Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Sues AIG Over Sept. 11 Loss Claims  
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2583 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


Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2562 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.




User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2531 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



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2520 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


User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2494 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.


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2490 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.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2441 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.



User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2357 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.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL To Start BOS-DAY Sept. 11! posted Thu Jul 27 2006 03:06:59 by FlyPeoria
San Mateo County Sues State Over Jet Tax posted Thu May 18 2006 02:43:16 by Freedomtofly
NWA Sues Amfa Over 'Acts Of Civil Disobedience' posted Mon Sep 5 2005 22:47:48 by KarlB737
Former KC Aviation Official Sues City Over Firing posted Thu Jul 7 2005 00:52:21 by Stlgph
Man Sues Alitalia Over Lack Of Legroom posted Tue Jun 7 2005 09:14:27 by MAH4546
United Plane Diverted Over Vials Of Liquid posted Wed Apr 27 2005 04:04:52 by Squirrel83
KC-10 & Companion Over Chicago 9/11/04 posted Sun Sep 12 2004 16:30:06 by Airfinair
Sept 11....3 Years Ago posted Sat Sep 11 2004 06:39:01 by Vincent32
Passenger Sues BA Over Leg Room posted Thu Aug 5 2004 03:07:48 by Squirrel83
NW Loses Lawsuit Over Pax Hearing-loss In-flight. posted Thu Jul 1 2004 10:55:29 by AirframeAS