Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.erols.com ([207.172.3.237]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:27:25 -0400 Received: from preinstalledcom (209-122-224-205.s459.tnt3.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.224.205]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id JAA12184 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38072C1F.3D00@erols.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:29:03 -0400 From: "Jeffrey B. Chipetine" Reply-To: abcrental@erols.com To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: LNC2 SB050-0999 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Gentlemen, In keeping up w/ the "alternatives" mentioned to compliance w/ SB in question, I would respectfully suggest that an inquiry as to the insurance issue be made. In these days where we are seeing the major insurance companies attempting to weasel out of paying legitimate claims for any reason whatsoever, I would hesitate to "not fully comply" with a Service Bulletin. As has been stated on this forum, a SB is considered by some to be analagous to an "AD". It wouldn't take a great leap of thought for a creative insurance adjuster to bounce a claim where this may be an issue. While I'm sure that the readers and builders agree that THEY should be responsible for detirmining the necessity for "compliance" with the SB, we are not necessarily the last word on this issue. While I realize that I'm just adding my .02 worth of 100LL to the fire, I don't believe that this issue should be ignored without being cognizent of the possible insurance complications.(I.E. "don't shoot the messanger) Respectfully, Jeffrey B. Chipetine [I second that. Ref my addendum to Bill Rumburg's last post on the subject Service Bulletin. ] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html