If her husband was in one of the front seats at the time of the crash, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was only a passenger.
Both versions of the Cirrus SR20 have dual control yokes. Since a flight instructor was with him when the plane crashed, it\’s not only possible but likely that they were taking turns controlling the plane.
I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way. They should probably add the architect, engineer, city planner, all current and prior construction companies working on or having worked in the building along with the doorman.
Just another example of the insurance company digging thru the fine language to find a reason not to pay the claim.
They should have to prove he was piloting the plan. If they cannot prove it, then pay it and quit waisting everyone\’s time.
But, Hmmmmm, \”I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way.\”
That made me spit out my Coke. Sorry, but that was funny.
As for the lawsuits, there is a lot of suing going on, huh? I think it\’s fine to sue the plane manufacturer as long as there was some type of proof she gathered beforehand (or rather had someone gather for her). If the plane was faulty, I hope she wins. As for the dentist, how should he handle this situation? Seems kind of unnecessary to sue. But, I don\’t know (nor do I claim to :)
This person suing that person suing that person. No wonder people always think lawsuits are about money. In situations like these, it would be great if the world was fair and everyone got (or didn\’t get) what they deserve (or what they didn\’t deserve).
Looks to me the exclusion should have been written to include verbiage to incorporate when there is an reasonable expectation to believe the insured might be acting as the pilot. MET wrote the policy. Now they need to prove he was not the pilot because it\’s their exclusion.
This is exactly why insurance companies need to write fine language so explicitly. He was in the plane for what reason? A flying lesson? What difference does it matter who was actually operating the controls at the exact minute the plane crashed. The next time they write the policy they will have to state \”…if you have operated the plane at any point during the flight or are planning on acting as a pilot or crew member at any point during the flight.\”
The policy couldn\’t be much clearer she is not entitled to any more money. It shouldn\’t even be allowed in court. Please stop wasting the time of the American people.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If her husband was in one of the front seats at the time of the crash, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was only a passenger.
Both versions of the Cirrus SR20 have dual control yokes. Since a flight instructor was with him when the plane crashed, it\’s not only possible but likely that they were taking turns controlling the plane.
I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way. They should probably add the architect, engineer, city planner, all current and prior construction companies working on or having worked in the building along with the doorman.
Just another example of the insurance company digging thru the fine language to find a reason not to pay the claim.
They should have to prove he was piloting the plan. If they cannot prove it, then pay it and quit waisting everyone\’s time.
Absolutely excluded scenario, she needs to lose this one, for the benefit of upholding a written contract.
…unless of course this contract was signed in Mississippi, then all bets are off.
Okay, this is a sad, unfortunate story.
But, Hmmmmm, \”I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way.\”
That made me spit out my Coke. Sorry, but that was funny.
As for the lawsuits, there is a lot of suing going on, huh? I think it\’s fine to sue the plane manufacturer as long as there was some type of proof she gathered beforehand (or rather had someone gather for her). If the plane was faulty, I hope she wins. As for the dentist, how should he handle this situation? Seems kind of unnecessary to sue. But, I don\’t know (nor do I claim to :)
This person suing that person suing that person. No wonder people always think lawsuits are about money. In situations like these, it would be great if the world was fair and everyone got (or didn\’t get) what they deserve (or what they didn\’t deserve).
Looks to me the exclusion should have been written to include verbiage to incorporate when there is an reasonable expectation to believe the insured might be acting as the pilot. MET wrote the policy. Now they need to prove he was not the pilot because it\’s their exclusion.
….digging through the fine language…?
I thought that the \”fine language\” was the terms and conditions of the policy. Silly me, expecting a contract to mean what it says.
This is exactly why insurance companies need to write fine language so explicitly. He was in the plane for what reason? A flying lesson? What difference does it matter who was actually operating the controls at the exact minute the plane crashed. The next time they write the policy they will have to state \”…if you have operated the plane at any point during the flight or are planning on acting as a pilot or crew member at any point during the flight.\”
The policy couldn\’t be much clearer she is not entitled to any more money. It shouldn\’t even be allowed in court. Please stop wasting the time of the American people.
…it depends on what your definition of \”is\” is.