ggower_99(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: a gentle suggestion.. |
 |
|
Insurance companys work just the same ALL OVER THE WORLD, I am sure that with all the useless insurance monthy payments that this person had "gifted" to the insurance company in his flying life... he could easy buy another airplane and pay the damages... And still have money left...
If we fly carefully, we probably will never need to go to court to dump more money and all our savings in court fees to unsuccesfully try to make the insurance Company pay.
They for sure have BETTER lawyers that you can pay.
Here "experienced" pilots and car drivers, only have the cheapest 3rd party damage (in cars and airplanes) we can buy, to cover only the minimum law requirements, because no insurance no drive or flight... We imagine is another forced "tax" we have to pay.
WE avoid insurance sellers as the door to door Tower guys... 
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Again Do not archive
--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: RE: Re: a gentle suggestion
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 7:03 AM
| Quote: | --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
I'm sorry for jumping in the middle of this very long thread, but I
can't resist making a couple of comments after reading the summary
judgement.
1. I agree that changing the fuel system between gravity feed and pumped is
indeed a major change because it obviously has an impact on the reliability of
the aircraft. The operating procedures are modified by need for turning the
boost pump on and off. Failure to do either task at the appropriate time can
easily cause engine stoppage or power reduction.
Perhaps more important is the long history of fuel system problems leading to
engine failures. All you need to do is pick a random period in time and read
the accident reports in the NTSB database. You are sure to run into fuel system
failures of all sorts. These show up regularly in both experimental and part 23
aircraft, but the EXP-AB group seems to have an unusually high number of these
failures.
2. After reading this, I wouldn't even consider using Avemco to insure a
plane I owned. Besides their dishonorable decision to not support this insured
customer, they have a marketing model that eliminates the insurance broker from
the process. I understand brokers play a very important role in keeping both
the insurance company and insured party reasonably in line.
I have little sympathy for insurance companies of any type who happily take
premiums and then take extraordinary steps to avoid paying claims. This has
been the general problem with health insurance in the USA and apparently the
aircraft insurance industry also has a dismal record. While the fuel system
changes here are serious, I don't think that fact is so obvious that an
insurance company should use them to deny all coverage. I'll just bet they
didn't return the premiums either.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:15 PM 2/6/2009, you wrote:
| Quote: | OK GUYS, HERE IS THE ORIGINAL COURT TEXT,,, READ AND LEARN FROM IT !!!!!
|
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
