Russ:

No they have a few other types of planes (numbers) to spread the love(premiums).

Adam:

I think you are totally correct, and for sure all of the airplane and parts manufactures would be the first to say thank you.

Now how the attorney's would feel, that is a question I hope one will step up and answer.

Rick

I wish these cost of tort calculations could be as simple as splitting the annual premiums.

There's a lot more risk management than buying policies. For example Cirrus bought me a brand new DFC90 and MFD due to the envelope protection it provides over the 55X.

I sure wish we were not as litigious as we are.

No, just the COPA thread.

Feel free to start a thread about all the new stuff going on at Beechcraft.

I would not make that bet if I were you.

I would not make that bet if I were you.

If you eliminated all tort reform, it would reduce the cost of a Cirrus by $30,000. Assuming my previous known Product Liability premiums are still correct for them as of last year.
$9,000,000 premium divided by 300 units = $30,000 per plane.

I am personally aware of many airplane and engine manufacturers who are going with out Product Liability insurance right now.

As one owner told me, we are betting the business if we get sued.

Agree with this. It starts with the simplest nut and bolt stamped "aviation", and proceeds up through the entire assembly.

At every step of the game, that little slice is added in as a percentage. The bolts that go in your mags, which go in your engine, which go in the airplane.

It's not additive, but compounding.

If you want to see something similar in action, take a look at health care from a hospital. Look at the cost of something as simple as a syringe, that probably costs 0.05 to produce, but then look at what it costs on your final bill.

My guess is that easily 1/3 to 1/2 of the final tab is going to insurance, lawyers, or the administration to support them.

The $64,000,000 question is how do Ford, GM or the other car makers handle it? If I'm beeboping down the road, and someone hits me while fiddling with their car radio, do I get to sue the brake manufacturer, since they obviously were deficient in providing brakes that stop cars instantaneously, as well as the radio people for designing a car radio that can be tuned while in motion?

Let me make it clear that I have no malice towards the legal profession in the responsible (and desirable) process of torts. There is clearly a need for proceedings of this nature. But if 1/3 of the purchase price of a product is made of coverage for this kind of thing, then something is askew.

Best,
Rich

Tony is referring to someone here actively buying a G5 right now

There is an decent argument to make that this is the least relevant Hall of Fame thread ever on BT.

I should have been clearer, this is the part of Tom's post that I agree with.

I believe I know of the BT'er purchasing the G5.

AG

Thanks for your excellent answer, it goes back to your earlier post of we sure sue one another an awful lot.
Imagine the attorney fees, paid in full or part by Cirrus or their carrier to defend the Cory Lytle case?

insane costs for insane allegations

No, let's say the wing falls off. No one is hurt. Cirrus won't fix it to my satisfaction and tells me to pound sand. I file a claim (which is the only thing I can do other than pound sand) is that a covered loss under the policy? What if no lawsuit is filed, but the case is settled, is that a covered loss? What about a product defect recall from an AD is that covered? Remember the people bringing breach of warranty claims...are you, not some lawyer.

The key word is "occurrence" - an accident has to trigger the claim. If the wing fell off you have every right to file a claim alleging the product failed. The wing falling off is the occurrence.

There is no coverage for recalls or breach of warranty claims under the Aviation Products Liability policy.

edit - of course no lawsuit is necessary, you can simply file a claim. But the lawsuit means they are already looking at defense costs and the possibility of settlement is arguably more likely.