Prop strike and an AD question

[Michael Henning]

David,
The insurance has told me to pound sand on the connecting rods. I have written an appeal email to the adjuster, and have not yet heard back. I have spoken to a friend of mine who is an Aviation Lawyer with 37 years experience, and he said it is a "no brainer", the insurance is on the hook for the rods as they were removed as a "direct " result of the prop strike. If I am told to pound sand again, my friend will take it from there.
My logic is the rods were good until the prop strike rendered them unusable by activating the AD.

[BobTurner]

Why isn?t your lawyer suing the rod manufacturer? Aren?t they the ones who really are responsible?

[Michael Henning]

ECI is the manufacturer. They were sold, so that would be difficult.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Michael Henning

ECI is the manufacturer. They were sold, so that would be difficult.

Actually it's not. When you buy a company all of it's previous liability comes with it, part and parcel. The acquiring company is equal as responsible as the acquired company.

I think Bob was being sarcastic. The Rod company will laugh harder than the insurance company. It is a well established industry standard in Aviation engines, that the consumer pays for all safety related engineering defects, post warranty. Also, the insurance co. understands that you will invest far more in lawyer fees than the cost of the rods before reaching a settlement. The Insurance company has attorneys on staff to deal with your complaint without incremental cost. You're circumstance are not as "cut and dried" as you think.

Larry

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Michael Henning

My logic is the rods were good until the prop strike rendered them unusable by activating the AD.

I don't believe that logic is sound. Clearly your rods are not good and that is why the manufacturer issued a mandatory replacement. They are a ticking time bomb. The manufacturer clearly believes that 1500 hours is not fully adequate to cover 100% of failures, otherwise they would not have added the requirement to replace at tear down.

Anyway you cut it, you have defective rods that are being replaced because they have a design flaw and will likely or possibly fail, not because you had a prop strike.

I don't mean to harp here, but wanted you to see the counter argument. That is what your lawyer will have to prove is BS to win. You are the plaintiff and are required to prove that your argument has more merit than theirs.

Larry

[Plummit]

Originally Posted by lr172

Also, the insurance co. understands that you will invest far more in lawyer fees than the cost of the rods before reaching a settlement. The Insurance company has attorneys on staff to deal with your complaint without incremental cost.

Larry

I disagree, the insurance company will spend a lot more than the value of the rods defending this, and when they lose, they will be on the hook for the plaintiff's legal cost and possibly punitive damages.

Its typical for them to deny coverage initially, then when the claim gets "elevated", cut their losses and settle.
-Marc

[Michael Henning]

The rods in question have never failed. There is one part that is not perfectly round that was discovered not through a failure, but a different type of wear. None have failed.

[BobTurner]

Here?s what should happen:
The engine is installed on an RV (right?).
Strictly speaking the AD does not apply.
The insurance company should recommend, in the strongest terms, that you pay for new rods. If you say no, they should ask you to sign a waiver, then re-assemble your engine, with the old rods.

[Michael Henning]

The insurance company and I came to a suitable agreement. I now have brand new connecting rods.

[Saber25]

I have only carried liability on my -4 the past 29 years. So how will this claim impact further insurance premiums in the case of the prop strike settlement. Will the carrier continue with the customer at former rates or will an increase be a condition for further hull insurance?

Cheers, Hans