible for the birds flight paths.
Have a really nice day!
So we should just sue airlines when aircraft get diverted or cancelled in bad weather? Is that also what travel insurance is for? When is it just a case of bad luck? Act of nature? Everything has risks and unfortunately we now have a world where people have to blame and sue for just about anything. You seem to condone a blame culture and this is what I am talking about. Airlines insure for all sorts of reasons but there is a limit for what they are responsible for and what the insurance companies will pay.
Ever wonder why insurance premiums across the board have gone up so much, or the cost of doing business cost so much?
I am responsible for my own actions and have house, car, travel and life insurance and pay a premium so if the worst happens, I have some help in most cases. I couldnt sleep at night blaming and sueing a company that really was not responsible for the birds flight paths.
Have a really nice day!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3
you're slightly missing the point (which gavpav actually got). Yes the airline will have insurance to cover it against all sorts of losses. However, in order to make a successful claim against the airline (though the claim will indeed be settled by its insurers), the passengers (or their insurance companies) would have to prove negligence.
For that you need to prove that the airline has a duty of care to its passengers (yes) and that it was in breach of that duty (er, it would appear not, on what we know about the incident at the moment).
No breach of duty = no claim.
It is, of course, not impossible that the airline would decide to make a payment in any event, either for public relations reasons, or because it (doubtless in conjunction with its insurance company) assesses that the costs of defending the claims (even if the defence is successful) plus litigation risk (there is no such thing as a 100% certain outcome in any legal dispute) means that it would rather pay an amount of compensation than go to court.
you're slightly missing the point (which gavpav actually got). Yes the airline will have insurance to cover it against all sorts of losses. However, in order to make a successful claim against the airline (though the claim will indeed be settled by its insurers), the passengers (or their insurance companies) would have to prove negligence.
For that you need to prove that the airline has a duty of care to its passengers (yes) and that it was in breach of that duty (er, it would appear not, on what we know about the incident at the moment).
No breach of duty = no claim.
It is, of course, not impossible that the airline would decide to make a payment in any event, either for public relations reasons, or because it (doubtless in conjunction with its insurance company) assesses that the costs of defending the claims (even if the defence is successful) plus litigation risk (there is no such thing as a 100% certain outcome in any legal dispute) means that it would rather pay an amount of compensation than go to court.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ MR Quite Happy
Thank you for your photograph of the forest at Habsheim. I am not sure how this correlates, however rather like most insurance companies, it does seem to have branches everywhere! Nevertheless it did involve the same aircraft type albeit in very different cirumstances. In that case the insurance companies satisfied the claims I believe.
Insurance is to protect you against the unexpected, whether it is caused by negligence or just plain bad luck. It is a commercial gamble and that is how the industry undertakes its business. The passengers in a commercial air transport are also usually covered against any claims they may have that arise whilst in the care of the carrier.
If it causes you personal grief that such claims may arise and impact adversely on the insurance company, you should save your hand wringing for the claims those insurance companies are now making on national governments (search AIG and others,) they are not so coy when it comes to making their own claims on the public purse.
In this case the carrier will have paid premiums that reflected the commercial risk associated with potential third party claims for damages.
Thank you for your photograph of the forest at Habsheim. I am not sure how this correlates, however rather like most insurance companies, it does seem to have branches everywhere! Nevertheless it did involve the same aircraft type albeit in very different cirumstances. In that case the insurance companies satisfied the claims I believe.
Insurance is to protect you against the unexpected, whether it is caused by negligence or just plain bad luck. It is a commercial gamble and that is how the industry undertakes its business. The passengers in a commercial air transport are also usually covered against any claims they may have that arise whilst in the care of the carrier.
If it causes you personal grief that such claims may arise and impact adversely on the insurance company, you should save your hand wringing for the claims those insurance companies are now making on national governments (search AIG and others,) they are not so coy when it comes to making their own claims on the public purse.
In this case the carrier will have paid premiums that reflected the commercial risk associated with potential third party claims for damages.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Octopussy
As you didn't answer the first question, let me ask you another.
An airliner is cruising in conditions that are not forecast to be turbulent and the belt sign is off.
There is an unexpected CAT encounter.
A passenger queueing for the lav is injured.
Will the airline insurance policy cover this injury, when the airline was not negligent?
As you didn't answer the first question, let me ask you another.
An airliner is cruising in conditions that are not forecast to be turbulent and the belt sign is off.
There is an unexpected CAT encounter.
A passenger queueing for the lav is injured.
Will the airline insurance policy cover this injury, when the airline was not negligent?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oooooh it's been a long time since I've been set homework 
Listen, if what you're saying is that the airline has insurance that covers it for passenger claims irrespective of fault, then that's fine and, in principle, the passengers can claim against it. However, there is no logical reason why that should be a contentious issue, requiring them to sue.
I note that Bealzebub states that commencing an action is simply the way it's done, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense - if the cover is there for the benefit of third parties, irrespective of fault, then why not just notify the claim to the insurance company? (to clarify, I'm not saying Bealzebub is wrong, just that it's an odd way of going about it).
If it's an application for some kind of declaration that you are a third party who is entitled to claim (as one of the passengers affected) then that might possibly make sense (though it would be a rather bureaucratic way of going about things). This is, however, a long way from what was being reported and what is being talked about on this thread, which suggested that the contemplated action by the passengers was an action against the airline arising out of an alleged breach of its duty of care.
Listen, if what you're saying is that the airline has insurance that covers it for passenger claims irrespective of fault, then that's fine and, in principle, the passengers can claim against it. However, there is no logical reason why that should be a contentious issue, requiring them to sue.
I note that Bealzebub states that commencing an action is simply the way it's done, but that doesn't make a great deal of sense - if the cover is there for the benefit of third parties, irrespective of fault, then why not just notify the claim to the insurance company? (to clarify, I'm not saying Bealzebub is wrong, just that it's an odd way of going about it).
If it's an application for some kind of declaration that you are a third party who is entitled to claim (as one of the passengers affected) then that might possibly make sense (though it would be a rather bureaucratic way of going about things). This is, however, a long way from what was being reported and what is being talked about on this thread, which suggested that the contemplated action by the passengers was an action against the airline arising out of an alleged breach of its duty of care.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Octopussy
I have made only two points on this thread
1 - PTSD can be very serious for the sufferer
2 - claims against the airline will be settled by insurers
Anything else, I'm not much interested in discussing, although you will see that I agreed that greed is a bad thing.
I have made only two points on this thread
1 - PTSD can be very serious for the sufferer
2 - claims against the airline will be settled by insurers
Anything else, I'm not much interested in discussing, although you will see that I agreed that greed is a bad thing.
People are sissies,... back in the old days when you crashed, if you weren't killed,...you got another plane and went right back up!!!
I think a lot of this 'PTSD' was created by Greedy lawyers and opportunistic pax
were they not offered compensation? counseling? etc...it's just greed
furthermore, they are to blame for much of their own trauma, because some idiot sank the plane with his ground brained ideas and put them all in the drink
weak minded Gingerbread cookies
I think a lot of this 'PTSD' was created by Greedy lawyers and opportunistic pax
were they not offered compensation? counseling? etc...it's just greed
furthermore, they are to blame for much of their own trauma, because some idiot sank the plane with his ground brained ideas and put them all in the drink
weak minded Gingerbread cookies
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear! You need to ask the Doctor to up the dosage Pugilistic Animus - it's clearly not getting you all the way through the day.
I think that this thread has run its' course now - Please PM me if you disagree and have something to add that hasn't already been covered.
I think that this thread has run its' course now - Please PM me if you disagree and have something to add that hasn't already been covered.
