X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:32:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp102.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.200.237] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with SMTP id 3754788 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:35:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.200.237; envelope-from=wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com Received: (qmail 68572 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2009 22:34:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO your4dacd0ea75) (wpedwards@76.166.202.170 with login) by smtp102.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2009 22:34:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: kniD.fKswBBF8QeradIzKYnHAI1VC8wy27IMWeNusi_zdSrRCVE1 X-YMail-OSG: dvblRdYVM1lej4fOu7lVNkJGVxhdeyq_qodvHUTiJXWEhvwmLFxzLsDyl6STrMwKZkxX8g4mGi4AxxoGd8tBuna5VdmPcrvt5BN5Xdu3nEgDqKL_bzqWXOuYL.qM33FMi0k6vEfm64KD_27iyfebYXdjp3xm3YhrKEpp7cgxWTyRS4ViVzonUSw_OjIZNFcrYlXa_zP8hvZe2bFu5GnbqW1De0m6DoAgzbue5KPyCwhTF0vk2FUw.mQGnHqSBJxVspcb61VE.Lds6r4VvkA2u_j_Zv3Td.u6Leq7E8c0U7NiWAlN0bar8mxB4nhU X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Bill Edwards" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair Insurance Inspection - you be the judge... X-Original-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:34:32 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <005001ca0340$edc177b0$c9446710$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA0306.41629FB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcoDOvb5u3XK2nkWRuuFreAXE3GhSQABWsyA Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090711-0, 07/11/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA0306.41629FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm sure that Lancair knows that the amount of damage is too small to interest an attorney, and small claims suits have to be served in California. I have no legal recourse but I thought other IVP owners would like to know Lancair company policies with regard to inspection damage. From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case at earthlink Sent: 07/12/2009 2:52 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair Insurance Inspection - you be the judge... Bill, very sorry to hear that. I guess there is a difference between being commercially correct and legally correct. Hopefully the former will eventually prevail. regards, Colyn ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA0306.41629FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm sure that Lancair knows that the amount of damage is = too small to interest an attorney, and small claims suits have to be served = in California. I have no legal recourse but I thought other IVP = owners would like to know Lancair company policies with regard to inspection = damage.

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case at = earthlink
Sent: 07/12/2009 2:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Lancair Insurance Inspection - you be the = judge...

Bill,<= o:p>

very sorry to hear that.

I guess there is a difference between being commercially correct and = legally correct.

Hopefully the former will eventually prevail.

regards,

Colyn<= o:p>

------=_NextPart_000_0051_01CA0306.41629FB0--