X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:31:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTPS id 6449866 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 01 Sep 2013 00:59:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=donkarich@gmail.com Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j10so3132753oah.15 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.102.66 with SMTP id fm2mr12856074oeb.21.1378011533743; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.29.134 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 21:58:53 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] LLC for Insurance - Caution From: Don Karich X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111b868f71e9604e54b4f5d --089e0111b868f71e9604e54b4f5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would check with Hayes Utley in Kentucky mbisinger @huhinsurance.com I used them for 20 some years in california and found them exceptional in every way . i think they could handle your needs On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 3:15 PM, mark and patricia garrard < mpgarr01@hotmail.com> wrote: > As I understand it, you & your partner want to insure a Lancair turbine > aircraft located in CA. The only available insurer has determined not to > do business in that state. You propose forming an LLC in NV (presumably > making the A/C an asset of that LLC, at least on paper) in order to get t= he > desired coverage from the company. Presumably the A/C is in CA and you > intend to base it there or the insurer would not be balking about doing > business in that state. > > It's certainly possible the company will ultimately accept your premiums > and issue coverage to a newly formed NV entity. As a retired/reformed > lawyer, however, I have concerns about your proposal. Unless you are tru= ly > doing business in NV and have substantial business contacts with that sta= te > there's a real risk that plaintiff's counsel will attempt to "pierce the > corporate veil" in the event of a mishap in CA or any other state apart > from NV. > > Piercing the corporate veil involves holding the owners of an LLC (you an= d > your partner) liable for the debts of the company (damages in a mishap). > Generally, piercing the corporate veil can only be done in extreme > situations such as when the shareholder commits fraud or when the > corporation is deemed the =93alter ego=94 of the shareholder. The stand= ard > for successfully piercing the corporate veil in NV may be stricter than i= n > your home state. However, it is important to note that if litigation tak= es > place in your home state or in some other state besides NV, conflicts of > laws principles may cause the law of a state other than NV to control > whether a piercing the corporate veil action would be successful. In oth= er > words, judges often have a lot of discretion as to which state=92s laws a= pply > in multi-state cases and often begin with the assumption that the law of > the forum applies unless a party can show that another state=92s laws hav= e > greater contacts or interests in the case. > > In fact, while NV corporations are often promoted as being particularly > useful to business owners in CA, CA has been one of the most aggressive > states in applying its own corporate laws to businesses incorporated > elsewhere but doing business in CA. The more serious the mishap, the > greater the scrutiny your "corp." is going to be subject to. > > Recommend you consult CA counsel with a background in aviation law before > leaping on this idea. > > Cheers, Mark (Notre Dame, JD, 1984) > --089e0111b868f71e9604e54b4f5d Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would check with Hayes Utley in Kentucky mbisinger @huhinsurance.com =A0I used them for 20 = some years in california and found them exceptional in every way . i think = they could handle your needs


On Sat, Aug 3= 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, mark and patricia garrard <mpgarr01@hotmail.com= > wrote:
As I understand it, you & your partner want to in= sure a Lancair turbine aircraft located in CA.=A0 The only available insure= r has determined not to do business in that state.=A0 You propose forming a= n LLC in NV (presumably making the A/C an asset of that LLC, at least on pa= per) in order to get the desired coverage from the company.=A0 Presumably t= he A/C is in CA and you intend to base it there or the insurer would not be= balking about doing business in that state.

It's certainly possible the company will ultimately accept your pre= miums and issue coverage to a newly formed NV entity.=A0 As a retired/refor= med lawyer, however, I have concerns about your proposal.=A0 Unless you are= truly doing business in NV and have substantial business contacts with tha= t state there's a real risk that plaintiff's counsel will attempt t= o "pierce the corporate veil" in the event of a mishap in CA or a= ny other state apart from NV.

Piercing the corporate veil involves holding the owners of an LLC (you = and your partner) liable for the debts of the company (damages in a mishap)= .=A0=20 Generally, piercing the corporate veil can only be done in extreme=20 situations such as when the shareholder commits fraud or when the=20 corporation is deemed the =93alter ego=94 of the shareholder. =A0 The stand= ard=20 for successfully piercing the corporate veil in NV may be stricter=20 than in your home state.=A0 However, it is important to note that if litig= ation takes place in your home state or in some other state besides=20 NV, conflicts of laws principles may cause the law of a state other=20 than NV to control whether a piercing the corporate veil action=20 would be successful.=A0 In other words, judges often have a lot of=20 discretion as to which state=92s laws apply in multi-state cases and often begin with the assumption that the law of the forum applies unless a=20 party can show that another state=92s laws have greater contacts or=20 interests in the case. =A0

In fact, while NV corporations are often= =20 promoted as being particularly useful to business owners in CA,=20 CA has been one of the most aggressive states in applying its=20 own corporate laws to businesses incorporated elsewhere but doing=20 business in CA. The more serious the mishap, the greater the scrutiny your = "corp." is going to be subject to.

Recommend you consult C= A counsel with a background in aviation law before leaping on this idea.
Cheers, Mark (Notre Dame, JD, 1984)

--089e0111b868f71e9604e54b4f5d--