There is no possible way to buy enough insurance that my net worth is protected for a worst case exposure.

Once you realize that, then it is a matter of where on the curve you want to be. My intuition tells me that liability is either relatively modest, say taxi incident into another airplane on the ramp, or extremely high, say fatal accident. In other words, kind of bimodal.

So I buy enough insurance to cover a modest liability exposure and accept that I can't cover the extreme case. The practical difference between $1M and $10M liability is rather small when something really goes wrong as I expect few judgments will fall in that range.

As for medical malpractice in the example given above, Indiana limits liability much in the same ay as workmen's comp.

https://www.ismanet.org/pdf/legal/Overv ... ummary.pdf

Indiana, at least, realizes that outrageous court cases awarding lottery sized judgments hurts everyone in the end, so it is a matter of state law to limit those awards to "reasonable" amounts.

As to workmen's comp, not all companies operating in Indiana allow travel of employees by company plane. We are careful to choose coverage which explicitly allows this. This is an indication that workmen's comp does apply to travel on a company plane. It is a well established matter of case law that an employee injured at work is bound by the state law for workmen's comp, and traveling as an employee is "at work".

The workmen's comp underwriter even wanted my training certificate at our last renewal. That's being very detailed about it. The number of potential underwriters increased when we got the jet, too, seems that's considered safer, which it is.

Mike C.

There is no possible way to buy enough insurance that my net worth is protected for a worst case exposure.

Once you realize that, then it is a matter of where on the curve you want to be. My intuition tells me that liability is either relatively modest, say taxi incident into another airplane on the ramp, or extremely high, say fatal accident. In other words, kind of bimodal.

So I buy enough insurance to cover a modest liability exposure and accept that I can't cover the extreme case. The practical difference between $1M and $10M liability is rather small when something really goes wrong as I expect few judgments will fall in that range.

As for medical malpractice in the example given above, Indiana limits liability much in the same ay as workmen's comp.

https://www.ismanet.org/pdf/legal/Overv ... ummary.pdf

Indiana, at least, realizes that outrageous court cases awarding lottery sized judgments hurts everyone in the end, so it is a matter of state law to limit those awards to "reasonable" amounts.

As to workmen's comp, not all companies operating in Indiana allow travel of employees by company plane. We are careful to choose coverage which explicitly allows this. This is an indication that workmen's comp does apply to travel on a company plane. It is a well established matter of case law that an employee injured at work is bound by the state law for workmen's comp, and traveling as an employee is "at work".

The workmen's comp underwriter even wanted my training certificate at our last renewal. That's being very detailed about it. The number of potential underwriters increased when we got the jet, too, seems that's considered safer, which it is.

Mike C.

I would suggest MC discuss with his work comp broker/provider ramifications of crashing in NY or CA for instance and applicability of IN "state law" respects settling with employees/next of kin.

We have done so since our employees travel a fair amount.

CA and NY have full reciprocity with Indiana on workmen's comp laws as they apply to us. This means that as long as my employees don't work "too much" in another state, Indiana law applies. Too much varies with each state but the shortest is WV at 30 days and most are 90 days or 6 months. We never reach those limits.

International is another story that is more complex, but I don't fly internationally.


Indiana Code 22-3-2-6:

"The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-3-6 on account of personal injury or death by accident shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, the employee's personal representatives, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death"

The state code explicitly deals with next of kin.

Mike C.

It does make a difference, per workmen's comp reciprocity agreements among states. My employees are not considered to be employed in other states based on those agreements and their limited time in those states.


I think you have this backwards.

If I have a $10M liability policy, the lawyers will be MORE interested in suing than if I have a $1M policy. Once they get past the policy limits, they know personal bankruptcy may make their judgment moot. In other words, the bigger the steak you carry around, the more the wolves will be after it.

Mike C.

You're not bankrupt until your assets are gone, and you said earlier your net worth is such that insurance to protect your assets isn't possible.

They'll happily sue you for $10M even if it comes from your assets. It's what they do; it's their business model.

Of course they will. They'll sue for $100M.

It doesn't matter if they sue for $1 more than your net worth or $100M more.

The lawyers know, however, that collecting from other than insurance is harder. Bankruptcy will occur, they will be one of many unsecured creditors, certain assets are protected (in some cases, primary residence, retirement accounts), and so forth.

You can bet all injury lawyers seek to find out the policy limits as a first assessment of the suit potential. Personal assets are much harder to find and collect.

Case in point:

Tamarack had a huge liability from the 2018 fatal crash where their winglet thingy was blamed. Following that, they declared bankruptcy which firewalled their liability. The suit was settled out of court, and while no details have been released, I strongly suspect the settlement was equal or less than the liability policy limits since the bankruptcy essentially limited what other funds could be collected. They reorganized and are back in business.

Mike C.

Of course they will. They'll sue for $100M.

It doesn't matter if they sue for $1 more than your net worth or $100M more.

The lawyers know, however, that collecting from other than insurance is harder. Bankruptcy will occur, they will be one of many unsecured creditors, certain assets are protected (in some cases, primary residence, retirement accounts), and so forth.

You can bet all injury lawyers seek to find out the policy limits as a first assessment of the suit potential. Personal assets are much harder to find and collect.

Case in point:

Tamarack had a huge liability from the 2018 fatal crash where their winglet thingy was blamed. Following that, they declared bankruptcy which firewalled their liability. The suit was settled out of court, and while no details have been released, I strongly suspect the settlement was equal or less than the liability policy limits since the bankruptcy essentially limited what other funds could be collected. They reorganized and are back in business.

Mike C.

Question to the Jet guys!

Is there any VLJ that can be safely operated on a 2400ft runway, no obstacles and 1350ft elevation?

The answer you want, but don't want: Yes! (with a big fat asterisk)

The questions that the asterisk asks: How much do you want to carry, and how far do you want to go?

Once you answer those second two questions, we can give you an idea of whether or not there's a real-world answer to your first question.

This is just not how the legal world works. It's a bit like arguing with medical professionals when one lacks the medical background. Here, what's lacking is the legal background. Law is not intuitive and cannot be understood without training and domain knowledge.

For example, whether or not Indiana law applies is a very complicated question. Whether or not the crash is in Indiana is not even close to the first consideration. Attorneys don't get paid expenses. And they don't simply get paid by the defendant in any case. And finally, what can and cannot be used in a court is another complicated topic that has little to do with "whatever you say".

I think we should stick to our lane here, which is not insurance, and certainly not law. With all due respect.

This is just not how the legal world works. It's a bit like arguing with medical professionals when one lacks the medical background. Here, what's lacking is the legal background. Law is not intuitive and cannot be understood without training and domain knowledge.

For example, whether or not Indiana law applies is a very complicated question. Whether or not the crash is in Indiana is not even close to the first consideration. Attorneys don't get paid expenses. And they don't simply get paid by the defendant in any case. And finally, what can and cannot be used in a court is another complicated topic that has little to do with "whatever you say".

I think we should stick to our lane here, which is not insurance, and certainly not law. With all due respect.

You guys are giving lawyers, judges and the rest of the bottom feeders way too much credit. Most of them don't know the law, that is what appeals courts are for. They are only looking for the easy money, no easy money no lawsuit.

Where does this idea that personal assets aren't easy to get come from?

At the end of a 3.5 year lawsuit with a half dozen continuances, 2 appeals, dozens of expert witnesses and reams of testimony, the sheriff will take approximately 3 days to repossess the Ferrari in the garage and put it up for auction. The lake house will take a little longer. Nobody will be able to hide either one in the Caymans.

Assets are assets, and smart people who are looking for money don't care what form they take. That big law firm didn't pay for their downtown office building by only going after easy money. They paid for it by going after ALL the money.

Bankruptcy impedes all that.

A $50M judgment on a $5M net worth person will never be fully collected.

The limits in the insurance policy, however, are assured and collectable.

Ask any injury lawyer about that. If the defendant is well insured, nice target. If not, they will more often pass since collecting is harder and not assured.

Mike C.