AIG refuses crash claims
The insurer for US Airways hasn't compensated passengers for their near-tragic ordeal.
A.I.G. Balks at Claims From Jet Ditching in Hudson
Friday, June 12, 2009
provided by
For the first couple of days after his flight ditched into the Hudson River, Paul Jorgenson was just glad to be alive. But then he started to need his laptop, his wallet, his car keys -- all the essentials he had stowed under his seat and left behind in the sinking plane.
A pleasant woman at US Airways told him not to worry; he would be made whole for his losses. But then the matter shifted to US Airways' insurer, the American International Group, operating under government stewardship since its bailout last fall.
| More fro • With House Vote, Tobacco Bill Goes to Obama • Back on Hill, Automakers Defend Dealer Closings • How Do I Kn |
"Everything went downhill," said Mr. Jorgenson, a software executive in Charlotte, N.C., whose laptop and keys have not been recovered.
When a homeowner has a burglary or a driver has a crash, all it normally takes is a call to the insurance company and a description of the loss to activate the policy. But aviation liability insurance is different. It is activated by a finding of negligence on the part of an airline. If there is no negligence, then arguably there is no liability, and no obligation to pay claims.
Posts
1 comment:
I find it interesting that AIG is getting a bad rap for not being willing to shell out money to the passengers (well, really, to US Airways, to reimburse whatever they decide to give to the passengers--). Precisely since they've been bailed out by taxpayers, shouldn't we be glad that they're not jumping to complain a claim that doesn't fit the policy that US Airways purchased?
I'm actually surprised that AIG has reimbursed US Airways for anything at all. It seems to me that the $5,000 that US Airways gave to each passenger could easily be considered a justifiable business (marketing) expense in the interest of further propping up their reptutation (as not only the airline of a heroic pilot, but one that is generous with its passengers when it has no obligation to be).
Brand expert John Tantillo did a post shortly after the accident naming US Airways the weeks' 'Brand Winner'. They stand to gain much more in branding power from having a pilot like Sully than they have shelled out to the passengers--even if it is hard to assign a monetary value to the goodwill and confidence that this incident generated.)
Arguably, US Airways should further compensate the passengers and perhaps pay for therapy--either for ethical reasons or simply, again, because it's a smart way to build a solid reputation, goodwill, and customer loyalty. But I don't see why AIG (who sold them an insurance policy that only covered cases of negligence) should have anything to do with it.
Post a Comment