This article by the famous US aviation writer Richard Collins says
What is the actual legal mechanism in play here?
Presumably the insurance pays out, and I would expect any payout to be “final” i.e. you sign away the right to have another go a bit later.
So who is suing Cirrus?
The insurance company?
And what for? Most crashes are not manufacturing defects.
I can see Joe Public using an ambulance chasing vermin lawyer to collect a cheque for $50k which an insurance company will probably give you to get you off their back (but again only as a full and final settlement of all claims) but would an insurance company go after Cirrus for such a trivial amount?
I’m not an expert, but the insurer will simply reflect those costs in the premium, and there’s a point where the manufaturer can’t afford it.
Richard “Dick” Collins has a history of beeing biased twds. Cirrus Aircraft and Cirrus Pilots. There have been several articles by him that were discussed on COPA, but after checking some of them (no time to read them all) he seems to have the facts wrong. I think Cirrus doesn’t get sued more often than any other manufacturer.
A large number of those accidents were outside the US. In Europe the hurdles to extract money from the manufacturer are very high and I would not expect a lot lawsuits.
I guess in the US it’s as he writes — the totally broken legal system combined with the business model of contingency lawyers (mostly illegal here) makes it worthwhile to blackmail. I’ve been subject to such blackmail several times myself and even when 110% right, I ended up paying to stop the nuisance. One of the most frustrating experiences you can make.
Where there’s a buck to be made, there’s a way. Never more true than in the US which can be a positive thing in that entrepreunarial and innovative spirit is engrained but it is open to abuse, especially in the field of product liability/torts. And we are talking about a complex piece of machinery designed by humans – the first production Cirrus was lost with the test pilot. Remember though that the lawyers are interpreting legislation passed by Congress/parliament (although some of those interpretations are surprising to say the least. Culturally, the courts would appear to be less tolerant of remote product liability claims here in Europe.
The Cirrus range appear to me (having sat in one and spoken with the owner but not flown one so happy to be disabused) to be more advanced than your average spam can although it is not clear to me whether this is just the glass cockpit or the design as well (apart from the CAPS). I see there was a Cirrus crash due to asymmetric flap deployment. At my school, a student coming back from his first solo nav experienced the same in a PA-28 without incident (and a boot full of rudder). Would this be a pilot skills issue for the Cirrus or a design?
The v-tail Bonanza picked up a negative reputation as a “doctor killer” but there are arguments that the “doctors” were weekend flyers flying a fast plane requiring a higher degree of skill and attentiveness than some may have been prepared or able to do.
Back to the question; if competitor aircraft such as Diamonds have less claims, then query whether Cirrus, marketing that it is the safest GA aircraft, offering training etc., attracts “(vermin)” :) lawyers like moths to a flame. The more you offer in a sale, the more variables there are and consequently, the more there is to pick on. The claims would be on behalf of the pilot or pax’s families/estate.
Something else worth looking at is how much Cirrus has had to pay out. I don’t recall seeing anything about massive punitive damages (these don’t exist anyways in the UK) which is what can really hurt a company.
Something else worth looking at is how much Cirrus has had to pay out. I don’t recall seeing anything about massive punitive damages (these don’t exist anyways in the UK) which is what can really hurt a company.
Does Cirrus publish detailed accounts, which would show payouts – either direct ones to settle a claim or the overall cost of insurance?
I know people have a go at the US legal system but when I speak to somebody who actually knows it in detail, or knows of a specific case, the story is different from the press headlines. What you tend to get is a headline like “$100M awarded to…” but by the time it goes to appeal, and the journos have moved on to [insert your favourite film star]’s latest squeeze, it has been reduced to $1M, and actually the money was never paid because of some detail like it was agreed that somebody else was liable (as was the case with a well publicised Sandel payout which never actually took place).
That was my original Q. Almost any discussion of Cirrus (and some others) becomes a religious debate otherwise.
I’ve been subject to such blackmail several times myself and even when 110% right, I ended up paying to stop the nuisance. One of the most frustrating experiences you can make.
Yes – that happens everywhere. But those payouts tend to be smaller. The typical blackmail payout is 5 figures, because anything bigger is worth engaging a competent lawyer over. And 5 figures multiplied by the number of Cirrus crashes is still small change.
Here in the UK, insurers routinely approve blackmail payouts of ~20k in employee litigation cases, regardless of the case’s merits.
That made me laugh, you are right, it is good practice to avoid religious and political comments in forums :).
The accounts should show this or more laborious, a search on a US case law database would at least identify cases and decisions (damages paid out). I’m on the Eurostar but might be able to have a quick look later. Equally, someone has probably done this already somewhere on the Internet.
It appears difficult to find out the whole chain because it isn’t automatically all online.
Somebody tried that with the Sandel case (a Cirrus crash where the pilot tried to land with the HSI pegged at full scale laterally, and the lawyer convinced the stupid jury that there was no rule against flying an ILS down to 200ft with a full scale deflection on the LOC) and found that the only way to research it was to travel to the actual court and dig through their records – which would need a lot more motivation than somebody is going to do for a forum post. It was Goodrich who paid out eventually but that bit remained in the court records which nobody bothered to dig out.
I don’t really see an issue here. All of these planes are, more or less, on the same technical level (same engine, same avionics, same electrical system, accessories …) Lawyers might find these things interesting though …
So, okay, a loose aileron, failing landing gear or asymmetric flap deployment could make the difference … But every type has its strenghts and weaknesses. I tellyou that I much rather fly in turbulence with the SR22 than with my Warrior because I don’t see how anything could breal the Cirrus’ spar – while it has happened several times in PA-28s.
I know people have a go at the US legal system but when I speak to somebody who actually knows it in detail, or knows of a specific case, the story is different from the press headlines. What you tend to get is a headline like “$100M awarded to…” but by the time it goes to appeal, and the journos have moved on to [insert your favourite film star]’s latest squeeze, it has been reduced to $1M, and actually the money was never paid because of some detail like it was agreed that somebody else was liable (as was the case with a well publicised Sandel payout which never actually took place).
Except the problem that is as a defendant, even if you win you lose: the US doesn’t have a strong “loser pays legal fees” concept (which is also a double-edged sword, as “loser pays” means a wealthy defendant who really is liable can just run a plaintiff with a real case out of money) – the defendant, who has a rock solid case, still can end up paying a lot in legal fees which they will never get back even if the case against them is ridiculous. So quite often they end up paying out of court because it’s cheaper than the legal fees, and this just goes on to encourage people to use contingency lawyers to sue on the most flimsiest of grounds.
