Midwest News
Viewing comments for:
Truck Insurer Ordered to Pay for Plane Damage Under Michigan No-Fault Law
Midwest News • December 22, 2005
Two courts in Michigan have ruled that the insurer of a truck must pay $18,000 for damage caused to a small airplane that crashed after clipping the truck as the pilot tried to land in a grassy ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: Insurance Adjusters | WEB | Dec 27, 2005, 1:12 pm |
| RE: Insurance Adjusters | Buckeye | Dec 27, 2005, 9:57 am |
| Insurance Adjusters | David | Dec 27, 2005, 9:34 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Thankful not to live in Michigan | Buckeye | Dec 27, 2005, 8:23 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Thankful not to live in Michigan | WEB | Dec 26, 2005, 8:56 am |
| RE: RE: RE: Thankful not to live in Michigan | DD | Dec 26, 2005, 6:46 am |
| RE: RE: Thankful not to live in Michigan | WEB | Dec 24, 2005, 10:37 am |
| RE: Thankful not to live in Michigan | Brummiejim | Dec 23, 2005, 11:10 am |
| Thankful not to live in Michigan | Dewy, Cheetum & Howe | Dec 23, 2005, 8:54 am |
| RE: RE: It just encourages them | Buckeye | Dec 23, 2005, 8:19 am |
| RE: It just encourages them | DD | Dec 23, 2005, 6:17 am |
| It just encourages them | LL | Dec 22, 2005, 10:47 pm |
| re falling object | Tass | Dec 22, 2005, 7:48 pm |
| RE: RE: Michigan | Big Mike in CALI | Dec 22, 2005, 2:57 pm |
| RE: Michigan | What about the truck driver? | Dec 22, 2005, 2:34 pm |
| RE: Michigan | Precedent? | Dec 22, 2005, 2:30 pm |
| Michigan | Kevin Raz | Dec 22, 2005, 2:09 pm |
| Indemnity vs. expense | Company guy | Dec 22, 2005, 2:03 pm |
| RE: RE: TRUCK INSURER | Bob Barrett | Dec 22, 2005, 1:10 pm |
| DeGraws | grant | Dec 22, 2005, 1:05 pm |
| RE: TRUCK INSURER | Simple Math | Dec 22, 2005, 12:36 pm |
| TRUCK INSURER | Confused | Dec 22, 2005, 8:31 am |
| A joke right? | dumbfounded | Dec 22, 2005, 8:27 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: TRUCK INSURER
1 trial lawyer + 2 judges in a relatively liberal state = 1 shafting for an insurance company with deep pockets.
Absolutely ridiculous that the insurer of the obviously not-at-fault truck driver should have to pay for damages to the "vehicle" whose operator was at fault. Even stranger that the vehicle in question was an AIRPLANE THAT HIT A TRUCK ON A ROAD!!!
Why does it sometimes seem that litigation makes the world go 'round, and that only people with no common sense are allowed to sit on a bench?