Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

3393RP said:
If I use a cheap dry cleaners down on the corner to restore and preserve my wife's wedding dress for our 50th anniversary and they destroy it, should 100% of the blame be apportioned to the store?
Click to expand...
If they told you that they could handle it, took your money, and then ****ed it up, yes. 100%.
 
I fully expect a jury to rule against the company. They probably do too since they shut down operations immediately.

But what assets do they have? 10m in airplanes that might have already been sold to pay legal bills? Probably less because they’re selling under distress.

it is quite possible all the aircraft are now being flown under a different name. All the pilots have another job or might be on CV furlough. All the mechanics are working elsewhere.

Nothing has changed except the marquee.
 
bflynn said:
But what assets do they have? 10m in airplanes that might have already been sold to pay legal bills? Probably less because they’re selling under distress.

it is quite possible all the aircraft are now being flown under a different name. All the pilots have another job or might be on CV furlough. All the mechanics are working elsewhere.

Nothing has changed except the marquee.
Click to expand...

They don't strike me as a company that would own their fleet free and clear. Odds are the airframes have been returned to a gaggle of lessors or they have notes on them that eat most of the book value.
 
Llk said:
I have zero compassion for the helicopter having dealt with them before. I also met the pilot several times and sadly he, too, was a jerkhole. The company isn’t just greedy but they also are not good community partners.

I’m this case, the non-IFR current pilot with no actual IFR experience in a non current IFR S76 made a choice to launch into marginal VFR conditions and consciously entered IFR conditions by intentionally trying to skim using a special VFR clearance while operating from a 135 operation that had no IFR ticket. His dispatcher should have known better if they valued high profile clients. This is typical of how they operate.

Let alone Bryant’s wife burn the whole operation to the ground, auction off their helicopters, and sell their pads for pennies on the dollar or better yet, make them public.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Sounds like sour grapes for some reason, and that you have a big ax to grind. I have a very different view. I know the owner, and have for 25-ish years. Straight shooter. Honest. Doesn't cut corners. Were mistakes made here? That's for a jury to decide, but it sure sounds like it. But my experience is far different from yours. I hope the insurance carriers give the Bryant and other families the policy limits, and everyone moves on from this horrific situation.
 
Last edited:
You mean there's hardly any money? I'm shocked I tell you.

shocked
 
Wow. A rotary wing aircraft does not qualify as an aircraft under the non-owned clause for a helicopter charter company's policy? There are some agents/brokers who should notify their E&O carriers...

There's money. There's almost ALWAYS money.
 
LesGawlik said:
Wow. A rotary wing aircraft does not qualify as an aircraft under the non-owned clause for a helicopter charter company's policy? There are some agents/brokers who should notify their E&O carriers...

There's money. There's almost ALWAYS money.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’d love to see how the lawyers parsed the language in the policy to reach that conclusion.
 
LesGawlik said:
A rotary wing aircraft does not qualify as an aircraft under the non-owned clause for a helicopter charter company's policy?
Click to expand...
mr_happyland said:
Yeah I’d love to see how the lawyers parsed the language in the policy to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...
It's all in the details. As reported, OC Helicopters only owned single-engine helicopters which is what their policy was written for. Enter Island Express helicopters who were contracted through OC for the Kobe twin-engine helicopter flights. This arrangement between OC and Island, as reported, goes back to 2015. So if OC only had single-engine coverage then it appears the Endurance attorney earned his keep with this motion to included reimbursement for previous defense costs. It's OC's stand they were merely a charter broker and had no operational control over the Island Express flights. Time will tell.
 
LesGawlik said:
Wow. A rotary wing aircraft does not qualify as an aircraft under the non-owned clause for a helicopter charter company's policy? There are some agents/brokers who should notify their E&O carriers...

There's money. There's almost ALWAYS money.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that rotary wing aircraft don't qualify as an aircraft, just that they don't qualify as a covered type under the policy coverage for aircraft they operated but did not own.
 
Yeah, if you have non-owned coverage through your C150, a borrowed Baron may not be covered.
 
I'm in the insurance industry and there is significantly more insurance money for this loss. It is understood that the policy limits have been or will be offered. We're talking 10s of millions. Still, it won't be enough because Kobe's net worth, and the other passengers who never get talked about. They need to be settled out as well, and that won't happen if Vanessa is sucking up all the money. In theory the other pax can go after Kobe's estate since he arranged the flight so it behooves Vanessa to let the other victims' families take the insurance money and she can have whatever is left over, plus the assets of the company. She doesn't really NEED the money.

Defendants get murky because there are multiple entities involved in the helo operations and Vanessa is going after everyone. But as far as I know, there is a sizable primary and excess policy that will respond to this loss. Again, adequate for you and me, but not Kobe plus 5 or 6 others including children.
 
3393RP said:
If I use a cheap dry cleaners down on the corner to restore and preserve my wife's wedding dress for our 50th anniversary and they destroy it, should 100% of the blame be apportioned to the store?
Click to expand...

That is what is considered a bailment under the common law, and different rules apply to that situation. (Sorry for the necro post.)
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The Bryant’s suing everyone under the sun is about anger and making someone pay for their loss. It’s not about money. It’s much more petty than that...
Click to expand...

Perhaps more charitably, it might be her attempt to establish some control over a situation in which she really has none. Anger is understandably there, too.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The Bryant’s suing everyone under the sun is about anger and making someone pay for their loss. It’s not about money. It’s much more petty than that...
Click to expand...
PPC1052 said:
Perhaps more charitably, it might be her attempt to establish some control over a situation in which she really has none. Anger is understandably there, too.
Click to expand...

All of the above.
 
weilke said:
The FAA has paid settlements in at least one other case where the quality of ATC services provided to a helicopter was below what can be expected. I dont see how the controllers in this case could have done anything different, but that all depends on how you package it for presentation to a jury.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My firm was involved in the defense of a mid-air collision in which we were able to have a significant apportionment of the fault allocated to the FAA controllers. It's certainly not impossible, depending on the facts.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yes. I am a jaded prick sometimes and assume things not in evidence.
Click to expand...

In fairness, there is no evidence that you are wrong, either. (I mean, about your perceptions of Mrs. Bryant. I am not suggesting anything negative about your character.)
 
PPC1052 said:
It's easy to include that claim in the complaint, and the estate's attorneys could be subject to liability if they don't. But at the end of the day, they probably are only going after the proceeds of the liability insurance policy. Given that Kobe's estate can easily and legitimately blackboard astronomical earnings figures, it just makes it impossible for the carrier to resist offering its policy limits early in the case in light of the risk of a negligent failure to settle the claim. By making that demand, (which has teeth) it pretty much forces the defense to roll over so that the Plaintiffs can get a quick resolution for policy limits without having to incur the expense and delay of proving up the case as they would need to for trial. Having defended aircraft accident cases with multiple claimants like this one, I suspect the defense is trying to get the matter to a mediation as quickly as possible so that they can offer their limits up and let the various claimants decide amongst themselves how to divide the limited insurance proceeds.
Click to expand...


Not too surprising, but the media are reporting that the parties have reached a settlement, subject to court approval.
 
Accident 2 years ago. Lots to reflect upon. Sad it unfolded the way it did.

edit: well not two years yet, I was looking at the 2020 date and not year & month.
 
Last edited:
Flying VFR into IMC. This has my attention - and an extra push to me to stay current.

EDIT - good suggestion / make that “proficient”
 
Last edited:
most of us would probably get a one sentence "pilot error" probable cause. when was the last time you saw a 70+ page probable cause document.
 
Last edited:
Famous dead bodies cause that sort of attention.
 
Yep. NTSB is driven as much by publicity as they are a desire to make aviation safer. There could be two identical crashes of identical aircraft but their response and due diligence will vary with the passenger manifest.
 
eman1200 said:
when was the last time you saw a 70+ page probable cause document.
Click to expand...
FYI: there are established protocols on how the NTSB approaches certain accidents as noted below. Any one of those can/will trigger a Go-Team and get you an NTSB board member to handle the initial on-site pressers/info distribution. Same as happened in this one. The Go-Teams bring a different game to investigations of this nature for obvious reasons which unfortunately tend to focus more on the people involved than the accident itself. Think of the sheriff deputy's pics of the accident scene. So if you ever want a 70 page report yourself be sure you're a bit more famous/infamous before you knock down a few oranges in a grove or something.:eek:
upload_2022-1-27_14-46-21.png
 
Did we really need a report to tell us what happened? I think we figured it out in post 4 or 5.
 
I was up shooting approaches into KCMA and KOXR at that time. Took several pictures of the marine layer hugging local clouds and general conditions. Not difficult by any stretch of the imagination for a person prepared but yeah it was a lot worse than the ATIS reported. The last photo I took was within a minute of the crash. If they had gotten through, they probably would have been a few miles behind me during my last approach of the morning.
 
Didn’t Kobe “fire” a pilot for making a precautionary landing for fuel?
 
eman1200 said:
most of us would probably get a one sentence "pilot error" probable cause. when was the last time you saw a 70+ page probable cause document.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you combine a very serious VFR into IMC incident, with a high profile person on board, combined with several kids, and add police misconduct to the mix.

BladeSlap said:
Didn’t Kobe “fire” a pilot for making a precautionary landing for fuel?
Click to expand...

No
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top