Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 What does AIG want ? Another Bailout ? :whoknows: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/business/12aig.html A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH June 12, 2009 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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I was just about to post this. I really, really hate insurance companies sometimes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 So, in a nutshell, industry analysts suspect that, under the terms of the policy, AIG is only responsible for paying the passengers if the airline was negligent. The airline was not negligent. Therefore AIG is not paying the passengers. If they're not obligated to pay, why would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 So, in a nutshell, industry analysts suspect that, under the terms of the policy, AIG is only responsible for paying the passengers if the airline was negligent. The airline was not negligent. Therefore AIG is not paying the passengers. If they're not obligated to pay, why would they? Really ? I'm no expert, but I would suspect it would be the other way around. If the airline is negligent, then the passengers sue the airline. If they're NOT negligent, isn't that what traveller's insurance is for ? Heck, it says the airline even gave each passenger $5000 and they didn't have to. If they didn't have to, then doesn't is seem the insurance would/should ? What has the traveller's insurance done ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Really ?I'm no expert, but I would suspect it would be the other way around. If the airline is negligent, then the passengers sue the airline. If they're NOT negligent, isn't that what traveller's insurance is for ? Heck, it says the airline even gave each passenger $5000 and they didn't have to. What has the traveller's insurance done ? It's not traveler's insurance. AIG is the airline's liability insurance. If the passengers bought their own traveler's insurance, I'm sure they would already be paid by now. If they're trying to get money from the airline's insurer, then I could see there being at least a little dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's not traveler's insurance. AIG is the airline's liability insurance. If the passengers bought their own traveler's insurance, I'm sure they would already be paid by now. If they're trying to get money from the airline's insurer, then I could see there being at least a little dispute. Exactly. See this paragraph from the article: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 So, in a nutshell, industry analysts suspect that, under the terms of the policy, AIG is only responsible for paying the passengers if the airline was negligent. The airline was not negligent. Therefore AIG is not paying the passengers. If they're not obligated to pay, why would they? Ah, that's right. I forgot. We're in America. Can't do the RIGHT thing in this country, can we? Nope. It's all about money. If I was a company that got bailed out by the government, I'd do the right thing. But maybe that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The airline gave them 5K. That would more then cover material loss most people would incur due to lost luggage. If there was no negligence, the airline and insurer are not responsible for peoples mental health. Accidents happen in life that are of no ones fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 They also got $5,000 each, the Airline didnt have to give it to them....it was an accident, no one was negligent, chances you take when you fly....trying to make quick money ...."post traumatic stress syndrome" ...whatever dude try seeing you buddy's blown up in Iraq then come talk. NO money for them I say, they got enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The airline gave them 5K. That would more then cover material loss most people would incur due to lost luggage. If there was no negligence, the airline and insurer are not responsible for peoples mental health. Accidents happen in life that are of no ones fault. Exactly.......if the pilot was drunk maybe they have a case, however no one was negligent....heck they should thank God their supid asses are still alive if not for that pilot....ungrateful wenches...like anyone carries stuff worth more than $5,000 on a flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Ah, that's right. I forgot. We're in America.Can't do the RIGHT thing in this country, can we? Nope. It's all about money. If I was a company that got bailed out by the government, I'd do the right thing. But maybe that's just me. Yea, it's better to spend government-granted money on extravagant "business-vacations" for your employees, than using it to actually help people in need and experiencing trauma, especially when that's the business you're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Its even worse, finished reading the article, they also get 3 free therapy sesions for mental distress and an another $5,000 if you can show claims of items you lost woth more than $5,000......**** these people, greedy ****s..what do you want $1 million each...ughh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Its even worse, finished reading the article, they also get 3 free therapy sesions for mental distress and an another $5,000 if you can show claims of items you lost woth more than $5,000......**** these people, greedy ****s..what do you want $1 million each...ughh Three therapy sessions is nothing, if you've been through a near-death trauma like that. It's not even enough to get through your average stressful experience, like a divorce, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yea, it's better to spend government-granted money on extravagant "business-vacations" for your employees, than using it to actually help people in need and experiencing trauma, especially when that's the business you're in. Business vacation? Hospital bills aren't important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Business vacation? Hospital bills aren't important? I was agreeing with you, and by "business vacation" I was not referring to this particular plane trip, but the millions AIG spent to "reward" their employees with Carribbean trips, using the bailout. If it was any other insurance company than AIG, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but with AIG's circumstances, it makes them even more pure evil. According to AIG : Abuse of granted funds is okay, but doing the right thing to help people, and do the business you're in business to do, is not required. If there is even a question of whether they should pay it, then they should, in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I was agreeing with you, and by "business vacation" I was not referring to this particular plane trip, but the millions AIG spent to "reward" their employees with Carribbean trips, using the bailout.If it was any other insurance company than AIG, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but with AIG's circumstances, it makes them even more pure evil. According to AIG : Abuse of granted funds is okay, but doing the right thing to help people, and do the business you're in business to do, is not required. Gotchya. I can be so slow sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Yea, it's better to spend government-granted money on extravagant "business-vacations" for your employees, than using it to actually help people in need and experiencing trauma, especially when that's the business you're in. They are in business to make money. That means not paying claims that fall outside the obligation of the policy. This policy is specifically to cover negligence. It's foolish to expect them to do otherwise. And it would be poor stewardship of the bailout money, just as extravagant expenses are. Two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 And it would be poor stewardship of the bailout money, just as extravagant expenses are. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yea, knowing AIG, I'm sure they'll find a much more noble cause, to spend the money on, besides this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The passengers should sue the seagull union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 The passengers should sue the seagull union. The seagulls are innocent, until proven guilty, in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The seagulls are innocent, until proven guilty, in a court of law. The responsible parties are not available for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Admiring the number of posts who seem to assert that "the Right thing" is "pay up whether it's your fault or not". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I don't see the problem here. The plane did not intentionally fly into a flock of geese, there was no mistake made that caused the plane to fly into the flock of geese. The geese flew into the air lane. The pilot was not negligent, in fact he was heroic, he saved everyone's life, including being the last man to leave the plane after making sure that everyone else was out. Accidents sometimes happen in which there is no one at fault. This could have been much worse if not for the calm action of the captain. As it was no one was hurt beyond superficially, the airline went out of their way to not only compensate them for their luggage, but to make sure they got to their destination. I don't see why it would be "right" to force a company to pay for something to which they hold no legal or moral responsibility. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Admiring the number of posts who seem to assert that "the Right thing" is "pay up whether it's your fault or not". Exactly. Why don't those people offer to pay the claims? Oh, because they didn't agree to pay them? Well, based on the article, neither did AIG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Seems to me that regardless of whether it was an accident or not, whether it was negligence or not, the airline or the insurer needs to at least be picking up medical bills related to the incident. I don't expect to see passengers with big paydays here, but passengers did not pay $xxx for a ticket from A to B, to instead crash land in the middle of the Hudson. To me,this seems like it would be factored in as a normal cost of doing business for any travel-related business. Accidents happen. You will incur expenses as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.