Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1131952/

Topic: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Flyingbronco05
Posted 2003-07-15 19:49:52 and read 2470 times.

United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bankrupt United Airlines sued a unit of insurer American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG - News) on Tuesday, demanding that the insurer pay $25 million to cover some of the airline's losses after U.S. air traffic was shut down following the hijack attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030715/airlines_united_aig_2.html

Why didn't UAL do this sooner? Seems like they need money fast cause they are not doing too well so they figure they might as well sue somebody.

I would like to see UAL and all the carriers stay alive, but this just seems cheap.

FB05

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Greg
Posted 2003-07-15 20:01:03 and read 2449 times.

The policy covered "Property and Business Interruption" --how could the events of 9/11 not be considered both?
And why is making a claim on a policy you pay for considered 'cheap'?
It's a legitimate claim...and will likely be paid (althought the amount may not be as requested). If not voluntarily, then in court.


Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Flyingbronco05
Posted 2003-07-15 20:19:20 and read 2418 times.

the reason it is cheap is because it has been almost 2 years and they are only doing it now. Seems like they are doing it now that they are in need of money.

FB05

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Gigneil
Posted 2003-07-15 20:25:46 and read 2407 times.

I'm sure that there have been extensive negotations and possibly even arbitration to resolve the issue over the last few years.

Lawsuits really should be the last resort... and perhaps United has exhausted other options while we weren't watching.

N

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Greg
Posted 2003-07-15 20:51:55 and read 2381 times.

Beleive me, they didn't just file the claim--they've been mulling it over with AIG for years.
The statute of limitations for seeking damages is approaching shortly---that's why it's news NOW. Any legal action would likely need to be filed within 90 days.

My opinion is still that they will prevail in some reasonable recovery.

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Bobrayner
Posted 2003-07-15 20:55:14 and read 2377 times.

Don't have any details of the insurance contract...

For all we know, AIG could be claiming that some exclusion clause applies (acts of war, to take one possible example) but United think it doesn't.

How much did United get from the ATSB &c.? It could be that AIG thinks such federal payouts absolve it from responsibility.

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Greg
Posted 2003-07-15 22:00:12 and read 2328 times.

You are right in saying that the AIG stance is that any gov't reparation effectively negates their responsibility and dissolves the contract since those rewards are issued as a result of damages inflicted during a war.

So, it's largely an argument over semantics....but then so are most of all contractual disputes.

Should be interesting.

Topic: RE: United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims
Username: Elwood64151
Posted 2003-07-16 03:02:32 and read 2244 times.

Funny... I wasn't aware we were at war on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001, at 8:44 am.

In fact, the United States has not officially declared war since the morning of December 8th, 1941. It isn't politically correct to go to war...


In any event, UA had no expectation of losing its aircraft on the morning of the 11th of Sept, 2001. That's like saying the windshear accident at DFW (DL L1011) was an "act of God", and so negates the insurance company's responsibility to pay DL for the aircraft, or that the UA DC-10's engine exploding in mid-flight of Iowa was an "act of God" that negates responsibility.

The fact is, insurance companies insure people for what is not likely to happen, but probably will happen some day, and then refuse to pay for it. To my mind, that's fraud.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/