Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:39 PM
Original message
A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson
Source: New York Times

For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.

A pleasant woman at US Airways told him not to worry; he would be made whole for his losses. But then the matter shifted to US Airways' insurer, the American International Group, operating under government stewardship since its bailout last fall.

"Everything went downhill," said Mr. Jorgenson, a software executive in Charlotte, N.C., whose laptop and keys have not been recovered.

When a homeowner has a burglary or a driver has a crash, all it normally takes is a call to the insurance company and a description of the loss to activate the policy. But aviation liability insurance is different. It is activated by a finding of negligence on the part of an airline. If there is no negligence, then arguably there is no liability, and no obligation to pay claims.

That poses a problem for the passengers of US Airways Flight 1549. They suffered real losses and injuries, but they are widely perceived as having been saved from sudden, violent death by their heroic and quick-thinking flight crew, led by Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger.

"Insurance companies try to protect their assets, obviously," said Bruce D. Chadbourne, a co-author of the book, "Introduction to Aviation Insurance and Risk Management," and a professor in the business school at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla. With the airline wearing a halo, A.I.G. "is going to play hardball."

A spokeswoman for A.I.G.'s property and casualty business declined to comment.

"I wish I had a hammer to get them to do the right thing," said Andrew J. Maloney, a partner in the New York firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, which specializes in aviation litigation. He is representing some of the US Airways passengers but has not filed any lawsuits. "They're riding a wave of feel-good opinion about how well the flight crew handled the bird strike."

A spokesman for US Airways, Morgan Durrant, said the airline issued each passenger a check for $5,000 shortly after the accident to cover their immediate needs; it had no legal obligation to do so. He declined to discuss the airline's liability insurance policy or claims processes, saying the matter was pending and he did not want to jeopardize it.

Those familiar with industry practices said it would be many months before the issue of liability was resolved.

Tess Sosa, who was aboard Flight 1549 with her husband, 4-year-old daughter and infant son, said she suffered a mild concussion during the landing, and her husband was treated for a leg injury and hypothermia. The family, from New York, continues to get hospital bills, she said. But her top priority was getting the insurer to pay for therapy to reduce the risk of post-traumatic stress disorder for her and her daughter.

Because the plane was full on the day of the accident, she and her baby were seated near the wings, while her husband and daughter were far in the rear. The plane struck the water tail-first, and water began pouring in where Mr. Sosa and daughter Sophia were sitting.

Ms. Sosa, clambering over seats toward the front of the plane with her son in her arms, looked back and caught a horrifying glimpse of her husband standing in the deepening water, trying to hold their daughter above the surface.

"I can tell you, he was looking straight at me and he didn't even see me," she said. Since then she has been haunted by the image, and the feeling that in her escape she abandoned her husband and daughter.

Ms. Sosa said Sophia "remembers everything. I just want her to walk away from this knowing that we did everything we could to make it make sense." A.I.G. agents have told her that for therapy she should use her own health insurance, but it has a $3,000 deductible for mental health care.

"Why should we be paying out of pocket?" she said. "That's why they're there. They're the insurer."


Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107188/aig-balks-at-Claims-from-jet-ditching-in-hudson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Akoto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, it figures. Why couldn't the crew have been more negligent?
Gotta love (hate) insurance companies. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veritasvg Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This...
...dog won't hunt. Public opinion (and the government) will force AIG to pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. Insurance companies seem to own our government. I'm not sure AIG will ever pay. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. "under government stewardship"
Edited on Sat Jun-13-09 12:46 PM by high density
Interesting choice of words from the NYT. Is this the next right wing 'blame Obama' outrage?

But aviation liability insurance is different. It is activated by a finding of negligence on the part of an airline. If there is no negligence, then arguably there is no liability, and no obligation to pay claims.


If that's the case, why should AIG be paying claims? It seems that would be irresponsible and reckless on their part. Isn't that what pissed us off about them before? People need to have their own insurance on their goods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Coot Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. These people are lucky to be alive, thanks to the crew.
Passengers received $5,000 to $20,000 and are alive. What more do they expect? Apparently the airline did nothing wrong which caused the accident. If I had been on the flight, I don't think I would have expected any more.

People have to accept responsibility for themselves. That means carrying adequate insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Compensation for their losses
Nothing less.
The airline lost their luggage.According to Federal Aviation Regulations the airline is responsible for the loss and is required to reimburse the passenger for the loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Coot Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Passengers got between $5,000 and $20,000 for their losses.
That should be enough to cover anything a wise person would have had on board.

I would take my $20,000 and never look back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. "That should be enough to cover anything a wise person would have had on board."
A "wise person"? what?

How about hospital bills for treatment from injuries associated with the accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
26. Health insurance?
I don't see how US Airways was negligent in this situation. Would it be nice of them to pick up the bills? Yes, but I don't see why they are required to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Then you're naive. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Post traumatic stress disorder from this??!!
They were plucked out of the drink in a very short time. Sounds like someone's trying to get something for nothing here. They're lucky to have had a good captain and crew, otherwise, there wouldn't be any supposed nightmares.

Shit happens, and so do geese. When you deliberately put yourself on an airline, you assume some of the risks inherent to doing something only geese could do a century ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I don't think that sort of trauma demands repetition or a long duration
It was an extremely frightening occurance. And being separated like that from your husband and child? I don't know about you, but it easily forms a nightmare for me. It's one of my worst imaginings.

It's hard to judge someone else's mental condition, especially at this distance.

An no, they were not expecting an emergency landing. People don't fly anticipating a life-threatening event is really going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. That's true
most people don't expect a possible life-threatening event when they get on a commercial airliner. That's why the FAA makes them go through that whole ten minute spiel about what to do in case of an emergency. It's designed to focus people on what to do should something happen.

People don't expect to get into a car crash every time they ride in an automobile, but it's clear that it can happen and does happen. Holding an airline responsible for a few moments of terror when the crew is ably doing all it possibly can to save lives (and are incredibly successful at it) from a bird strike is like holding the state responsible for your shock by running a highway system where another driver hits you from having his vehicle hit by a deer.

If that doctrine is the standard by which we measure an airline's responsibility, then I want a preventative PTSD beer for every little screaming seat-kicker the airlines allow to fly either free or at reduced prices on the aircraft that I board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Have you ever landed in an airplane in the Hudson
river with dead engines and then turned around to see half your family waist deep in water? You've no right to say how or what these people are feeling after this. And yes, the safety and well being of the passengers IS the airlines' responsibility. Whatever medical treatment they need should be covered without question. Even Captain Sullenberger is suffering from PTSD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. If you feel that you cannot handle the stresses of modern transportation
than you don't have to utilize them.

The airline did see to the safety and well being of it's passengers, it got their aircraft down in one piece, evacuated the craft quickly and professionally, and delivered each one of them to a rescuer who could get them in front of a reporter's camera and microphone to tell the tale.

They shouldn't be held responsible for the fragile mental condition of people who are lucky enough to live in a society that is so stripped of ordinary danger that experiencing it for a few moments sends them off the deep end, or more accurately, into the office of an ambulance chasing attorney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. Unfortunately there is no contract of carriage from US Airways that promises to pay medical bills
for anything that happens on a plane.

http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/aboutus/customersfirst/contractofcarriage.aspx

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES: PURCHASE OF A TICKET DOES NOT GUARANTEE TRANSPORTATION. US AIRWAYS SHALL IN NO EVENT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF, DELAY IN PERFORMANCE OF, OR FAILURE TO PERFORM TRANSPORTATION OF CUSTOMERS AND OTHER SERVICES INCIDENTAL THERETO (EXCEPT BAGGAGE LIABILITY, SECTION 11) WHETHER OR NOT US AIRWAYS HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT SUCH DAMAGES MIGHT BE INCURRED.


It would be good PR to make these people whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Then sue the airplane manufacturer for not making an aircraft that ...
.... can stand up to a common occurrence such as a bird strike.

And include US AIR in the suit for purchasing/leasing said aircraft.

I bet you a shinny nickel there is a memo floating around about how they could mitigate loss of power due to bird strikes but it would be "cost prohibitive".

Those disclaimers are nice but they don't mean so much in a court of law - especially when an aircraft crashes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I think the mitigation of the problem is by having two engines
How often do bird strikes kill both engines? It seems like an astronomically rare occurrence to me but I haven't done any research into the subject. I'm sure General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, et al would love to hear your magic fix for the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. No, the mitigation of the problem is designing and rating.......
..... engines for "up to" a "4 pound" bird strike even though there are 36 larger species in North America that weigh over 4 pounds(see link).

How often do bird strikes kill both engines?

Clearly not enough for the FAA, Airlines and Manufacturers to increase/require engine bird weight ratings to include ALL possibilities.

That's my point. Am I saying they should increase the ratings? No....

....Nor should they be COMPLETELY absolved from ANY liability when one of their aircraft succumbs to a VERY common occurrence.

Re: Your snark about my "magic fix". I never said I had a fix. I merely stated there IS a fix floating around for, say, a 20 pound strike that wouldn't be cost effective. THAT'S the way the airline industry and the FAA work. But it's not the way our legal/tort system is SUPPOSED to work. Cost effective shouldn't mean reasonable.

The ironic thing is, if Sully hadn't been such an exceptional pilot, people would be clamoring for increased safety weight margins because of the 50? 0r 60? dead passengers in the Hudson River.


http://www.aviation.com/safety/090115-aviation-engine-strike.html

Bird and other wildlife strikes to aircraft result in more than $600 million in damage a year, according to Bird Strike Committee USA. Five jet airliners have had major accidents involving bird strikes since 1975, the committee says. In one case, about three dozen people died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. BTW, the clause you are quoting has nothing to do with medical bills....
It pertains to consequential damages due to lack of performance (arrival on time etc.) of the flight. In other words, you can't sue them because you missed a job interview or your cruise ship departure (even if you jumped up and down at the ticket desk and informed them of said potential damage).

This clause doesn't indemnify the airline from actual damages (ticket fees etc.) or personal injury or luggage liability (covered by fed regulations).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Who owns this AIG outfit, anyway?
Oh, that's right, we do. Time for a "shareholder's meeting"... :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddiver Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. Let them sue the guilty party...the goose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. THIS is just one reason you need fucking regulation!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddiver Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What regulation do you seek?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. Crash the economy, get multiple multi-billion dollar bailouts. Crash in an airplane, take a hike. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. That DOES seem to be how it works. Dammit!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aINWOYTgy2zk
AIG’s Bank Payments Probed by TARP Inspector General

April 7 (Bloomberg) -- The Treasury’s chief watchdog for the U.S. financial rescue program is probing whether American International Group Inc. paid more than necessary to banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. after the insurer’s bailout.

Of course, we wouldn't want the HOLY GOLDMAN to worry for one second about anything at all.

Ordinary people - fuck 'em. They took the risk, they should take the punishment; what do they think, like AIG is an insurance company or something?

If I need a sarcasm tag, you're not paying attention...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. Sue Canada.
It was their goddamn geese.

There was probably fine print on the back of each of those passengers tickets that said the the airline is not responsible for "acts of God".

In this case, US Airways and its employees on flight 1549 were not negligent. That crew was diligent and even heroic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-13-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. It was an accident. People who fly take a risk, a gamble. The gamble they lost on here was
that the event was an accident where no one is to blame. It might be cold to point it out, but sometimes accidents happen where you can't make someone pay to make you whole, so you suck it up. And, by the way, be happy you are alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
19. AIG versus "Miracle on the Hudson?" Lots of luck with that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
24. I think the whole insurance industry is a big scam.
They take your money, promising to make you whole in case of catastrophe, then find any reason possible not to pay you.

It's the same for all types of insurance: health, home, auto, life, etc.

They're all crooks and liars.

I hope more regulation of the insurance industry is on the Obama "to do" list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bat country Donating Member (34 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Misleading article . . .
terribly misleading. AIG is USAir's "liability" insurer. It is bound to indemnify USAir for any judgments USAir has to pay. AIG's contractual obligations flow to USAir, not to the individual passengers. The passengers' claims are exactly the same whether or not AIG is in the picture at all. Those claims are against USAir--who has the cash to pay them, if it so chooses--not against USAir's liability insurer.

The stupidity of the media never ceases to amaze me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC