Avjet pilot's estate takes beating/crash

[WrightAvia]

"Brian Panish, who represented the plaintiffs, said outside court that Avjet Corp. and the estate of pilot Robert Frisbie agreed to pay $9.5 million to the family of Marissa Witham and $2.2 million to the grandparents of two young men, Jose and Joseph Aguilar, who were also on the flight."

More on the AP Newswire story in the link provided by Guardian, below.

 

[Eagleflip]

Yeah, I too just finished reading that article not more than ten minutes ago. The amount didn't surprise me, but where the money came from did.

From the estate of the pilot.

Hmm..this raises an interesting question. How much personal liability does the pilot bear in these cases? Is it normal for the PIC or SIC to be included in a lawsuit? Does anyone (Bobbysamd, perhaps) know of details in case law about this issue?

Also, not to snipe, but I would doubt that the pilot left behind that much money--if he were worth that much, would he have been flying charter? If it was insurance money, well...that's a lot of insurance.

My point is that I wonder where he received the money from. Insurance? Did the charter company sweeten the pot? One would assume that the plaintiffs would not settle for 11.7 million unless they were relatively assured they would receive some if not all of the money.

And don't tell me that the principle behind the verdict was not money...it's always about money.

 

[WrightAvia]

My employer provides TWO times your yearly salary if you die while at work. At my present pay rate, that comes out to about 80,000 dollars. Then add to that my personal life insurance for 70,000 dollars. Then add the Blue Book value of my car and motorcycle and any other assets that add to my net worth and you already have the makings of a small lotto winnings. Not to mention they can go after any money my wife would get, should SHE SUE.

I think some plantiffs in this lawsuit are getting more money than they deserve...usually you only see like 1.5 million dollar judgements in the case of an airline crash, so how is it that Marrisa Witham an intern at a T.V. station, is worth 9.5 million?.

 

[chperplt]

This brings up a question. What steps can a pilot take to keep ones personal belongings lawsuit proof in the event of an accident? This can't be the first time a dead pilots estate has been sued.

I can see the letter to my wife...

Dear Mrs. Chperplt.

We are so sorry for the loss of your husband. It's too bad he was the pilot of the airplane that had the wing fall off, and even though no fault of his, we are filing a lawsuit against his estate. We plan on taking your nice new house, cars, furniture, life insurance, and your pet cat as well.

If it's any consolation, we will allow you to keep half of your future earnings.

Sincerely,

Attorney at Law

 

[~~~^~~~]

You guys may be reading this the wrong way. First, the actual pay out was 21.9 million - the article almost overlooks the 10.2 million compensatory award. Second, The insurer has an obligation to protect their insured. In this case, it is possible the pilots were "insureds" under a liability policy. The fact that Marty Rose represented all of the defendants leads me to think that there was only one pot of money. If there was a sizeable Estate in play the Estate would have likely retained separate Counsel in that the employer and employee probably have different interests and often the employer and employee end up with adverse positions as each party tries to shift responsibility to the other defendant to reduce the amount of their own liability.

So in other words, the insurer took care of all the liability exposures in one settlement.

This was a tough case. A 22 year old with a bright future is about the "perfect plaintiff" for a wrongful death case. She has enough of a track record to believe that she would have done well in a career, made tons of money, and provided care, counsel and advise to family members who are understandably shocked by the loss of such a young, healthy member of their family. The Court pretty much ends up assuming the best future for a person like this and a life time's worth of earnings for a 22 year old is a huge sum, even reduced for present day dollars (sort of a reverse annuity).

The settlement amount was large, possibly record setting. I am surprised both parties did not insist on an agreement not to disclose the settlement details.

 

[bigD]

Sorry for the rather crude scenario, but I'm curious...

If some guy were to pull a gun on this 22 year old girl and murder her in cold blood, obviously he'd be sent away for life or executed, but would there be a settlement (such as what happened in the actual case) against his estate?

 

[WrightAvia]

yes big D...in theory...

Remember O.J. Simpson?

Not trying to be an ass here...but O.J. Simpson was actually found NOT GUILTY of murder in the criminal courts and then was sued in civil court for "Wrongfull Death". Hmmmmm.

 

[bigD]

But OJ was aquitted - would the civil suit have happened if he were found guilty and locked up?

 

[WrightAvia]

also to answer Chperplt, there are ways to protect assets.

I collect machineguns and those items are registered with the BATF so there is no way of ever hiding that ASSET in the case of a civil suit. However you can register them either in your name or in a CORPORATION name. The BATF cares less, in fact it's easier to register machine guns in a corporation, than privately for some people.

The reason I'm thinking about registering mine in my LLC corporation, is so that if I get in a car accident or some other kind of lawsuit not pertaining to that corporation or the machine guns, those assets can't be touched.

Also chperplt, I think in most places, your dwelling can't be touched by a lawsuit.

I'm not a lawyer chperplt, but I used to fly corporate trips for a company of engineers and lawyers for an insurance company that investigated accidents off all types. One of the lawyers told me during an accident investigation that in a previous case, a plantiff had sold all of his things like a boat, some property and a second home (like a cottage) to his brother for a dollar. The judge in the lawsuit said he didn't care if he got one dollar in the sale of those items, he was going to have to come up with the actual cash value or they were going to seize the items that he sold after he was being sued anyway.


IN ANY CASE, PROTECTING ASSETS IN LIABILITY SUITS, IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH A TRUSTED ATTORNEY!!!

 

[heels95]

It would not be out of the ordinary to name the pilot in the lawsuit. Though Avjet is the party with the "deep pockets" (or maybe I should say "deeper pockets"), the pilot can also be named as a party. The idea is that the plaintiff can seek recovery of damages from all liable parties.

In this case (though I haven't really followed it), I'm sure the plaintiffs' case was based in part on the pilot's negligence. His employer, Avjet, will also be held liable for his negligent actions. In other words, the employee's negligence can be imputed to the employer. Therefore, if the plaintiffs are successful in their lawsuit, it is more likely that they would recover from Avjet since it is likely they have "deeper pockets."

However, naming the pilot and Avjet both as parties allows plaintiffs to recover damages from either Avjet, the pilot, or both. Notice that the article states that Avjet and the estate of the pilot agreed to pay $9.5 million. That award, if upheld, can be paid to plaintiffs in any combination of Avjet and the estate of the pilot.

 

[TransMach]

Heels,

You're absolutely right ... but there is one more twist to this.

The employer's insurance company is compelled by rule to protect the employee when the employee is acting within the scope of their employment. That is to say, if you're being a good pilot and doing what you are suppose to, you have insurance even if you make a simple mistake.

If you're being a bad pilot and acting outside the scope of your employment, i.e. conducting an operation prohibited by regulation, rule, local statute or the company's FAA approved operations documents, the insurance company does not have to protect you, and most likely won't. So if you (1) fly into an airport during hours of darkness when local regulations prohibit landing operations, and (2) descend below published, applicable minima and/or do so without the required items and visual cues, and then hit the dirt ... you have acted outside the scope of your employment.

The problem for you is; if you're acting outside of the scope of your employment, there is a loss and your employer is sued and looses, the insurance company is obligated (within policy limits) to pay the award. But once it pays off, the insurance company is then free to come after your estate ... and I've seen it happen. (fortunately, not to me).

So take care boys and girls. As a flight crewmember you are fully liable for your actions regardless of your relationship with your employer, just as is a doctor, lawyer, or any employee.

TransMach

 

[mckpickle]

Interesting read so I thought I'd check the old contract for this and heres what I found. (Express Jet)

Section 20: General

A. Property Damage and civil Indemnification

1. A pilot wil not be required to compensate the Company for Company property damaged by the pilot or a fellow flight deck crewmember while performing his duties with the company. The Company, through its insurers, will indemnify and hold harmless any flight deck crewmember from any crewmember's negligence.

2. This indemnification will also apply to civil actions for damages against a flight deck crewmember's estate. It is expressly understood that all indemnification and holding harmless of any flight deck crewmember is limited by the terms and exclusions of the Company's policy with its insurers.



Sound good I guess. That last sentance scares me a bit, as I'd like to know the "terms and exclusions of the Company's policy.

 

[TransMach]

Mckpickle,

And so you should be! I also would like to know what the exclusions, limits and restrictions are in that policy as it relates to flight crewmembers. That contract language doesn't really spell it out, now does it.

The point for my posts here is to wake folks up to their responsibilities, culpabilities, and liabilities as it relates to flight crewmember duties. I think lots and lots of folks stroll through life thinking their protected in some way when (unless there is some really strong union contract ... and I don't think they are that strong) they are really at risk.

I recently read the CVR transcript for Air Midwest's accident in CLT. I'll bet that of those two poor folks understood their culpibility, they would have been paying much closer attention to the business at hand and a lot less at the passing RJs ... not that it would have prevented the accident necessarily.

Let us know what your contract says, if you can, please. I for one am interested.

TransMach

 

[Dieterly]

I'll bet that of those two poor folks understood their culpibility, they would have been paying much closer attention to the business at hand and a lot less at the passing RJs

Big words there fellow, assume you mean "culpability"? Still not sure why they couldn't talk about RJ's?

 

[WrightAvia]

McPickle... that only protects you from your company and your companies insurance carrier from suing your estate or getting some subrogation after a crash or incident.

What that contract doesn't do, is take away the CUSTOMER's right to sue or prevent the person on the ground that has been killed or injured by a crash from suing.

Your employer and you can CONTRACT any kind of covenant between you and them about this and that...but it can't take away the customer's right to sue and it can't take away a third parties right to sue. In other words...your employer is just saying THEY are holding YOU harmless. There is nothing saying the customer or a third party is holding you harmless.