http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/03/27/model-hurt-by-propeller-rejects-settlement-sues/?tsp=1 Lauren Scruggs, the 23-year-old Texas fashion blogger who lost a hand and eye in a plane propeller accident last December, has rejected a $200,000 settlement and sued the planes insurer, according to the Courthouse News Service. Scruggs complaint in Dallas County Court says the plane was insured by defendant Aggressive Insurance Services, as was a separate plane owned by (pilot Curt) Richmond. The policy for Richmonds plane contained a provision that extends coverage to other planes he piloted. Both policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and a sublimit of $100,000 per passenger. Both policies define the term passenger as any person, other than the pilot, who is in the aircraft or getting in or out of it, according to her complaint. Scruggs said Aggressive offered to pay her the $100,000 sublimit for each of the policies for a total settlement of $200,000. She said the insurer took the position that she was a passenger as defined by both policies. Scruggs disagreed, saying that the sublimits are not applicable because she was not a passenger,and that she was not in the aircraft or getting in or out of it at the time of the incident. Scruggs is represented by William Angelley with Hightower Angelley in Dallas. ---------------------------------------------- They should sue her, IMO.
If she only knew how to walk and look in the same direction at the same time. People try to get money no matter how much at fault they are.
And just when I thought humans were decent...are you kidding me?? If she wasn't a passenger then what was she? Ground crew? Maintenence? Gimme a break.
Not sure if that post is directed at me, but yes, I had read it when the incident occurred. There is a risk to living. If we are careless, it can lead to funny, unpleasant, painful, or tragic consequences, including fatalities. We cannot blame others for the consequences of our own carelessness, or demand that they be held financially accountable somehow. This lawsuit boggles the mind. Personal responsibility--what an alien concept in this society. Wow!
This may be getting nit-picky, but the final part where the attorney's information is, isn't it customary (or even required) to include the City, State, and ZIP or are people (or the court) supposed to guess it when sending correspondence? The argument of "not a passenger" may hold weight, but I'd argue that although she got off, she's in the process of going to her vehicle/whatever she was going to, and thus still a passenger. Should be interesting to see how this plays out though.
Isn't the amount she is suing for independent of how much insurance coverage the owner/pilot has? She can sue him for $10 million dollars if she wants to. The insurance company isn't the one who is allegedly at fault. It is the owner/pilot. So, IMO, the amount of insurance is immaterial. The owner/pilot is her friend, so maybe she is trying to minimize the financial impact on him by focusing on the available insurance coverage. I would expect the insurance company to say its max exposure is limited to $200k, post a bond for $200k with the court, and let the owner/pilot defend himself against the lawsuit. The judgement will be against the owner/pilot, not the insurance company. I have no legal training and I'm not an attorney, so maybe I'm way off here. .
You are correct however the question for the insurance company is weather they owe 200k depending on the definition of passenger which they have a 200k limit, or if they are not a "passenger" then the limit is 1mm. The insurance is trying to limit their exposure, anything greater than what the policy limits are will be on the insured.
Its all moot now. I have it from a reliable source here in Dallas that the suit has been settled. Of course, the settlement terms are sealed.
It does appear that a settlement has been reached. http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2012/03/27/model-hurt-by-propeller-offered-200000-settlement/ They updated this story recently. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, as to the was she a 'passenger' question. Here's how it played out, and here's why she was offered the top settlement from the two combined insurers. First, she was definitely a passenger on the plane only minutes before the accident. The plane was in operation, with a certified pilot at the controls at the time of the accident. She was in the process of going to or from the aircraft from which she was a passenger at the time of the accident. These taken together mean that she was injured as a passenger, and was entitled and restricted to the terms of the policy from the perspective of the insurer. Of course, she could have sued for billions if she wanted. However, her atty likely told her that the policy limit was the end of the gravy train, and that the pilot had little or no resources, and by the time they were done with a trial he would have even less, and would declare BK, and then she would have to pay the atty fees in addition to some court costs, and would recover much less in the end. In short, she got all the pie there was to get, and rejected what little crumbs might have remained. Now, as for liability, the aircraft world is upside down, and backward when it comes to awards and judgments. Imagine if you will, walking out on 75 during the mid day, and being struck by a car - or 10. Then you would sue those cars for all the death/damage done to you, and you would lose because you had no business being on the 75 as a ped. It is nothing like this in the aviation world. the pilot is liable for everything, even someone walking into a prop after she had been told to go to the building by the pilot. Of course, he bears some responsibility for not shutting down, but in this case they tagged him for every dime. He'll never get another carrier to touch him for less than triple or more premium, which is already pretty steep.
I know we are mostly all pilots here, so probably most are trying to be sympathetic to the pilot/aircraft owner - BUT: This never would have happened if the pilot had shut down the airplane before letting her deplane. That is a standard safety procedure for operating this type of aircraft. It was bypassed to get more passengers in and out of the ship in a limited amount of time - ironically, this actually put MORE people at the risk of a prop strike. It is also ironic that the insurance companies argument that she was a passenger also argues that her safety was in the charge of the pilot - no matter how dumb she might have been to walk into that prop. The $200,000 sounds to me like a pretty small amount of settlement given the nature of the injuries.
It's my understanding, from another aviation site, that the pilot HAD shut down to deplane her. It was dark, and she headed back toward the aircraft, possibly to thank the pilot. Whether she realized the prop was spinning, was excited, ears were ringing, or any of a number of reasons, who knows? As a career aviator, this is every pilot's nightmare. $200K for such serious injuries seems low, so the lawsuit would have been necessary. This is what insurance is for. From what I've seen, the legal system for the most part works fairly in such cases. Why are folks so quick to judge/ridicule/blame the victim? At the end of the day, those insurance exec's standard of living is still 10-20X that of the victim. Who's zoomin' who?
