This seems really goofy to me. Did the truck or the truck driver cause the accident? If that\’s the case it makes sense, like he shouldn\’t have been driving on the airfield.
This IS goofy; the court relies on reading insurance contract language without regard to the facts: who hit who?
The truck was on a surface for which it was intended; the plane was making a landing on a field, not an airport runway. No wonder lawyers have tarnished reputations!
THis is simple cut and dried. The plane was making an emergency landing and the truck should have gotten out of the way unless it was on a road, but it wasnt.
I was born and raised in Flint, MI, and this is about the dumbest abuse of litigation I\’ve ever seen; the contention supporting the cause of action, and the Courts\’ ruling in favor of the plane owner, are absolutely ridiculous!
Unless there is a horn on the plane or a sunroof on the truck I don\’t see how the driver could know the plane was coming -except for an almost head-on situation.
I think I will cross Michigan of my list as a place I would visit by auto if this is how easy it would be tagged. My insuror charges me a premium based upon statistical predictions of happenstance. Was there any required proof as to why the plane had to land. I might suggest pilot error or maintenence or weather all of whic are not the fault of the truck.
This all makes perfect sense when you keep in mind: 1) This is a NO FAULT law; it doesn\’t matter who was at fault, just which insurance pays for the loss; 2) The plane swooped down in front of the truck, slammed on its brakes, causing the truck to hit it, and now the pilot and all the passengers are seeing the same chiropractor, sending their bills to the carrier for the truck; and 3) The pilot, passengers and chiropractor are all using the same lawyer to sue the carrier for the truck for being 10 minutes late on a payment for a group thermogram. The law is a beautiful thing!(Or is it, per Mr. Bumble, \”… a ***.\”)
This case shows \”no fault\” as what it is. (B.S.) A true no fault system is the truck owner would pay for his damage and the plane owner would pay his damage. This isn\’t no fault at all. No state in the U.S. has a true no fault system.
This seems really goofy to me. Did the truck or the truck driver cause the accident? If that\’s the case it makes sense, like he shouldn\’t have been driving on the airfield.
This IS goofy; the court relies on reading insurance contract language without regard to the facts: who hit who?
The truck was on a surface for which it was intended; the plane was making a landing on a field, not an airport runway. No wonder lawyers have tarnished reputations!
Oh, the glories of pure no fault insurance. Gotta love Michigan!
If you want to hear a fun discussion while having a drink or two, ask an actuary or compliance attorney about their feelings on MI insurance laws!
THis is simple cut and dried. The plane was making an emergency landing and the truck should have gotten out of the way unless it was on a road, but it wasnt.
I was born and raised in Flint, MI, and this is about the dumbest abuse of litigation I\’ve ever seen; the contention supporting the cause of action, and the Courts\’ ruling in favor of the plane owner, are absolutely ridiculous!
Unless there is a horn on the plane or a sunroof on the truck I don\’t see how the driver could know the plane was coming -except for an almost head-on situation.
I think I will cross Michigan of my list as a place I would visit by auto if this is how easy it would be tagged. My insuror charges me a premium based upon statistical predictions of happenstance. Was there any required proof as to why the plane had to land. I might suggest pilot error or maintenence or weather all of whic are not the fault of the truck.
Mighty asinine courts. Dougy, you missed this in the article, the truck was on the road.
\”According to accounts of the accident, the truck was being lawfully driven on a road when the two-seat Cessna flipped over it…\”
This all makes perfect sense when you keep in mind: 1) This is a NO FAULT law; it doesn\’t matter who was at fault, just which insurance pays for the loss; 2) The plane swooped down in front of the truck, slammed on its brakes, causing the truck to hit it, and now the pilot and all the passengers are seeing the same chiropractor, sending their bills to the carrier for the truck; and 3) The pilot, passengers and chiropractor are all using the same lawyer to sue the carrier for the truck for being 10 minutes late on a payment for a group thermogram. The law is a beautiful thing!(Or is it, per Mr. Bumble, \”… a ***.\”)
This loss brings a whole new meaning to the term \”swoop and squat\”. Has anyone thought to investigate this as a case of possible insurance fraud?
This case shows \”no fault\” as what it is. (B.S.) A true no fault system is the truck owner would pay for his damage and the plane owner would pay his damage. This isn\’t no fault at all. No state in the U.S. has a true no fault system.