Truck Insurer Ordered to Pay for Plane Damage Under Michigan No-Fault Law

December 22, 2005

  • December 22, 2005 at 8:48 am
    Tass says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does anyone know how this would be different if an antenna tower (based/attached off the road way) would topple unto to a moving truck, but not hit \”upon\” the road (just kind of create a bridge) and come to rest on the other side of the road. Would this situation under Michigan no-fault require the truck to pay for the antenna?

  • December 22, 2005 at 9:27 am
    dumbfounded says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You\’ve got to be kidding!

  • December 22, 2005 at 9:31 am
    Confused says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    SOMEONE WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE TO ME, PLEASE?

  • December 22, 2005 at 11:47 am
    LL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is results like this that encourage more idiots and their bottom feeding lawyers to trample on the innocent and faultless, in their rush to get at those Deep Pockets.

  • December 22, 2005 at 1:36 am
    Simple Math says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It\’s simple…

    1 trial lawyer + 2 judges in a relatively liberal state = 1 shafting for an insurance company with deep pockets.

    Absolutely ridiculous that the insurer of the obviously not-at-fault truck driver should have to pay for damages to the \”vehicle\” whose operator was at fault. Even stranger that the vehicle in question was an AIRPLANE THAT HIT A TRUCK ON A ROAD!!!

    Why does it sometimes seem that litigation makes the world go \’round, and that only people with no common sense are allowed to sit on a bench?

  • December 22, 2005 at 2:05 am
    grant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The clmt and their atty should give a public apology and admit they did this because they are shallow and greedy.

  • December 22, 2005 at 2:10 am
    Bob Barrett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like the Degraw\’s insurance agent forgot to sell the hull insurance on the plane. E&O anyone?
    Bob

  • December 22, 2005 at 3:03 am
    Company guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I disagree with the verdict, but don\’t think this should have been defended. In my opinion, the carrier didn\’t think this one through. Surely the defense expense was anticipaed. Defend and appeal this loss worth $18,000. $41,000 in expenses defending a case that has to do with a loss that is unlikely to ever happen to them again! I understand some cases must be defended when there is the potential for setting a precedent. But, come on. Somebody let me know if Cinncinati ever incurs another airplane or falling \”vehicle\” to one of their insured autos. How did their corporate attorney get approval for this meaningless defense? This is a dollars in, dollars out business and they wasted 40 grand.

  • December 22, 2005 at 3:09 am
    Kevin Raz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is why Michigan personal auto rates are 2x or 3x higher than other states.

    I know someone who moved from a big city in another state to rural Michigan, was expecting that his insurance rates would drop. Instead they went up 2.5x because of Michigan\’s screwy no fault laws.

    Hartford & other carriers don\’t sell personal lines in MI anymore due to this stuff. Colorado dumped their no fault, now more drivers have insurance since the rates have dropped. MI will hopefully follow sometime.

  • December 22, 2005 at 3:30 am
    Precedent? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So by this logic, I can drive bulldozer onto, say DeGraw\’s attorney\’s property crushing his car and then sue him for recovery of damages to my bulldozer?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*