Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:07:36 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4461527@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=carbonflier@gmail.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ISiAthaICbdXqttAyCVPk5JxuL4knHkkx96VsJDS5SzgBl/vjqNKtGA5bT7PLuhPQa
         sibBrD8K3DgV92buIPosHiPrJFwpV+lph++k0cs4HqgRKYvdm2/iR9pjLTCc8swDWN9q
         j++mGotpsQVTvdSKXLiA2kjiQ5dkwC1srzobE=
From: David Standish <carbonflier@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Re: Loss of use after prop damage
References: <redirect-4459422@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <redirect-4459422@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No invoices have been received or paid as of yet.  The FBO's insurance 
company has been cooperative and not adversarial so far.  We shall see 
when it is actually time for money to change hands if they are still so 
nice.

David


Gary Casey wrote:
> I'm afraid I have no expertise in the conventions regarding "loss of 
> use", but I'm a little surprised that the insurance company would be 
> willing to pay for a teardown.  As I understand it, the requirement 
> for a teardown after a prop strike evolved when occasional accessory 
> drive and magneto problems surfaced after an event.  With the engine 
> not turning, none of those problems could occur and even a crankshaft 
> failure is almost impossible without the flange being bent.  I can 
> understand TCM saying it was required, as it releases them from any 
> future liability - it would go to the rebuilder.  And they're not 
> paying for it.  And the owner would likely "require" a teardown for 
> the same reasons - and he's not paying for it and he logically wants 
> everything done that is possible.  I'm only a little surprised at the 
> insurance company paying for it, as paying for the teardown helps 
> release them from future liability.  It's all about putting up a 
> shield against future liability claims - all just my opinion, of 
> course :-)
> Gary Casey
> No law experience except on the receiving end of frivolous lawsuits
> *
> *
> Any suggestions as to how to value loss of use of my airplane after my 
> propeller incident?  The propeller was damaged by an FBO in Spokane.  
> Does any one know of some formula the insurance industry might use 
> based on typical hourly expense multiplied by days grounded?  Would 
> one attempt to claim the expense of planned trips on the airlines vs. 
> expense of flying my airplane?  For example the price of three airline 
> tickets to Reno less six hours expenses for my LNC-4.  I was at the 
> beginning of a flying vacation when the incident happened.  During 
> August to October I had planned to fly to Spokane (twice), Eugene, 
> Front Range, Races at Reno, and perhaps training at Napa.  All those 
> airline tickets would be thousands of dollars not to mention loss of 
> use for spur of the moment purposes.
>
> The propeller is being repaired in Seattle.  The engine is in the 
> middle of tear down for inspection in Tulsa (Barrett).  TCM's position 
> was that if the propeller could not be repaired on the airplane that 
> mandatory tear down and inspection was required regardless of the 
> results of the propeller and prop. flange inspection.
>
> David
>