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

"A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Vendaval -> "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/13/2009 2:07:34 PM)
Remember A.I.G., the giant insurance company that took $150 billion in a government bailout? Well, check out the 2nd story below [8\|] http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4A92FM20081110 A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH Published: June 11, 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." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/business/12aig.html?scp=3&sq=aig&st=cse

willbeurdaddy -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/13/2009 2:12:22 PM)
Whats your point? This is standard aviation insurance policy...more generous because of the 5k + 5k offer.

LadyEllen -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/13/2009 2:51:38 PM)
surely AIG is the lead insurer for the airline - not for the airline's passengers. if the passengers wish to press for compensation then they must surely go to the airline, and the liability of the airline (subject to its trading conditions) will be decided by mutual agreement or a suitable court if necessary - and in this liability the presence, absence or efficacy of insurance coverage for such claims is a matter between the airline and its insurers, which is to say that the liability of the airline is to be decided regardless of what their insurers may or may not cough up for. the passengers have no contract of insurance with AIG, in short - but they may have reasonable grounds for claims against the airline, but since the airline is under a duty to limit its liabilities under its insurance coverage it must necessarily stand behind its conditions of carriage and passengers may have to prove negligence (difficult in the circumstances) unless US law includes (as EU law does) an absolute duty of care such that liability for injury including mental injury (but not material loss) may not be evaded regardless of circumstances. E

Vendaval -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/13/2009 5:01:39 PM)
Thank you for that detailed explanation, Lady E.

LadyEllen -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/13/2009 5:08:27 PM)
welcome - but it is of course subject to local circumstances, although the general principles of insurance and liability should hold good I'd have thought E

MichiganHeadmast -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/14/2009 5:51:55 AM)
He's got his life. A car dealer can make him more keys, I'm sure, at a fairly nominal cost.

rulemylife -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/14/2009 7:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Whats your point? This is standard aviation insurance policy...more generous because of the 5k + 5k offer. Guess you missed this part: 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.”

LadyEllen -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/14/2009 7:59:05 AM)
Ms Sosa is not the insured however, so she must be unable to claim anything from AIG. Ms Sosa (and/or her insurers if any) must claim on the airline (the insured) who must then claim on their cover with AIG. Ms Sosa's claim may or may not ultimately be something for which the airline can claim on AIG in turn - that is not a limiting factor on any claim she may wish to bring however against the airline. The limiting factor in her claim will be determined by the conditions of carriage of the airline, which one would presume are heavily in favour of the airline in respect of whatever claims might be brought - and any duty of care and/or degree of negligence that can be established. E

rulemylife -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 6:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Ms Sosa is not the insured however, so she must be unable to claim anything from AIG. Ms Sosa (and/or her insurers if any) must claim on the airline (the insured) who must then claim on their cover with AIG. Ms Sosa's claim may or may not ultimately be something for which the airline can claim on AIG in turn - that is not a limiting factor on any claim she may wish to bring however against the airline. The limiting factor in her claim will be determined by the conditions of carriage of the airline, which one would presume are heavily in favour of the airline in respect of whatever claims might be brought - and any duty of care and/or degree of negligence that can be established. E LadyEllen, I'm well aware of how it works. The question is should it work that way?

LadyEllen -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 11:10:03 AM)
It has to work that way, otherwise no underwriter could ever establish his risk and so provide cover; if the insurer is to provide cover for a constantly varying risk (in this case provided by the variation in passengers from trip to trip), and/or on anything increasing the risk (ie absent any conditions of carriage) then it would just become unworkable from any practical perspective (ie each trip would require a separate policy drafted to reflect the current risk - so requiring all passengers to file details too) or reasonable cost perspective - and that knocks on to the financing for the aircraft and subrogated liabilities of every other party involved, including company officers. In short, there would be no airlines and no air travel because no one would be prepared to take the risks involved of their own account and no insurer would provide cover. And more than that, and aside from the rule that insurance must not be a gamble (ie I cannot insure you and claim for your injury), the potential for fraud should passengers be able to claim direct from the airline's policy for their losses and/or injury would add to the problem - passengers could fly for free, claiming back for spurious losses and injuries from a policy paid for by the airline. Again, airlines would go out of business and no insurance could be obtained. E

pahunkboy -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 2:19:55 PM)
Thats odd. They insured the twin towers and paid out x2 to Silverstein. (2 attacks he claimed, not one) Also- note whom was on the plane. Anytime a plane crashes always ask- who was on board. Whistle blower per haps. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. conspiracy theory. But not this time.

Sanity -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 4:02:12 PM)
I can remember a time not all that long ago when anything as negative as this appears to be was always blamed on the president - especially if the president was known to be the top recipient of the firm's campaign contributions, as is the case with Barrack Obama and AIG. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000123 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1

LadyEllen -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 4:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I can remember a time not all that long ago when anything as negative as this appears to be was always blamed on the president - especially if the president was known to be the top recipient of the firm's campaign contributions, as is the case with Barrack Obama and AIG. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000123 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1 But surely, given the experience with GWB, you must acknowledge that anything can be made to look bad even when it actually isnt, if the right spin is put on it? E

VAcontroldom -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 4:11:57 PM)
I appreciate the woman wanting therapy to prevent her and her child from suffering from PTSD. They have a $3,000 deductible. US Airways paid them $20,000 which they were not obligated to pay. It was an accident, no negligence. It was birds, considered an act of God. Bad luck happens. If they want to litigate against all of us, as the owners of AIG, all they have to do is prove US Airways was negligent. Which might be tough after Sully and the rest of their crew saved their lives.

slvemike4u -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 4:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I can remember a time not all that long ago when anything as negative as this appears to be was always blamed on the president - especially if the president was known to be the top recipient of the firm's campaign contributions, as is the case with Barrack Obama and AIG. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=d000000123 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1 Only you could spin a thread concerning the business practices of an Insurance Company into such a contortion so as to indict our current sitting President.It must kill you that this man at this time is sitting in that office......your going to have a blast for the next 7 1/2 years.Watching your obvious discomfit is,for me, a true pleasure rarely afforded over the internet.

servantforuse -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 6:53:30 PM)
They should ask for some cheese with that whine. Be happy with the $20,000 you just recieved and thank God that your family and everyone else on that flight walked away..

Sanity -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/15/2009 7:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Only you could spin a thread concerning the business practices of an Insurance Company into such a contortion so as to indict our current sitting President. You totally misunderstood my post. My point was, imagine the spin we would be hearing if the president were a Republican and it appeared that AIG had bought and paid for him. It wasn't an attack on Obama, but I can understand why you feel the need to be so defensive - it does look really bad, doesn't it. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u It must kill you that this man at this time is sitting in that office......your going to have a blast for the next 7 1/2 years.Watching your obvious discomfit is,for me, a true pleasure rarely afforded over the internet. It doesn't kill me, mike. I understand that politics run in cycles and, while a Socialist is in office now, history shows that in a few just short years he will be soundly rejected because while the man's personal popularity remains high, his policies are very unpopular. For example, his plan to sneak socialized health care into law is lacking in needed votes because of opposition from within his own party. The AMA was booing him just today... Don't even get me started on his handling of the economy. But as to any "discomfit", I believe that's all yours, otherwise you would be addressing the substance of my posts rather than trying to obfuscate the real issues that are before us with your underhanded baiting, personal attacks, and attempted hijacks. [;)]

slvemike4u -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/16/2009 8:41:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Only you could spin a thread concerning the business practices of an Insurance Company into such a contortion so as to indict our current sitting President. You totally misunderstood my post. My point was, imagine the spin we would be hearing if the president were a Republican and it appeared that AIG had bought and paid for him. It wasn't an attack on Obama, but I can understand why you feel the need to be so defensive - it does look really bad, doesn't it. Defensive,not at all....amused would be a better description .Claiming you were only drawing attention to what would have happened during a Republican Administration is nothing more than another spin.Your history of anti Obama posting is well documented and puts the lie to this current claim quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u It must kill you that this man at this time is sitting in that office......your going to have a blast for the next 7 1/2 years.Watching your obvious discomfit is,for me, a true pleasure rarely afforded over the internet. It doesn't kill me, mike. I understand that politics run in cycles and, while a Socialist is in office now, history shows that in a few just short years he will be soundly rejected because while the man's personal popularity remains high, his policies are very unpopular. For example, his plan to sneak socialized health care into law is lacking in needed votes because of opposition from within his own party. The AMA was booing him just today... Don't even get me started on his handling of the economy. But as to any "discomfit", I believe that's all yours, otherwise you would be addressing the substance of my posts rather than trying to obfuscate the real issues that are before us with your underhanded baiting, personal attacks, and attempted hijacks. [;)] Inject some substance into your post's and I will be pleased to address them....As for hijacks......pot,kettel,black...it was you who injected the Oval office into this thread concerning insurance companies......you are amusing Sanity...and for that I thank you.

pahunkboy -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/16/2009 9:25:20 AM)
Obama is a fraud. He is a GLOBALIST. Consider for a moment what that means.... that means that America sinks to 3rd world status. Hope and change? More like neuro linguistic programming. Obama was "selected" by the Illuminati. The left right thing is FAKE. Wake up! Obama is nothing but a long legged mac daddy! ie pimp! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0qSaggXY2k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LIlA_dLWcM <-- her ya go. he is PIMPING US!!!! Bush did- Clinton did, Reagan did- many of them did.

pahunkboy -> RE: "A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson" (6/16/2009 9:30:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Obama is a fraud. He is a GLOBALIST. Consider for a moment what that means.... that means that America sinks to 3rd world status. Hope and change? More like neuro linguistic programming. Obama was "selected" by the Illuminati. The left right thing is FAKE. Wake up! Obama is nothing but a long legged mac daddy! ie pimp! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0qSaggXY2k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LIlA_dLWcM <-- her ya go. he is PIMPING US!!!! Bush did- Clinton did, Reagan did- many of them did. For the record- I voted for him in the primary- but not the general election. NO ONE who voted for the 700 billion $ bail out- got my vote. We was robbed....and are still being robbed.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.4023438