X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:33:40 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4479772@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <carllaru@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.9)
  with ESMTP id 4478877 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:34:19 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.52; envelope-from=carllaru@gmail.com
Received: by ywo32 with SMTP id 32so1341975ywo.25
        for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=if85JPS+RWox2l1Gyro+G8nV91wGKUBxFN7W/UpW1yho8fxxCaTqse1rH0zY7p9ZcE
         NZXMJhMZEdlqdGGOpL303/yGvQq6oCrbgmoEaiz1nwDDedc4oQ9s6OVJXp+LEigxpsBV
         PXV4Bk38Vnj+8B4dgLWMQkf8+WlBjvrym+Udg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.169.14 with SMTP id w14mr1338405vcy.17.1285295623103; Thu,
 23 Sep 2010 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.57.202 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <list-4458120@logan.com>
References: <list-4458120@logan.com>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:33:43 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <AANLkTik-okiXM5ourJV0j5ZQNSReKXHzLYDmD9gUS1Bk@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] loss of use after prop damage
From: Carl La Rue <carllaru@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e646a4560be5040490f83545

--0016e646a4560be5040490f83545
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

David,

My LIVP suffered a prop strike at my local airport, engine running, when my
nose gear broke/fell into a damaged fuel pit access cover.  Between having
the engine removed and sent it for teardown/inspection and having to wait
for a new Hartzell prop, I was down for a full six months.  The airport
insurance paid in full but denied loss of use.  That incensed my attorney.

 We eventually received a very substantial loss of use settlement in a
"settlement" that was not adjudicated.  You will probably not find a
documented precedent because we couldn't.........apparently they are settled
so as not to create a precedent.

Contact me offline at 740-439-4988 for further details.

Carl La Rue

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, David Standish <carbonflier@gmail.com>wrote:

> Any suggestions as to how to value loss of use of my airplane after my
> propeller incident?  The propeller was damaged by an FBO in Spokane.  Does
> any one know of some formula the insurance industry might use based on
> typical hourly expense multiplied by days grounded?  Would one attempt to
> claim the expense of planned trips on the airlines vs. expense of flying my
> airplane?  For example the price of three airline tickets to Reno less six
> hours expenses for my LNC-4.  I was at the beginning of a flying vacation
> when the incident happened.  During August to October I had planned to fly
> to Spokane (twice), Eugene, Front Range, Races at Reno, and perhaps training
> at Napa.  All those airline tickets would be thousands of dollars not to
> mention loss of use for spur of the moment purposes.
>
> The propeller is being repaired in Seattle.  The engine is in the middle of
> tear down for inspection in Tulsa (Barrett).  TCM's position was that if the
> propeller could not be repaired on the airplane that mandatory tear down and
> inspection was required regardless of the results of the propeller and prop.
> flange inspection.
>
> David
>
> --
> For archives and unsub
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>

--0016e646a4560be5040490f83545
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David,<br><br>My LIVP suffered a prop strike at my local airport, engine ru=
nning, when my nose gear broke/fell into a damaged fuel pit access cover.=
=A0 Between having the engine removed and sent it for teardown/inspection a=
nd having to wait for a new Hartzell prop, I was down for a full six months=
.=A0 The airport insurance paid in full but denied loss of use.=A0 That inc=
ensed my attorney.<br>
<br>=A0We eventually received a very substantial loss of use settlement in =
a &quot;settlement&quot; that was not adjudicated.=A0 You will probably not=
 find a documented precedent because we couldn&#39;t.........apparently the=
y are settled so as not to create a precedent.<br>
<br>Contact me offline at 740-439-4988 for further details.<br><br>Carl La =
Rue<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Davi=
d Standish <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:carbonflier@gmail.com">c=
arbonflier@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Any suggestions a=
s to how to value loss of use of my airplane after my propeller incident? =
=A0The propeller was damaged by an FBO in Spokane. =A0Does any one know of =
some formula the insurance industry might use based on typical hourly expen=
se multiplied by days grounded? =A0Would one attempt to claim the expense o=
f planned trips on the airlines vs. expense of flying my airplane? =A0For e=
xample the price of three airline tickets to Reno less six hours expenses f=
or my LNC-4. =A0I was at the beginning of a flying vacation when the incide=
nt happened. =A0During August to October I had planned to fly to Spokane (t=
wice), Eugene, Front Range, Races at Reno, and perhaps training at Napa. =
=A0All those airline tickets would be thousands of dollars not to mention l=
oss of use for spur of the moment purposes.<br>

<br>
The propeller is being repaired in Seattle. =A0The engine is in the middle =
of tear down for inspection in Tulsa (Barrett). =A0TCM&#39;s position was t=
hat if the propeller could not be repaired on the airplane that mandatory t=
ear down and inspection was required regardless of the results of the prope=
ller and prop. flange inspection.<br>

<br>
David<br><font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
--<br>
For archives and unsub <a href=3D"http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lm=
l/List.html" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L=
ist.html</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e646a4560be5040490f83545--