Junkie's Accident - a debate regarding claims and insurance

[emil]

i agree with boet..

why not rather talk about flying and adventures.

it is very sad that a fellow pilot lost is life..

but Louis has alo lost ....

[Aerosan]

I agree with Boet and Emil.................in principal, but then surely Louis could have come on here , the same way he did when he wanted to give stick to someone (who stood up for a deceased friend), and stated his case? He knows fair well this is close to all our hearts, whether we have met Junkie in person or not, and that we will react and/or respond to anything said and done to this persons estate! Keeping a clear mind is easy but place yourself in their (the family’s) shoes and then see how this feels. I do not wish to make enemies either side of the fence but we have to be fair.

My 2c worth

[cornell]

Stop this thread. NOW.

Why

1. Junkies boet posted this so the family whant other people involved.

2. The loved ones already got to deal with the loss and now have to worry about this too

3. Don't know Junkie or Louis but got a absolute dislike in people running to court.

How about some morals


Regards

Cornell Blok

[John Young]

Which party is suing? This is still not clear.

If a flight school operating as a going concern makes a “business decision” to under insure its principal assets by 40% for “business reasons”, is it then fair for the flight school to make a claim for the “consequent shortfall” against a deceased estate?

The claim of negligence will carry a huge burden of proof and will be very onerous to the claimant whoever that might be. This could lead to extensive delays in terms of finalising the estate which would impoverish the innocent family even further.

As for the excess – this would be determined by the written agreement between the two parties.

Right, who is claiming? Come and “speak”.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

[slysi]

Guys...at no point did anyone mention who is suing the estate. It could be the insurance company or it could be the flight school. Some of you are making the assumption that it is the flight school. I suggest you all reserve comment until the facts are know.

In any event this forum should not be about bashing another party. If you want to discuss the principal of insurance/teaching then fair enough but to impart blame is unfair. This is similar to the thread on Bushbaby's. It should be stopped. I agree with Boet on this one.

Junkie was a dear friend to many members of this forum and I am sure his family is aware of the continued support. Lets keep slander for the tabloids.

Cheers

Simon

[andrepieterse]

I agree with Boet on this topic.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Agree with Boet & co in so far as judgement is to be reserved until all the facts are known, but a couple points possibly to clarify gen concepts...
Junkie was instructor at the school. School usually insures their instructors for excess as employee rather than customer. Possibly a Technical point if he was not instructing?
School would need to prove they made pilot (Junkie) aware of the fact that he would be liable for excess in event of a prang. As eg. in the blik world it is impossible to hire a plane without DJ&A's excess insurance. Usually excess is R20K for singles and R40K for twins. These can be amended by paying more and having it reduced or paying less and these will then obviously be higher...
Unlike car insurance (market value) aircraft insurance is based on an "agreed value". Insurance co will pay agreed value regardless (within reason) of what the actual value is/was. If the agreed value was R200K, they will pay only R200K, so I would suggest that the claim for the R100K must come from someone other than the insurance company as they have no interest/loss over and above the "agreed amount".


It is a sad situation for both parties on different levels. I hope they are able to resolve it amicably.

[Morph]

OK let's get something straight here

Louis Van Wyk, the owner of the flight school has lodged a claim against Junkies Estate for R126000. This is made up of R26000 recovery of insurance excess and R100,000 for Negligence

I had a long chat with Louis yesterday and he asked me to post the following comments on his behalf (Please note I am not his spokesman)

1) He agreed that he had previously said on this forum that he was not laying claim, nor intending to
2) His legal counsel advised him to the contrary and told him he had full right to claim
3) He has Affidavits from "witnesses" who say in their opinion Junkie was negligent
4)He has suffered loss of business due to the loss of the plane. In particular 4 students who were to learn on the taildragger cancelled their training because he didn't have a plane anymore.
5) His legal counsel after investigation satisfied him that the Estate could afford the claim

He also asked me what my opinion is and what I would do if I was in his shoes.

This is what my thoughts are. Note: they are not based on malice but obviously I am biased towards the well being of the family.

1) I know Louis has suffered the loss of a plane which has already been paid out to the insured value and can be replaced, but Junkies family lost a husband, father and a breadwinner and to me this is a far greater loss and is permanent.
2) The family has a finite limited financial asset that except for interest earned can never increase, but rather will continuously be depleted.
3) The School on the other hand is a going concern and has infinite opportunity to continue to thrive and grow their business.
4) All flying has an element of risk, and as such the school should also accept that there is always that risk of losing a plane due to a crash. They mitigate this risk by insurance. If I have a delivery truck driver carrying R1m stock and he has a crash writing the entire load off, do I have a valid claim against his family?
4) Whether Louis has a valid legal claim or not I still question whether he has a moral right and only he can answer that.

As far as witnesses go, there was only one person outside the hangars actually watching Junkie take of and subsequently crash. The rest of the guys were busy washing planes and chatting inside the hangars. And this guy is not the person who has given a sworn affadavit, so as far as the validity of said witness I dont know. The other two are from witnesses at other fields giving comments about other situations and are thus not valid as they did not see the crash


Finally,

I hear Boet and others asking to stop this thread now and I don't agree. The value of this thread is to expose and identify the risks involved with all of us allowing someone to fly our plane, or us using/hiring a plane, or anyone here going for training. Are you aware of what could happen in the case of an accident. Does the school explain in great detail what the risks are in event of an accident. (I'm not talking about the obvious risk to life and limb) This thread has highlighted these risks and hopefully future students will ask the questions and get satisfactory answers.

If your school does not have a documented policy as to who is responsible for what in the case of damage to one of the aircraft then go to another school

Another question. What happens if a student/instructor crash while the student is PIC and they are both killed.

A) who would the school lay claim against, student, instructor, both?
B) would the Instructor's family have a right to claim negligence against the student's family. How would the prove this?

If I was Instructing at a school as an employee I would definitely want all of these questions answered and document as part of my employment contract

[cornell]

I thing that I have learned in aviation is to make sure that you know that the insurance is in order. I would not touch an aircraft if I don't know exactly where I stand with the insurance even if it is your Best of friend money always talk.

I've learned the Hard way



This is very very very very important.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I echo Morph's comments. I have suffered similar loss (although there was no loss of life) and it is tough to deal with morally.

I do not think the thread should stop, but IMHO possibly reserve judgment of the participants. Emotions and business are often not compatible. We all have opinions, but the request (by K7) was for assistance.

On Louis side, the loss is significant and yes he does have a claim against the estate regardless...(based on the known facts). I am of the opinion that the school knew the risks of total loss and neglected to sufficiently cover these by under insuring. The Excess issue is a tough one IMO. School needs to prove that the liability was accepted by the pilot, which is usually done by signing autho sheet or some sort of acknowledgement. I do not know of schol which required their instrucotrs to have excess insurance, so I would contend that this would be difficult to prove, but that is based on my perceptions and not the law or circumstances.

On the estate side, I would strongly contend the qualifications of the eye witnesses, question the circumstances (airworthyness of the aircraft, logs etc) and would require the school to prove that Pilot was aware of the "liability" he was accepting before the flight.

On a personal note
It is not always as clear cut as the legal eagles make it sound. I have been involved in pleny litigation (comes with the terretory) and their opinion is often based on how much money they can make out of it. I have never met a lawyer (not bashing lawyers) who would tell you you don't have a case. One of the lawyers we "met in battle" so to speak working for a huge retail organisation in this country told me that win, loose or draw he gets paid and the facts of the matter are of little consequence.... I would be very hesitant to base my decision on the recommendation of lawyers who have a vested interest (fees) in further litigation....

2c

PS
I have met neither party and express the above without trying to bash either party...

[Morph]

Here is a contructive idea

What about insurance companies offereing short term life/legal liability insurance on a monthly pre-paid basis for students during training. This insurance could be thus compulsory and would cover these costs in the event of an accident

The school should cover all instructors under a similar policy

What about the Misasa 3rd party insurance, is there no legal liability cover in that?

You own personal insurance, do you have legal liability. Is there something we all could take up as pilots on an annual basis to cover us in the case of death or disability that will cover the costs of the loss of the aircraft.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

DJ&A have excess insurance (for students/PPL etc) product. R40K cover was R192pm when I was hire & flying....

Students should in my opinion not be liable for under insurance of the hull (agreed value)

[Jeremy D]

Very sorry to see this topic back on the newsgroup.

I was one of those who strongly disagreed with the various postings of the (at the time) hearsay regarding possible claims etc. Not in defence of the school (I am a past student), but in fairness to all concerned.

When I signed up with the school I was informed about the R25k excess, but understood that that was where it stopped.

That DJ&A excess insurance mentioned by RV4ker sounds like an essential 'extra' for anyone contemplating future training.

I am thinking of doing some 3-axis - but will be relooking at the options around Cape Town.

safe flying all.

Jeremy
ZU-AYM
Aerotrike - Wintervogel

[GR8-DAD]

I did about 5 hrs instruction with Junkie in Feb 2005 and later to do my BB convex. He told me that he had a deal where he swopped instruction hours for flying hours in the schools aircraft, if memory serves, 3 hrs of instructions for one hour usage of the schools BB for personal flying/use.

I am also aware of the R25k exess, it was told to me when I joined the club and there was an annual exess insurance amount payable upon joining, which I did (I think.... )

The Q would be what the deal was between Junkie and the school. IMHO the owner of an aerie has the responsibility to ensure that all users of his aerie have proper insurance, if not, refuse them the use of the aerie.
I am definitely not going to let anyone fly my aerie if he/she does not have the proper insurance and can proove it, otherwise, sorry, tata.

But then, the legal okes do not think emotionaly like we do.

[Tumbleweed]

I think the lessons to be learned from this is; regardless of whether you hire out, give test flights, train students, recieve training, give joy rides, get copies of any conditions of Hire /training / insurance e.t.c. and get professional advice.

Take info to a reputable broker and then pay for a consultation with that bastard lawyer that screwed you mate in his divorce. His R350.00 consultation is the smallest expence in your flying career. Know your risk and plan around it.

And if you're loaded, ask the attorney why he has put all his assets in a family trust and you want to do the same. ( He might be honest and tell you so they will get Jack from him)

Its everone's right whether to insure for loss of earnings or not. It's also fine for a lawyer to tell you he will claim from someone. It's another thing if they contest it and the legal cost could exceed the R125K, coz his hand will be out.

Then to decide if recouperation exceeds Goodwill.