Public Liability

[facthunter]

 A "like" doesn't mean I want your last line to happen.  but I get your drift. None of us are getting out of this alive. I've used up a hell of a lot of luck. You have a fighting chance if you have the stick in your hand. Nev

[spacesailor]

Yes " none are getting out alive "

but

What happens to the few , who do  return,   from  that other 

" none existence  " . 

I can't claim that record , as a female, out of our 100 chosen children ,  ( 100 terminal disease,  to test penicillin) has claimed , " she too died & returned " .

" Been there done that " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Kerrie Packer did that and said "there's NOTHING there, Mate" . Factual evidence is thin on the ground. Nev

Edited February 5 by facthunter

[skippydiesel]

Turbs, What is the purpose of ;

• Public Liability Insurance ?
• Compensation as awarded by a court (or arbitration) to a plaintiff ?

As we know it in Australia.

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

Turbs, What is the purpose of ;

• Public Liability Insurance ?

Generally; to pay the amount awarded to an injured party and all the legal fees.

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

• Compensation as awarded by a court (or arbitration) to a plaintiff ?

As we know it in Australia.

Generally; to pay for the damage we've done to the plaintiff(s)

(As a very rough example if he has become a quadriplegic who can only lie on a bed attached to a breathing machine, he will need his house modified multiple nurses on shifts 24/7 x the number of years he lives plus specalist costs medical emergencies etc. The ones I've read about needed $10 to $15 million for that.

 

[facthunter]

It's compulsory with road vehicles and off road motorcycles and red plated vehicles. Nev

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's compulsory with road vehicles and off road motorcycles and red plated vehicles. Nev

That's Third Party Insurance, totally different system with precriptive controls like the old days.

The governmets decided they could control costs with that system on the roads.

[aro]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Generally; to pay the amount awarded to an injured party and all the legal fees.

No.

On 03/02/2024 at 3:33 PM, facthunter said:

I reckon you are morally obligated to insure, to ensure the aggrieved person(s) get compensation  they have every right to expect.  Nev

I wouldn't discourage people from insuring and I applaud your intentions, but that's not what insurance is there for.

 

Public liability insurance is there to protect YOUR assets. The insurance company takes over defending the case. If at all possible, they will pay zero to the injured party. If a payment seems inevitable, they will work to pay them the minimum possible amount.

 

When you took out the policy, you entered a contract to help them pay as little as possible to anyone injured. It doesn't matter who they are or how badly they are injured, you must work with the insurance company to minimize their payout.

 

If they can't show that you were negligent, they get nothing, no matter what they actually need. This isn't a very fair system - many people need help and don't get it, and much of the money is absorbed by insurance companies and lawyers.

 

That's why we have a different system for car crashes - they are common enough that the system couldn't cope with the cases to try to prove negligence, and the majority of people who need help would miss out. So we have a no-fault system where you are automatically covered and you don't have to prove someone (with assets) was negligent.

[spacesailor]

But , that CTP is now used for ' medical disabilities ' .

Not , just for the " motor accident victims '' .

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

But , that CTP is now used for ' medical disabilities ' .

Not , just for the " motor accident victims '' .

spacesailor

Compulsory Third Party is not Public Liability which is the subject of this thread.

 

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, aro said:

Public liability insurance is there to protect YOUR assets. The insurance company takes over defending the case. If at all possible, they will pay zero to the injured party. If a payment seems inevitable, they will work to pay them the minimum possible amount.

 

When you took out the policy, you entered a contract to help them pay as little as possible to anyone injured. It doesn't matter who they are or how badly they are injured, you must work with the insurance company to minimize their payout.

 

If they can't show that you were negligent, they get nothing, no matter what they actually need.

That happy scenario may appeal to Recreational Pilots, but if the injured party, the Plaintiff has gone to specialist PL Lawyers like Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon or the hundreds of other specialist PL Lawyers, some specialising in types of claims, those lawyers will be seeking the opposite of the Defence lawyer.

 

The case might be settled out of court at a relatively low cost, as low as the Plaintiffs claim being unproven and your legal costs awarded to you, or the opposite where you are proven negligent, all facts have been brought out in Court and the Judge makes the decision on compensation and awards costs to the Plaintiff.

 

Your Insurance needs to cover that worst case scenario.

 

The biggest issue in RA is the high number of pilots, officials, owners who have no idea what this is all about, no idea of the PL definition of negligence, so don't insure; they are the ones who could lose their homes.

 

For the same reason, the most common mistake in RA is potential Plaintiffs not knowing they had the right to sue. Since 2010, I've counted about 5 in that category who either went after the wrong people or didn't take any action becase they didn't know they could.

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

14 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

What is the purpose of ;

• Public Liability Insurance ?
• Compensation as awarded by a court (or arbitration) to a plaintiff ?

As we know it in Australia.

I rest my case -

 

Public Liability does not look after the injured party - is about the insurers assets and the insurance company's minimisation of payout (protection of profit).

 

The court (& arbitration) is an adversarial arena where two highly paid teams battle it out - it's not about justice/fair play/compassion. The team with the greatest financial backing will likely win (minimal -zero payout).

 

Add to the above the problem, the one time payout that has to maintain the injured party, possibly for the rest of their life - how can a court assess future economic conditions, further deterioration in health, lifespan, loss of future income, changing partner economic status,  dependent costs over time, etc??

 

The Australian system is a crock/shame/offence to  any level of ethical standing - we should and can do better but vested interest (legal industry?) stands in the way.

[onetrack]

I find it interesting that all the PL Insurance information is related to business activities. I have found nothing relating to individual, or simply recreational activities, that result in injury or damage to other parties. Every Insurance company site discusses your business operations, and nothing else. I wonder how many recreational fliers are running their aircraft as a business?

 

I find most legal firms sites are all about acquiring adequate compensation for personal injuries, thus indicating that's where the real money is. They go for the insurance companies as they know they have the funds available.

 

The bottom line is you have to indulge in negligent and grossly unsafe behaviour to be found responsible for others losses and injuries. That must be difficult to prove in many cases where innocent unintentional actions caused losses and injuries.

 

https://publicliabilityinsurance.com.au/what-is-public-liability-insurance/

[turboplanner]

9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I find it interesting that all the PL Insurance information is related to business activities. I have found nothing relating to individual, or simply recreational activities, that result in injury or damage to other parties. Every Insurance company site discusses your business operations, and nothing else. I wonder how many recreational fliers are running their aircraft as a business?

The link you provided is about businesses but if you look around you'll find individuals who were sued.

PL Insurance companies tend to specialise in areas where they build up very good experience.

9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I find most legal firms sites are all about acquiring adequate compensation for personal injuries, thus indicating that's where the real money is. They go for the insurance companies as they know they have the funds available.

Personal injuries make a good production line for some law firms, and when you're looking at the big ones even that is split up into sub groups.

 

9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

The bottom line is you have to indulge in negligent and grossly unsafe behaviour to be found responsible for others losses and injuries. That must be difficult to prove in many cases where innocent unintentional actions caused losses and injuries.

 

You haven't been reading the precedent and cases I put up "negligent and grossly unsafe" are positioning words but the precedent is based on just an oversight by Donoghue in not checking the bottles for snails. Most importantly Donoghues actions were unintentional.    It's the unintentional part that most people don't grasp.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I rest my case -

 

Public Liability does not look after the injured party - is about the insurers assets and the insurance company's minimisation of payout (protection of profit).

This was just a red herring someone posted, and from my experience working with insurers, they work like casinos with money coming in now (premiums, which cann be invested) and money going out later and a company percentage as the constant. This was the basis of Warren Buffet's fortune. With a machine like that, while some payouts will be greater than others, they're all covered, and to increase the percentage, the best action to take is to reduce the number of accidents, and therefore claims. This is what we did with our insurer and we were so successful that the insurer hired our Track Inspectors to do race Tracks they covered in the US.

 

As for the rest; that's what we have to work to whether we like it or not; a good reason to have adequate Public Liability Insurance that covers what we do, and then be able to leave all that philosophy to the people who work in that system.

[skippydiesel]

"As for the rest; that's what we have to work to whether we like it or not; a good reason to have adequate Public Liability Insurance that covers what we do, and then be able to leave all that philosophy to the people who work in that system."

 

Unfortunatly it is just this attitude, which facilities the continuance and even the setting up of systems , while legal, are wholly unethical.

 

In this system, the public (FYI: that's you and I) who can afford to pay to minimise their paranoia, brought on by marketing and urban myth, end up paying out over time,  huge amounts to "protect" themselves  from the faint possibility of a future claim against their assets.

 

Once again this has the stink of market economics/user pay's, where the Gov has abdicated responsibility for what should be a centralised system. In a civilised system, we would still pay (taxation) but, individually, less. All would be covered equally (no dollar rules). The injured would be supported for as long as, to the level necessary, for the best quality of life that could be expected (no one-off payouts).

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

"As for the rest; that's what we have to work to whether we like it or not; a good reason to have adequate Public Liability Insurance that covers what we do, and then be able to leave all that philosophy to the people who work in that system."

 

Unfortunatly it is just this attitude, which facilities the continuance and even the setting up of systems , while legal, are wholly unethical.

The attitude is that the public of Australia are not going to pay for your sports mistakes.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

In this system, the public (FYI: that's you and I) who can afford to pay to minimise their paranoia, brought on by marketing and urban myth, end up paying out over time,  huge amounts to "protect" themselves  from the faint possibility of a future claim against their assets.

If you don't like the system, you can always just pay the bill when the Judge makes his her decision.

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Once again this has the stink of market economics/user pay's, where the Gov has abdicated responsibility for what should be a centralised system. In a civilised system, we would still pay (taxation) but, individually, less. All would be covered equally (no dollar rules). The injured would be supported for as long as, to the level necessary, for the best quality of life that could be expected (no one-off payouts).

You're talking about communist or socialist systems there; we don't have one.

[spacesailor]

Socialist system. 

Were all motorists  are paying compulsory  insurance. 

For those who become victims of driver's errors. 

CTP .

spacesailor

PS: answered previous post .

[skippydiesel]

"The attitude is that the public of Australia are not going to pay for your sports mistakes."

 

Ultimately everyone pays  - either for a good system or much more, for a bad. 

The public have had a "snow job" done on them - irresponsible leadership had lead us down the garden path, to this sort of wrought. My limited understanding of the market economy is that somehow all costs can be isolated and the user pays - history clearly shows this is BS! We live in a society where many, if not, all costs are related/impacted by others. User pays does not work!

 

I"f you don't like the system, you can always just pay the bill when the Judge makes his her decision."

 

How does this change/improve/help anything?

 

"You're talking about communist or socialist systems there; we don't have one."

 

No! I am talking common sense, humanity and the understanding that no man/woman is an island - we all depend on society and its well constructed relationships for our economic well being. Market economics seeks to silo expenditure (user pays) - it can't be done & retain efficiency. For years I worked for a bureaucracy where funds/costs were siloed. There was no recognition of physical and or economic interdependent systems or synergy - result the whole system cost way more than it should. Despite the taxpayer coming to the rescue every year, there was a general winding down, as assets deteriorated systems/teams were lost - the Australian public has & will continue to lose valuable services due to this shorterm fake economic system that infects pretty much every facet of our lives.

 

Communism is a wholly discredited system, that has been comprehensively shown not to work.

 

Socialism, on the other hand, works very well in a number of counties and has done, for a long time.

 

I am not advocating for a Socialist state, only that we  remove our heads from the sand, check out what can/does work and be open to a more efficient/effective/ kinder way of governing ourselves.

 

The adversarial/court based system, for dealing with public liability, is a crock!