If her husband was in one of the front seats at the time of the crash, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was only a passenger.
Both versions of the Cirrus SR20 have dual control yokes. Since a flight instructor was with him when the plane crashed, it\’s not only possible but likely that they were taking turns controlling the plane.
I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way. They should probably add the architect, engineer, city planner, all current and prior construction companies working on or having worked in the building along with the doorman.
Just another example of the insurance company digging thru the fine language to find a reason not to pay the claim.
They should have to prove he was piloting the plan. If they cannot prove it, then pay it and quit waisting everyone\’s time.
But, Hmmmmm, \”I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way.\”
That made me spit out my Coke. Sorry, but that was funny.
As for the lawsuits, there is a lot of suing going on, huh? I think it\’s fine to sue the plane manufacturer as long as there was some type of proof she gathered beforehand (or rather had someone gather for her). If the plane was faulty, I hope she wins. As for the dentist, how should he handle this situation? Seems kind of unnecessary to sue. But, I don\’t know (nor do I claim to :)
This person suing that person suing that person. No wonder people always think lawsuits are about money. In situations like these, it would be great if the world was fair and everyone got (or didn\’t get) what they deserve (or what they didn\’t deserve).
Looks to me the exclusion should have been written to include verbiage to incorporate when there is an reasonable expectation to believe the insured might be acting as the pilot. MET wrote the policy. Now they need to prove he was not the pilot because it\’s their exclusion.
This is exactly why insurance companies need to write fine language so explicitly. He was in the plane for what reason? A flying lesson? What difference does it matter who was actually operating the controls at the exact minute the plane crashed. The next time they write the policy they will have to state \”…if you have operated the plane at any point during the flight or are planning on acting as a pilot or crew member at any point during the flight.\”
The policy couldn\’t be much clearer she is not entitled to any more money. It shouldn\’t even be allowed in court. Please stop wasting the time of the American people.
looks more like a money grubbing gold digging *****… oops i mean widow and attorney than the insurance carrier acting in bad faith. funny thing about people and not reading their insurance policies. the exclusions are right there in black and white and any 5th grader can understand them.
Thanks for the laugh Hmmmm, your words are so true.
What does the flight plan that was filed say. Was he flying the plane or not. If Met cannot prove that he was flying the plane then they should pay.
It is real simple. The reason the general public gets so upset with insurance is that they often immediately deny without proving their position. Just like in MS, if the house is gone, it must have been flood that caused it. They (State Farm) couldn\’t prove it
There has to be a flight plan filed.
but uhm, what else is the insurance company supposed to do? If they feel as if there is some question as to the validity of the claim, don\’t they have every right to deny the claim until this can be investigated? What else could they do? Pay the claim, then investigate, find out the claim should be denied and make the widow pay them back? You can tell I don\’t work in claims since I am not sure this is the correct process. It seems to make more sense though (to investigate before paying out a claim). The article doesn\’t state why they refused to pay, so it\’s best to not make ASSumptions (oops!).
You are correct, Jewel. AND show a lot of common sense. Don\’t need to be in claims to figure this one out. Besides, what difference does it make WHO filed the flight plan? Wouldn\’t expect anyone other than the trainer to do it, can you imagine him saying to his student…go file this for me so I don\’t have to.
The MET policy said they would pay if the insured died in an accident as long as he was not a pilot. The widow has proven he died. MET now must prove he was the pilot to avoid paying.
It is not unreasonable to expect MET to have to prove that he was the pilot — especially since they wrote the exclusion.
Does anyone doubt that if the policy read, \”if the insured dies while acting as the pilot we will double the death benefit\”, that MET would be resisting paying double the death benefit until the widow could prove that he was the pilot?
do pilots get excluded for life benefits if they pitch since pitchers get excluded for pilotin\’ (or not acting like a passenger).
let\’s review what we can determine:
1. flight instructor on plane
2. Cory Lidle on plane
3. Plane has duel controls for flight instruction
4. flight instructor probably being paid by hour…
5. Lidle most likely paying instructor for flight lessons, that or he found a shortcut way around security, but seems like an expensive flight as instructor has to return…
6. low flying building gets in the way
7. Lidle probably really likes his instructor, and just pays he/she to fly him around town
INSTRUCTOR:\”Hey Cory, want to take the controls?\”
CORY:\”nah, I\’ll just sit back and leave it to the pro\’s, mr/ms flight instructor\”
INSTRUCTOR:\”but Cory, you keep paying me, you really need to try this or I feel guilty for taking your money\”
CORY:\”Yeah, but if I take the controls and goof up, my life policy won\’t pay out as much; I\’d rather let you, the instructor, crash this thing up than me\”
policy terms: \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\”
Was Lidle acting like a passenger? HMMM, let\’s see…he may have been acting like many things that day, a clown, a beekeeper, perhaps even a pitcher…but was he acting like a passenger? HMMMM….
reviewing again: flight instructor, taking lessons from instructor, duel controls…yup, sounds like he was definitely a passenger!
Shame on Met; why would they want to place a restriction in a life policy just because the RISK has changed? Please, name me one other athlete who has crashed his own plane…ok, name me a NY Yankee…oh crap, forgot about Thurmon Munson…
come to think of it, maybe Met was justified by inserting this exclusion into their policy. What the heck, maybe the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO FLY A PLANE. That\’s probably one of the main reasons they don\’t hire baseball players to fly their planes; they use pilots instead. Go figure.
Odd\’s are the pilots have a clause in their life policies that voids part of their coverage when they attempt to throw an inning of relief at Yankee Stadium, too.
What ASSumption did I make Fred? Please enlighten me.
Good for Jewel- lol- feels as if I am talking to myself when I call you by that name. But, thank you.
Where does the burden of proof lie? With the plaintiff (in a criminal case this would be the DA) or the defendent (which would be the defense atty)?… but I realize this is a civil, not criminal case. But, usually it\’s the DA that has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendent is at fault for the \”crime\”. So, does the widow have to prove Mr. Lidle wasn\’t flying or does Met have to prove he was?
They do have dual controls (as do most light aircraft). However, as soon as there was an emergency, it is more than likely Stanger took control of the aircraft. Any time a CFI is on board and in front of the controls, its assumed he is the Pilot in Command. As the aircraft had no requirement for a second in command, they have a good argument for Lidle being something of a passenger. Actual FAA regs get cloudy however, as for flight time logging, they could both be PIC (with Lidle technically receiving dual instruction).
The bad portion of this case is the fact they have now sued Cirrus. These are the kind of lawsuits that put the small airplane manufacturers out of business before Congress rescued them. There was no indication of anything wrong with the airplane itself, only that a strong wind gust likely put them into the building. No reason to sue the airplane manufacturer other than greed.
Thats exactly why the CFI would have taken over in the case of any emergency. I know at least a dozen expert witnesses who could testify to that fact for the widow. The aircraft requires only one pilot (as opposed to a transport category aircraft like a 737), so he was not a required crewmember. Regardless of the controls in front of him, all students are coached to be completely \”hands off\” when the instructor says \”my airplane\”.
Chances of Lidle acting as pilot at the time of the crash are exactly 0.
Pleeeese give me a break! He owned the plane, he was a inexperienced but licenced pilot, he was sitting in the front left \”captains\” seat in full reach of all the controls. The instructor was in the CO-Pilots seat (emphasis on CO) The fact that there was no flight plan filed means zilch.
If the widow\’s attorney can\’t convince the court he was a passenger maybe argue Lidle is the father of Anna Nicole\’s baby!
Just curious…how do you know lidle was in the captain\’s chair? I looked at the article again and didn\’t see that mentioned. Was that found in an article elsewhere? Thanks.
Except that ANY pilot will tell you when an instructor is on board, he is in charge. In ANY emergency no matter who owns the aircraft, the instructor takes over, no questions asked. Instructors always fly from the right seat; my instructor flew from the right seat even when he was flying solo, because he felt more comfortable there.
Lidle was not the flying pilot and not a required crewmember.
I\’m not a pilot and know very little about flying. Perhaps somebody who knows can answer this. Don\’t they radio a tower and let them know who the pilot is or log their hours (Maybe that\’s done afterwards.) or generally give what the plan is?
Logging flight hours is, believe it or not, an \”honor system\” event. Control towers actually have no idea whom is flying, though IF they file a flight plan, the filing pilot puts his name and phone number on the form. In this case, they may not have even filed a flight plan (its not required for visual flight rules), though with an instructor on board its likely they did file one. And its likely Lidle was the filing pilot, as the instructor would have told him to do it.
They would have been in communication with air traffic control during their transition of the \”corridor\” through NYC Class B Airspace. However as far as who was flying at the time of the crash, one can only make guesses based upon normal practice. Normal practice would be for the instructor to take over in case of emergency.
NTSB investigator\’s initial statements, VFR sightseeing flight without filght plan and no conversation with air traffic control other than departing Teterboro tower.
The cirrus has side stick controls activated by wrist action and are very light to the touch. It would be unlikely that the instructor could wrestle the control input away from and athlete frozen on the control.
Speaking of lawsuits, another tenent living some 40 stories away, a high rolling dentist (patients include Donald Trump to name one) known for being suit happy is also suing the widow and everyone else connected, too many to mention, because apparently he sustained \”some damage and inconvenience\”.
Who cares if it was side stick or control yoke? \”wrestling control away?\” isn\’t an option anyway. Either a student lets go of the controls, or the instructor slugs him. I\’ve had friends who had students \”freeze\” on the controls and let go just before that point, so anything is possible I suppose.
A flight instructor wrote a book a few years ago titled \”They\’re all trying to kill me\”…
If he was having a lesson, isn\’t it a given he wasn\’t flying, or at least he shouldn\’t be considered to be the one that was in complete control of the plane? If I am an assistant to a director and he is out of the office and I act on his behalf, am I entitled to his salary? No. What I am saying is, if he wasn\’t an actual licensed pilot, he shouldn\’t be considered one. (But, I do suppose the word \”acting\” is the one catch in their clause….he was \”acting\” like a pilot by taking lessons.) Either way, I agree with Jewel, I don\’t see what the insurance company has done wrong by denying this claim until it\’s proven that Lidle wasn\’t flying.
Exactly my point; the instructor would have been in control of the plane, likely from the second he realized they were in trouble. that is standard practice throughout the industry.
The courts are needed to interpret \”while acting as pilot or flight crew\” clause in the policy. No one can \”prove\” who was actually flying at the time of the accident. Usual practice would be for the instructor to be sole manipulator of the controls during an emergency of any kind.
If MET writes the exclusion stating that they are not required to pay if the insured was the pilot, then MET has to prove he was a pilot to avoid paying. The beneficiary has proven the insured is dead. If MET is going to deny on the basis of an exclusion, the burden of proof is on them to show that the exclusion is triggered.
The article stated the policy \”contains an exclusion for \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\’\’
The question is not what he was doing at the time of his death, but what was his capacity on the aircraft. Simply, he was a student not a passanger. If he was on the plane as a stewart, the question is not \”was he serving drinks at the time of his death or sitting in a seat\” but his reason for being on the plane.
JCS, I agree with you 100%. No one is gonna pay that much money just to see how flight instructor is flying. Since the wording on exclusion stated ANY capacity, I am sorry to say, but, Mrs. Lidle got to lose on this lawsuit for everyones sake. Otherwise, all those exclusions are worthless.
As a former flight instructor with over 1,000 hours logged giving instruction, I can comfortably state the student was most likely at the controls. That is why they pay for instruction – to learn to control the aircraft. You can’t learn without
Only early in the initial stages of training does the instructor take the controls for the purpose of demonstrating, then promptly allows the student to take over and duplicate what was just shown. For a higher time, experienced student it was rare that I had to demonstrate anything. If a high time student executed poorly we just tried again as the knowledge and ability had been learned previously, but not yet perfected.
then I mistook the cockpit window for open space and flew into it and fell down to Earth and passed on. So, I guess a new witness to this incident is needed.
\”Quite frankly, there were no eyewitnesses that we\’ve been able to find to determine who actually was flying that plane,\’\’ King said Monday.\”
As if someone would have been walking around in the sky. What a stupid comment on her part. I\’d want that attorney to take my case- ha ha!
The man is dead and you people are mocking him by saying he was serving drinks, or was on the crapper, or only bird eyewitnesses know the truth. I thought I was a cold-hearted SOB!
The plaintiff states the owner was not operating the aircraft… the defendant states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim… Seems to me that MetLife is going to pay the court costs, the indemnity at issue and punitives… perhaps they are trying to settle out for less than the indemnity, but an attorney would have to be desperate, at this point to consider anything less than same plus his costs…
Just my opinion…
couldn\’t this be reversed as well? As in, the defendent states that the baseball player was not operating the aircraft… the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim?
\”The plaintiff states the owner was not operating the aircraft… the defendant states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim…\”- Big Joe
I really have NO clue whether or not he was flying the plane; nor do I have any idea who needs to prove it. Usually when someone dies it is up to the beneficiary to prove they are dead (ie: death certificate). So, it seems to follow that the plaintiff in this case should prove her husband wasn\’t flying the plane. Is that the way it works or is it up to the insurance company to prove?
I really don\’t have an opinion either way on this one. Everyone keeps swaying me back and forth with their arguments.
Should have proofread after I took a break. Sorry for mistyping defendant. And I meant the basbeall player WAS flying the plane. And, the beneficiary isn\’t the only one who could send in a death certificate.
Sorry, I really needed a restroom break! :)
P.S. \”As in, the defendent states that the baseball player was operating the aircraft… the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim?\” I guess I also should have said the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove the player was NOT flying the plane.
If her husband was in one of the front seats at the time of the crash, it would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was only a passenger.
Both versions of the Cirrus SR20 have dual control yokes. Since a flight instructor was with him when the plane crashed, it\’s not only possible but likely that they were taking turns controlling the plane.
I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way. They should probably add the architect, engineer, city planner, all current and prior construction companies working on or having worked in the building along with the doorman.
Just another example of the insurance company digging thru the fine language to find a reason not to pay the claim.
They should have to prove he was piloting the plan. If they cannot prove it, then pay it and quit waisting everyone\’s time.
Absolutely excluded scenario, she needs to lose this one, for the benefit of upholding a written contract.
…unless of course this contract was signed in Mississippi, then all bets are off.
Okay, this is a sad, unfortunate story.
But, Hmmmmm, \”I\’m surprised they haven\’t filed a lawsuit against the building owner for the building being in the way.\”
That made me spit out my Coke. Sorry, but that was funny.
As for the lawsuits, there is a lot of suing going on, huh? I think it\’s fine to sue the plane manufacturer as long as there was some type of proof she gathered beforehand (or rather had someone gather for her). If the plane was faulty, I hope she wins. As for the dentist, how should he handle this situation? Seems kind of unnecessary to sue. But, I don\’t know (nor do I claim to :)
This person suing that person suing that person. No wonder people always think lawsuits are about money. In situations like these, it would be great if the world was fair and everyone got (or didn\’t get) what they deserve (or what they didn\’t deserve).
Looks to me the exclusion should have been written to include verbiage to incorporate when there is an reasonable expectation to believe the insured might be acting as the pilot. MET wrote the policy. Now they need to prove he was not the pilot because it\’s their exclusion.
….digging through the fine language…?
I thought that the \”fine language\” was the terms and conditions of the policy. Silly me, expecting a contract to mean what it says.
This is exactly why insurance companies need to write fine language so explicitly. He was in the plane for what reason? A flying lesson? What difference does it matter who was actually operating the controls at the exact minute the plane crashed. The next time they write the policy they will have to state \”…if you have operated the plane at any point during the flight or are planning on acting as a pilot or crew member at any point during the flight.\”
The policy couldn\’t be much clearer she is not entitled to any more money. It shouldn\’t even be allowed in court. Please stop wasting the time of the American people.
…it depends on what your definition of \”is\” is.
looks more like a money grubbing gold digging *****… oops i mean widow and attorney than the insurance carrier acting in bad faith. funny thing about people and not reading their insurance policies. the exclusions are right there in black and white and any 5th grader can understand them.
Thanks for the laugh Hmmmm, your words are so true.
What does the flight plan that was filed say. Was he flying the plane or not. If Met cannot prove that he was flying the plane then they should pay.
It is real simple. The reason the general public gets so upset with insurance is that they often immediately deny without proving their position. Just like in MS, if the house is gone, it must have been flood that caused it. They (State Farm) couldn\’t prove it
There has to be a flight plan filed.
but uhm, what else is the insurance company supposed to do? If they feel as if there is some question as to the validity of the claim, don\’t they have every right to deny the claim until this can be investigated? What else could they do? Pay the claim, then investigate, find out the claim should be denied and make the widow pay them back? You can tell I don\’t work in claims since I am not sure this is the correct process. It seems to make more sense though (to investigate before paying out a claim). The article doesn\’t state why they refused to pay, so it\’s best to not make ASSumptions (oops!).
Please re-read. You just did make an ASSumption yourself
You are correct, Jewel. AND show a lot of common sense. Don\’t need to be in claims to figure this one out. Besides, what difference does it make WHO filed the flight plan? Wouldn\’t expect anyone other than the trainer to do it, can you imagine him saying to his student…go file this for me so I don\’t have to.
The MET policy said they would pay if the insured died in an accident as long as he was not a pilot. The widow has proven he died. MET now must prove he was the pilot to avoid paying.
It is not unreasonable to expect MET to have to prove that he was the pilot — especially since they wrote the exclusion.
Does anyone doubt that if the policy read, \”if the insured dies while acting as the pilot we will double the death benefit\”, that MET would be resisting paying double the death benefit until the widow could prove that he was the pilot?
do pilots get excluded for life benefits if they pitch since pitchers get excluded for pilotin\’ (or not acting like a passenger).
let\’s review what we can determine:
1. flight instructor on plane
2. Cory Lidle on plane
3. Plane has duel controls for flight instruction
4. flight instructor probably being paid by hour…
5. Lidle most likely paying instructor for flight lessons, that or he found a shortcut way around security, but seems like an expensive flight as instructor has to return…
6. low flying building gets in the way
7. Lidle probably really likes his instructor, and just pays he/she to fly him around town
INSTRUCTOR:\”Hey Cory, want to take the controls?\”
CORY:\”nah, I\’ll just sit back and leave it to the pro\’s, mr/ms flight instructor\”
INSTRUCTOR:\”but Cory, you keep paying me, you really need to try this or I feel guilty for taking your money\”
CORY:\”Yeah, but if I take the controls and goof up, my life policy won\’t pay out as much; I\’d rather let you, the instructor, crash this thing up than me\”
policy terms: \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\”
Was Lidle acting like a passenger? HMMM, let\’s see…he may have been acting like many things that day, a clown, a beekeeper, perhaps even a pitcher…but was he acting like a passenger? HMMMM….
reviewing again: flight instructor, taking lessons from instructor, duel controls…yup, sounds like he was definitely a passenger!
Shame on Met; why would they want to place a restriction in a life policy just because the RISK has changed? Please, name me one other athlete who has crashed his own plane…ok, name me a NY Yankee…oh crap, forgot about Thurmon Munson…
come to think of it, maybe Met was justified by inserting this exclusion into their policy. What the heck, maybe the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO FLY A PLANE. That\’s probably one of the main reasons they don\’t hire baseball players to fly their planes; they use pilots instead. Go figure.
Odd\’s are the pilots have a clause in their life policies that voids part of their coverage when they attempt to throw an inning of relief at Yankee Stadium, too.
What ASSumption did I make Fred? Please enlighten me.
Good for Jewel- lol- feels as if I am talking to myself when I call you by that name. But, thank you.
Where does the burden of proof lie? With the plaintiff (in a criminal case this would be the DA) or the defendent (which would be the defense atty)?… but I realize this is a civil, not criminal case. But, usually it\’s the DA that has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendent is at fault for the \”crime\”. So, does the widow have to prove Mr. Lidle wasn\’t flying or does Met have to prove he was?
Sorry for the typo. :)
Chad- You really need to stop posting. Your posts cause me to laugh so hard that people in the office will start to complain. Too funny! Thank you :)
They do have dual controls (as do most light aircraft). However, as soon as there was an emergency, it is more than likely Stanger took control of the aircraft. Any time a CFI is on board and in front of the controls, its assumed he is the Pilot in Command. As the aircraft had no requirement for a second in command, they have a good argument for Lidle being something of a passenger. Actual FAA regs get cloudy however, as for flight time logging, they could both be PIC (with Lidle technically receiving dual instruction).
The bad portion of this case is the fact they have now sued Cirrus. These are the kind of lawsuits that put the small airplane manufacturers out of business before Congress rescued them. There was no indication of anything wrong with the airplane itself, only that a strong wind gust likely put them into the building. No reason to sue the airplane manufacturer other than greed.
Thats exactly why the CFI would have taken over in the case of any emergency. I know at least a dozen expert witnesses who could testify to that fact for the widow. The aircraft requires only one pilot (as opposed to a transport category aircraft like a 737), so he was not a required crewmember. Regardless of the controls in front of him, all students are coached to be completely \”hands off\” when the instructor says \”my airplane\”.
Chances of Lidle acting as pilot at the time of the crash are exactly 0.
Pleeeese give me a break! He owned the plane, he was a inexperienced but licenced pilot, he was sitting in the front left \”captains\” seat in full reach of all the controls. The instructor was in the CO-Pilots seat (emphasis on CO) The fact that there was no flight plan filed means zilch.
If the widow\’s attorney can\’t convince the court he was a passenger maybe argue Lidle is the father of Anna Nicole\’s baby!
Just curious…how do you know lidle was in the captain\’s chair? I looked at the article again and didn\’t see that mentioned. Was that found in an article elsewhere? Thanks.
Except that ANY pilot will tell you when an instructor is on board, he is in charge. In ANY emergency no matter who owns the aircraft, the instructor takes over, no questions asked. Instructors always fly from the right seat; my instructor flew from the right seat even when he was flying solo, because he felt more comfortable there.
Lidle was not the flying pilot and not a required crewmember.
maybe he wasn\’t flying, but he could have been serving drinks?
No beverage cart, but I think he might have been in the lavatory…
I\’m not a pilot and know very little about flying. Perhaps somebody who knows can answer this. Don\’t they radio a tower and let them know who the pilot is or log their hours (Maybe that\’s done afterwards.) or generally give what the plan is?
Anybody know what the normal procedure is?
Logging flight hours is, believe it or not, an \”honor system\” event. Control towers actually have no idea whom is flying, though IF they file a flight plan, the filing pilot puts his name and phone number on the form. In this case, they may not have even filed a flight plan (its not required for visual flight rules), though with an instructor on board its likely they did file one. And its likely Lidle was the filing pilot, as the instructor would have told him to do it.
They would have been in communication with air traffic control during their transition of the \”corridor\” through NYC Class B Airspace. However as far as who was flying at the time of the crash, one can only make guesses based upon normal practice. Normal practice would be for the instructor to take over in case of emergency.
NTSB investigator\’s initial statements, VFR sightseeing flight without filght plan and no conversation with air traffic control other than departing Teterboro tower.
The cirrus has side stick controls activated by wrist action and are very light to the touch. It would be unlikely that the instructor could wrestle the control input away from and athlete frozen on the control.
Speaking of lawsuits, another tenent living some 40 stories away, a high rolling dentist (patients include Donald Trump to name one) known for being suit happy is also suing the widow and everyone else connected, too many to mention, because apparently he sustained \”some damage and inconvenience\”.
Now I know why I read this crap.
Chad, you\’re the best!!!
Who cares if it was side stick or control yoke? \”wrestling control away?\” isn\’t an option anyway. Either a student lets go of the controls, or the instructor slugs him. I\’ve had friends who had students \”freeze\” on the controls and let go just before that point, so anything is possible I suppose.
A flight instructor wrote a book a few years ago titled \”They\’re all trying to kill me\”…
If he was having a lesson, isn\’t it a given he wasn\’t flying, or at least he shouldn\’t be considered to be the one that was in complete control of the plane? If I am an assistant to a director and he is out of the office and I act on his behalf, am I entitled to his salary? No. What I am saying is, if he wasn\’t an actual licensed pilot, he shouldn\’t be considered one. (But, I do suppose the word \”acting\” is the one catch in their clause….he was \”acting\” like a pilot by taking lessons.) Either way, I agree with Jewel, I don\’t see what the insurance company has done wrong by denying this claim until it\’s proven that Lidle wasn\’t flying.
Exactly my point; the instructor would have been in control of the plane, likely from the second he realized they were in trouble. that is standard practice throughout the industry.
The courts are needed to interpret \”while acting as pilot or flight crew\” clause in the policy. No one can \”prove\” who was actually flying at the time of the accident. Usual practice would be for the instructor to be sole manipulator of the controls during an emergency of any kind.
If MET writes the exclusion stating that they are not required to pay if the insured was the pilot, then MET has to prove he was a pilot to avoid paying. The beneficiary has proven the insured is dead. If MET is going to deny on the basis of an exclusion, the burden of proof is on them to show that the exclusion is triggered.
The article stated the policy \”contains an exclusion for \”any incident related to travel in an aircraft … while acting in any capacity other than as a passenger.\’\’
The question is not what he was doing at the time of his death, but what was his capacity on the aircraft. Simply, he was a student not a passanger. If he was on the plane as a stewart, the question is not \”was he serving drinks at the time of his death or sitting in a seat\” but his reason for being on the plane.
JCS, I agree with you 100%. No one is gonna pay that much money just to see how flight instructor is flying. Since the wording on exclusion stated ANY capacity, I am sorry to say, but, Mrs. Lidle got to lose on this lawsuit for everyones sake. Otherwise, all those exclusions are worthless.
Never mind. If it says \”any capacity\” she loses and it doesn\’t matter whom the flying pilot was at the time.
As a former flight instructor with over 1,000 hours logged giving instruction, I can comfortably state the student was most likely at the controls. That is why they pay for instruction – to learn to control the aircraft. You can’t learn without
Only early in the initial stages of training does the instructor take the controls for the purpose of demonstrating, then promptly allows the student to take over and duplicate what was just shown. For a higher time, experienced student it was rare that I had to demonstrate anything. If a high time student executed poorly we just tried again as the knowledge and ability had been learned previously, but not yet perfected.
then I mistook the cockpit window for open space and flew into it and fell down to Earth and passed on. So, I guess a new witness to this incident is needed.
\”Quite frankly, there were no eyewitnesses that we\’ve been able to find to determine who actually was flying that plane,\’\’ King said Monday.\”
As if someone would have been walking around in the sky. What a stupid comment on her part. I\’d want that attorney to take my case- ha ha!
The man is dead and you people are mocking him by saying he was serving drinks, or was on the crapper, or only bird eyewitnesses know the truth. I thought I was a cold-hearted SOB!
The plaintiff states the owner was not operating the aircraft… the defendant states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim… Seems to me that MetLife is going to pay the court costs, the indemnity at issue and punitives… perhaps they are trying to settle out for less than the indemnity, but an attorney would have to be desperate, at this point to consider anything less than same plus his costs…
Just my opinion…
couldn\’t this be reversed as well? As in, the defendent states that the baseball player was not operating the aircraft… the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim?
\”The plaintiff states the owner was not operating the aircraft… the defendant states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim…\”- Big Joe
I really have NO clue whether or not he was flying the plane; nor do I have any idea who needs to prove it. Usually when someone dies it is up to the beneficiary to prove they are dead (ie: death certificate). So, it seems to follow that the plaintiff in this case should prove her husband wasn\’t flying the plane. Is that the way it works or is it up to the insurance company to prove?
I really don\’t have an opinion either way on this one. Everyone keeps swaying me back and forth with their arguments.
Should have proofread after I took a break. Sorry for mistyping defendant. And I meant the basbeall player WAS flying the plane. And, the beneficiary isn\’t the only one who could send in a death certificate.
Sorry, I really needed a restroom break! :)
P.S. \”As in, the defendent states that the baseball player was operating the aircraft… the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove same since the date of claim?\” I guess I also should have said the plaintiff states it has been unable to prove the player was NOT flying the plane.