X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:14:29 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [70.62.14.124] (HELO server1.USTEK) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.14) with ESMTP id 3755895 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:00:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=70.62.14.124; envelope-from=r.simon@ustek.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA03E3.DE2D193C" Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair Insurance Inspection - you be the judge... X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 X-Original-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:00:53 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Lancair Insurance Inspection - you be the judge... thread-index: AcoD49zE6aLiZuaIS3CK2ocm2s8R7g== From: "Lancair" X-Original-Sender: "Robert Simon" X-Original-To: "Bill Edwards" , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA03E3.DE2D193C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In brighter economic times the factory might not have even discussed the issue - they would have apologized, paid, and moved on. As was noted, the inspector went out of his way to improve things as he went through the inspection. That attitude is what one used to expect from Lancair. Today every penny counts and to stay afloat in the short term they may be intentionally giving up long term good will. As the Evolution sales take off perhaps Lancair's ability to support the builders will improve. =20 Robert M. Simon ES-P N301ES =20 ________________________________ From: Bill Edwards [mailto:wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com]=20 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 very sorry to hear that. I guess there is a difference between being commercially correct and legally correct. Hopefully the former will eventually prevail. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA03E3.DE2D193C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In brighter economic times the factory might = not have=20 even discussed the issue - they would have apologized, paid, and moved = on. =20 As was noted, the inspector went out of his way = to improve things=20 as he went through the inspection.  That attitude is what one used = to=20 expect from Lancair.  Today every penny counts and to stay afloat = in the=20 short term they may be intentionally giving up long term good = will.  As the=20 Evolution sales take off perhaps Lancair's ability to support the = builders will=20 improve. 
 
Robert=20 M. Simon
ES-P=20 N301ES
 

From: Bill Edwards=20 [mailto:wpedwards@hilgardhouse.com]
I'm=20 sure that Lancair knows that the amount of damage is too small to = interest an=20 attorney, and small claims suits have to be served in California.  = I have=20 no legal recourse but I thought other IVP owners would like to know = Lancair=20 company policies with regard to inspection = damage.

From: Lancair = Mailing=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Colyn Case at=20 earthlink

very sorry = to hear=20 that.

I guess = there is a=20 difference between being commercially correct and legally=20 correct.

Hopefully = the former=20 will eventually prevail.

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA03E3.DE2D193C--