gear wrote:any golfers on this forum?? Wasn't Scruggs one of the ladies accused of having an affair with a certain famous golfer?

If Karma had anything to do with it I'd be missing more than a couple body parts.

gear wrote:any golfers on this forum?? Wasn't Scruggs one of the ladies accused of having an affair with a certain famous golfer?

No, she wasn't



EB,

If she had been killed, absolutely the family should be compensated. Believe me, I don't agree with the entitlement attitude that is so prevalent today. Are you really going to compare this story to a couple kids breaking the law by entering a closed zoo?? This isn't a frivolous lawsuit, they're suing the insurance company because they don't believe she should be considered a passenger, and neither do I. I hope the family never reads any of your comments. I guess some people don't have a filter when it comes to firing off comments on an anonymous forum.

Chris

skywagon wrote:

gear wrote:any golfers on this forum?? Wasn't Scruggs one of the ladies accused of having an affair with a certain famous golfer?

No, she wasn't



EB,

If she had been killed, absolutely the family should be compensated. Believe me, I don't agree with the entitlement attitude that is so prevalent today. Are you really going to compare this story to a couple kids breaking the law by entering a closed zoo?? This isn't a frivolous lawsuit, they're suing the insurance company because they don't believe she should be considered a passenger, and neither do I. I hope the family never reads any of your comments. I guess some people don't have a filter when it comes to firing off comments on an anonymous forum.

Chris

We'll just have to agree to disagree mister. Sorry.

Anyone can see that she was a passenger, and the accident never would have happened if she wasn't a passenger. However, she didn't make a sweeping claim that she wasn't a passenger.

The insurance company had a limit of $100K per passenger, and then the policy defined a passenger as someone in the aircraft or getting in or out of it. She claimed that she didn't meet their definition of passenger at the moment she was injured, and therefore, she wasn't subject to the passenger limit.

The insurance company tipped their weak hand when they offered her $200K, double what they would have had to pay if they thought they were on solid ground. And, she's probably got way more than enough money to drag them through court, and she's got an excellent chance of winning thanks to the wording of the insurance policy. I don't know the maximum payoff per incident for this policy, but it's common to have a total payout limit of 1 million per incident.

She has recently announced that she reached a settlement with the insurance company. Evaluating this from the little that's known of the contractual obligations, it would seem likely that she received a large sum.

I'm with you EB on this one.

She walked into the prop. The prop did not walk into her.

MtCoyote wrote:I'm with you EB on this one.

She walked into the prop. The prop did not walk into her.

I don't thinks anyone has said otherwise. The point is that her lawsuit claims she wasn't a passenger at the time of the accident. Who knows what the insurance companies definition of a passenger is or at what point she stops being a passenger and becomes a bystander....1 minute, 5 minutes, 1 hour? Insurance companies don't offer money out of the goodness of their hearts. They knew they would be on the hook for more and lowballed the offer. I didn't comment here too speculate, simply that thought the comments were insensitive.

I'm with eb. Call me insensitive, but if someone walks into a noisy, windy prop, I have no problem comparing them to some kids that are dumb enough to break into a zoo and wrestle a bear... there's a major lack of common sense and awareness in our young people these days...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

When people get insurance money for their own carelessness we all pay more for insurance. If there was a need to repair the airplane I feel the person who caused the damage should have to pay for it. If I come to any airport and approach a spinning prop and insert a object into the prop I should be responsible for the damage I cause.

Like so many things in our country this is ass backwards.

Good day

The problem as I see it is that money and/or the lack of it has been equated with misery or happiness. This is a transfer payment in economic terms. Redistribution of wealth. The actuaries used to put charts in insurance policies. An arm was $5K a leg $10K and an eye $15K. Unfortunately that never payed the bills at Dewey, Cheatum and Howe so the chart has been replaced with something like a happiness index. This makes no sense as an economic principle and even less on a personal level. You want to make America a fairer place, buy your own damn accidental loss insurance. If you're a good lookin' babe you should insure your looks. If you are a surgeon you insure your hands. An electrical engineer should insure his brain. A pilot his bullwinkle. Buy the most insurance you can afford. This system yields the same results but does not seek to find fault. Like divorce you know? I'll bet the Lawyers can convince me otherwise.

President Lincoln said: You don't make poor people rich by making rich people poor. We should heed that.

EB