Liabilities of the A/HB builders

[denverpilot]

In Denver's case, IIRC, he was flying from the front cockpit in a plane which is supposed to be soloed from the rear cockpit, and when he sucked one tank dry had to reach into the rear cockpit to get to the fuel valve.

That's a pilot-error situation, not any fault of the plane.

And yet an "undisclosed sum" was still paid out and folks here get to blissfully state there's "never been a successful lawsuit".

Think Aircraft Spruce had any possible motivation to make damn sure it settled out of court behind the veil of "closed records"? Think they don't know what their true liability is flying around out there in all those Experimentals built with parts they provided?

I suspect they know very well and know how much money to budget every year for future closed settlements. And the lawyers are on retainer.

 

[Geico266]

And yet an "undisclosed sum" was still paid out and folks here get to blissfully state there's "never been a successful lawsuit".

Think Aircraft Spruce had any possible motivation to make damn sure it settled out of court behind the veil of "closed records"? Think they don't know what their true liability is flying around out there in all those Experimentals built with parts they provided?

I suspect they know very well and know how much money to budget every year for future closed settlements. And the lawyers are on retainer.

As there is with autos, lawn mowers, cell phones, BBQ grills, tooth picks, football helmets, aspirin, etc, etc, etc. It is part of the accounting process in doing business in the US now. You pay for it whether you like it or not.

What is amazing to me is the number of "pilots" here that cling to one law suit, that was NOT successful ( a court judge must find for the plaintiff to "win") , and hold it up as proof positive there is liability with selling an experimental.

I've got a news flash for all you negative "pilot" people........

1. The more law suits that are successful ( for anything that flies) the more it will cost YOU to fly, and hasten the decline of GA.
2. Aircraft Spruce was not the builder of the aircraft involved. So unless you have annual sales in excess of $20 million or so you have nothing to worry about.... If you do buy insurance like everyone else.

 

[Tom-D]

Same old tired excuses, stories, and fear mongering.

That is exactly what is happening on the other web page, and that is why I started the thread over here, to give reference to what I posted there.

It is a sad reflection on those here that believe I post things like this for my own benefit. I know what most of you believe about liability, and depend upon that to be renewed for the new viewers here and the piper chat room.

I am chasing a Cozy in question there, which the owners are fearful of selling for the liability of their fathers project. I'm trying to convince them that they have no liability for the project. but am fighting the misinformation given by the members that believe all the old Wives tales.

 

[Tom-D]

The John Denver case is held up by many as "the case" in which a builder was sued and lost. Not true. The heirs of John Denver sued Aircraft Spruce and they settled out of court. That is not the same as "winning" a law suit in a court of law. There was no finding of fault or negligence on the part of the builder or parts supplier.

The facts are John Denver was a reckless pilot who did not know the new ( to him) airplane and how to operate the fuel control valve before heading out and flying over water.

Tom D, you know this, but you continually bring up the negativity and "liability scare" in a vain attempt to make certified planes more safe legally than experimentals. The facts are experimental are carrying piston GA, and will continue to do so as certified planes die a slow death. Maybe, you should look at experimentals as a way to improve your business and offer to do annuals for those who bought and did not build. Why not go with the flow?

Believe me I am no lawyer, but as I understood the cases that arose from that accident, the builder was sited in the case, but the court thru it out as frivolous, but the product suppliers cases were not.
I do not know the final out come there.

to add product suppliers are the deep pocket in all these cases, both in the production built aircraft as well as the EXP folks.

 

[Tom-D]

The annoying part of this thread is that Tom knows the answer and is trolling in hopes of starting an argument.

Must be a slow night on the West Coast.

Not the case here and it is sad that you'd think I'd do that. this whole thread was started in response to the post in a different web page
quote:
August 22, 2013, 17:58:04

I know of a woman who's husband passed away a couple of years ago having nearly completed a "cozy" kit.

She and her son have been looking into selling the project but have come to the conclusion that they (her husband's estate) would be liable as the airplane's manufacturer for the life of the airplane. They are nearly final in their decision that their only "safe" alternative is to destroy the airplane.

As I think this through, they may be correct, although I'd suggest that they CAN safely sell certain components such as the engine, instruments and avionics.

But in a sense, the same liability issue would apply to anyone who builds and sells an airplane.

By the same token that PIPER gets sued when a Cherokee crashes, the builder of a kit-plane could be pursued.

I suspect that in most cases when experimentals are sold, this issue is simply ignored.

Am I correct? Or is there some limitation that protects builders?

Is insurance available?

I'd love to be able to help them "save" that airplane.

end quote

You see, I don't always post just to please folks here, most times there is a reason. This is a widely used web page with lots of knowledgable people here with opinions that real carry credibility, unlike the post you placed.

 

[bbchien]

If any one cares, they cleaned Davis out. He wasn't worth much, so they took max insurance limits.

Sport Avation is a publication of EAA. Until you actually consult an attorney you are spouting c_ap.

 

[Tom-D]

In Denver's case, IIRC, he was flying from the front cockpit in a plane which is supposed to be soloed from the rear cockpit,

Not true. the LongEZ is soloed from the front, PAX ride in back, simply because you can't see ***** from there.

 

[wabower]

I'd think the cost of retaining an aviation-savvy attorney would be a good first step insofar as potentially preserving value for the estate. What's the estimated value of the Cozy?

Not the case here and it is sad that you'd think I'd do that. this whole thread was started in response to the post in a different web page
quote:
August 22, 2013, 17:58:04

I know of a woman who's husband passed away a couple of years ago having nearly completed a "cozy" kit.

She and her son have been looking into selling the project but have come to the conclusion that they (her husband's estate) would be liable as the airplane's manufacturer for the life of the airplane. They are nearly final in their decision that their only "safe" alternative is to destroy the airplane.

As I think this through, they may be correct, although I'd suggest that they CAN safely sell certain components such as the engine, instruments and avionics.

But in a sense, the same liability issue would apply to anyone who builds and sells an airplane.

By the same token that PIPER gets sued when a Cherokee crashes, the builder of a kit-plane could be pursued.

I suspect that in most cases when experimentals are sold, this issue is simply ignored.

Am I correct? Or is there some limitation that protects builders?

Is insurance available?

I'd love to be able to help them "save" that airplane.

end quote

You see, I don't always post just to please folks here, most times there is a reason. This is a widely used web page with lots of knowledgable people here with opinions that real carry credibility, unlike the post you placed.

 

[Tom-D]

I'd think the cost of retaining an aviation-savvy attorney would be a good first step insofar as potentially preserving value for the estate. What's the estimated value of the Cozy?

Apparently the lawyer isn't familiar with the aircraft scene, and is giving bad advise.

I haven't seen the project yet, so I don't know the about of work left or what comes with it. so your answer is " I don't know"

 

[wabower]

If they needed an important medical procedure that their family doctor was not qualified to perform, would they find another doctor or just roll over and die?

Apparently the lawyer isn't familiar with the aircraft scene, and is giving bad advise.

I haven't seen the project yet, so I don't know the about of work left or what comes with it. so your answer is " I don't know"

 

[airguy]

You as the purchaser or seller of a plane can execute any EAA provided paper you want, it won't restrict an injured third party from suing the original manufacturer.

It won't stop anyone from suing - nothing can do that - but it can stop them from winning.

 

[wabower]

Can it stop you from incurring the cost to defend?

It won't stop anyone from suing - nothing can do that - but it can stop them from winning.

 

[weilke]

It won't stop anyone from suing - nothing can do that - but it can stop them from winning.

You can't waive the rights of a third party (e. g. a passenger), so any agreement you signed with the buyer won't stop them from winning either. You may have a indemnification clause in there that requires the buyer to pick up whatever claim someone levels against you, but considering that the buyer is usually dead and already liable as the pilot, that doesn't buy you much.

 

[Skylane81E]

Does GARA apply?

 

[Tom-D]

Let's give this another twist.

Say the project is 99% complete, the new buyer/owner completes the project, applies for the AWC, fills out all the applications in their name.

Will any one know who built what?

I know that there is a place on the application to state who helped build it (assistance) but if that block is blank, who can see who built what?

 

[Tom-D]

If they needed an important medical procedure that their family doctor was not qualified to perform, would they find another doctor or just roll over and die?

If their family Dr. was giving advice that they believed, would they hunt for any other Dr. ?

 

[wabower]

If they had never heard of practice of obtaining a second opinion, perhaps so. In which case you close your book on the deal after a final entry that they declined to consider other options. Some days chicken, some days feathers.

If their family Dr. was giving advice that they believed, would they hunt for any other Dr. ?

 

[N801BH]

Let's give this another twist.

Say the project is 99% complete, the new buyer/owner completes the project, applies for the AWC, fills out all the applications in their name.

Will any one know who built what?

I know that there is a place on the application to state who helped build it (assistance) but if that block is blank, who can see who built what?

The potential to go down that path is always on the table... Speed bumps in the road are, if the deceased builder had a record of building it that cannot be retracted.. Like a magazine article, or a DAR who might have looked at the partially completed project, or a EAA rep who has taken a look at it who had documentation showing continued oversight of the build process... You might be able to BS your way through the cert process and maybe even get the Repairmens Cert for it too........

If you are caught..... You are TOAST...

 

[poadeleted20]

I'd argue that it suggests that pot hasn't been right to attract the players. Chris Ferguson doesn't play in neighborhood poker games for the same reason.

Perhaps so. You didn't used to see many folks with that kind of money spending years hand-building planes from scratch, but the really slick, very high performance kits which can be assembled in a relatively short time at one of those completion centers may be attracting enough folks with that kind of money to make it a consideration in the future -- assuming they sell their planes rather than crashing them on their own.

 

[wabower]

Zackly, on all counts. Still makes it a long-odds bet, as you originally surmised, but the knowledge that many suits are filed with the motive of "winning" by achieving court-ordered mediation always leaves the door open if a pocket appears to have even a slight sag indicating some degree of depth.

Perhaps so. You didn't used to see many folks with that kind of money spending years hand-building planes from scratch, but the advent of really slick, very high performance kits which can be assembled in a relatively short time at one of those completion centers may be attracting enough folks with that kind of money to make it a consideration in the future -- assuming they sell their planes rather than crashing them on their own.

 

[Skylane81E]

Zackly, on all counts. Still makes it a long-odds bet, as you originally surmised, but the knowledge that many suits are filed with the motive of "winning" by achieving court-ordered mediation always leaves the door open if a pocket appears to have even a slight sag indicating some degree of depth.

Like being a rich airplane owner?

 

[RotorAndWing]

You folks argue amongst yourselves to your hearts' content, but the lack of case law suggests it isn't a big risk for the average homebuilder, else there would be cases to be cited.

So why hasn't an attorney spoke up here and said "That's right, you have nothing to worry about, just follow EAA's paperwork and you will not get sued".

And why hasn't an attorney said "And in the rare case you do get sued, the other party will not prevail based upon past experience".

And we've yet to see an attorney here say "Anyone who does get sued selling your EAB I will defend you, for free".

 

[Tom-D]

The potential to go down that path is always on the table... Speed bumps in the road are, if the deceased builder had a record of building it that cannot be retracted.. Like a magazine article, or a DAR who might have looked at the partially completed project, or a EAA rep who has taken a look at it who had documentation showing continued oversight of the build process... You might be able to BS your way through the cert process and maybe even get the Repairmens Cert for it too........

If you are caught..... You are TOAST...

Why do you believe it would be BS'ing to finish the project and fill the applications out in your name?

When we all know you can farm out every aspect of building and simply supervise the completion of the building process.

And be the builder.

 

[wabower]

Dunno. Time will tell. With the trial-lawyer party currently running the show, anything is possible.

Like being a rich airplane owner?

 

[poadeleted20]

Second, SEPARATELY incorporate major property (home, airplane, etc), then rent the items from those corporations, so that everything is compartmentalized. If the plane you just landed in a swimming pool is owned by "N12345, Inc.," anyone who sues can only win the assets of the corporation (one each soggy airplane) and your personal property (the change in your pockets when you swam to the steps).

Completely bogus. Since you were flying the plane, you are liable no matter who owns it, and all your personal assets are at risk. The only effective path to mitigate risk is to:

1. Maintain proficiency by good recurrent training,
2. Maintain your aircraft properly, and
3. Have good insurance to provide an effective defense.

Anyone who doubts any of what I said should ask their attorney about it.

 

[Tom-D]

So why hasn't an attorney spoke up here and said "That's right, you have nothing to worry about, just follow EAA's paperwork and you will not get sued".

And why hasn't an attorney said "And in the rare case you do get sued, the other party will not prevail based upon past experience".

And we've yet to see an attorney here say "Anyone who does get sued selling your EAB I will defend you, for free".

I do not believe your premiss is a valid one, Ron has a point, there are no cases on record, which mean literally that no one is getting sued.

plus we have how many lawyers here ? and do you really think they represent the whole lawyer population?

 

[Tom-D]

Completely bogus. Since you were flying the plane, you are liable no matter who owns it, and all your personal assets are at risk. The only effective path to mitigate risk is to:

1. Maintain proficiency by good recurrent training,
2. Maintain your aircraft properly, and
3. Have good insurance to provide an effective defense.

Anyone who doubts any of what I said should ask their attorney about it.

That is true, you may be guilty as it gets and made a huge mistake, and they will win every thing you have, but if you have nothing, they can't get blood out of a turnip.

 

[wabower]

I wouldn't think that the death of the previous builder-owner would be considered as a subterfuge to transfer the builder of record status, especially since the plane hasn't been completed.

I do not believe your premiss is a valid one, Ron has a point, there are no cases on record, which mean literally that no one is getting sued.

plus we have how many lawyers here ? and do you really think they represent the whole lawyer population?

 

[poadeleted20]

I do not believe your premiss is a valid one, Ron has a point, there are no cases on record, which mean literally that no one is getting sued.

No, it doesn't mean that. It means only that few if any cases are going to trial, hence, no case law to review or set precedent. There may be many cases which, like the John Denver case, are settling out of court, but we have no idea what happened in those cases. So, it's a great big unknown. But the fact that so many folks here (including a few real lawyers) are having so much trouble coming up with example cases (even those which never went to trial) where a homebuilder got wiped out over this suggests to me that it's just not something that should concern the average homebuilder.

 

[Tom-D]

I wouldn't think that the death of the previous builder-owner would be considered as a subterfuge to transfer the builder of record status, especially since the plane hasn't been completed.

Subterfuge = deceit …. where is the subterfuge? in filling out the forms in your name. When you finish the project wouldn't you be the builder? specially if the prior owners did not want any thing to do with the project.

I think all one really needs to say when the project is being inspected by the DAR/FAA when they ask " who built it' is to simply say "I bought a partially built project", from my experience with 3 EAB aircraft that I was present when the inspection was done, that was the end of the subject.

 

[wabower]

That's what I think too. Did you interpret my post differently?

Subterfuge = deceit …. where is the subterfuge? in filling out the forms in your name. When you finish the project wouldn't you be the builder? specially if the prior owners did not want any thing to do with the project.

I think all one really needs to say when the project is being inspected by the DAR/FAA when they ask " who built it' is to simply say "I bought a partially built project", from my experience with 3 EAB aircraft that I was present when the inspection was done, that was the end of the subject.

 

[Tom-D]

No, it doesn't mean that. It means only that few if any cases are going to trial, hence, no case law to review or set precedent. There may be many cases which, like the John Denver case, are settling out of court, but we have no idea what happened in those cases. So, it's a great big unknown. But the fact that so many folks here (including a few real lawyers) are having so much trouble coming up with example cases (even those which never went to trial) where a homebuilder got wiped out over this suggests to me that it's just not something that should concern the average homebuilder.

I agree with that summation, and believe there is no great liability danger in selling a partially built kit/project. (no more so than what I am doing with the 170).

I would add that the builder has the deep pocket protection of being broke when they finish a project, but the product suppliers aren't.

 

[Tom-D]

That's what I think too. Did you interpret my post differently?

Big words confuse me,, I had to look it up.

 

[wabower]

Big words confuse me,, I had to look it up.

So noted.

 

[weilke]

I would add that the builder has the deep pocket protection of being broke when they finish a project, but the product suppliers aren't.

That is probably the main reason that there have been few to none cases in which a builder has been held responsible. In the situation of the 1mil+ experimentals, often the builder has a nice net worth, I believe it is only a question of time until we will see:
- the first lawsuits against individual builders with assets
- a specialty insurer stepping into the market to offer product liability coverage for individual builders (and sold with the kit)


So far, nobody has quoted a reason why the builder is insulated from liability. The only thing that can be stated is that based on the prior record, it seems quite unlikely that there would be any liability from selling a partially completed kit.

 

[vintage cessna]

Not the case here and it is sad that you'd think I'd do that. this whole thread was started in response to the post in a different web page
quote:
August 22, 2013, 17:58:04

I know of a woman who's husband passed away a couple of years ago having nearly completed a "cozy" kit.

She and her son have been looking into selling the project but have come to the conclusion that they (her husband's estate) would be liable as the airplane's manufacturer for the life of the airplane. They are nearly final in their decision that their only "safe" alternative is to destroy the airplane.

As I think this through, they may be correct, although I'd suggest that they CAN safely sell certain components such as the engine, instruments and avionics.

But in a sense, the same liability issue would apply to anyone who builds and sells an airplane.

By the same token that PIPER gets sued when a Cherokee crashes, the builder of a kit-plane could be pursued.

I suspect that in most cases when experimentals are sold, this issue is simply ignored.

Am I correct? Or is there some limitation that protects builders?

Is insurance available?

I'd love to be able to help them "save" that airplane.

end quote

You see, I don't always post just to please folks here, most times there is a reason. This is a widely used web page with lots of knowledgable people here with opinions that real carry credibility, unlike the post you placed.

Not sure I understand the families concern. You are buying the airplane from an estate. Once the court approves disbursement to the heirs, there is no more estate. Who would you sue ?

 

[NoHeat]

Just curious -- can an EAB project be owned by a corporation from the start, and can the corporation be listed as the builder, or must the builder be a natural person?

After all, a certified plane is generally built and the sold by a corporation, and this seems to provide some protection to the corporation's owners and workers as well.

 

[us AAirways]

Could one have a business where they built the kits then sold the finished product?

 

[Ken Ibold]

In Denver's case, IIRC, he was flying from the front cockpit in a plane which is supposed to be soloed from the rear cockpit, and when he sucked one tank dry had to reach into the rear cockpit to get to the fuel valve.

That's a pilot-error situation, not any fault of the plane.

The builder altered the plans so that the fuel selector switch was installed on the aft bulkhead rather than installed in the front cockpit with fuel lines routed through the cockpit. The arrangement required contortions to reach the selector. Denver was considerably shorter than the builder, and needed a cushion behind his back. When he turned to try to reach the selector, he apparently used his legs to leverage that turn, resulting in full rudder deflection.

 

[denverpilot]

I'd think the cost of retaining an aviation-savvy attorney would be a good first step insofar as potentially preserving value for the estate. What's the estimated value of the Cozy?

Maybe they're trying to preserve the Estate's cash instead of blowing it on an unknown.