Mercy Flight Lawsuit, Pt. 2

I originally made a short post on this topic because I thought it was interesting that the Tribune put the Benefis crash lawsuit on the front page but relegated the MEIC lawsuit to a back page of the Montana Section. Since the post engendered some comments, and because I actually live for comments on my blog (see the: "Get a Life" portion of my profile) I will make a complete ass of myself (again) and discuss this topic further even though I know very little of the facts and probably even less of the law. Well, actually, that's not true. I actually do sort of know the law, but the facts are still a little smudgy.

What is insurance? Why do you pay your premiums? Um...Let's see, not all at once. Ok, you in the front row of the Tribune's story chat. Tell me about insurance.

"As if the survivors haven't suffered enough! I'm sure the loved ones who were killed at least felt good about having life accident insurance in case something did happen to them. I know when I have flown and purchased life insurance specifically in case of an accident, I felt very good knowing my surviving family would at least reap something good from by death."

Well, ok. But are we really sure this was life insurance? And even if it was, insurance is a contract, right? They are paid to insure certain risks. If you accepted premiums in exchange for a promise to pay benefits on death, do you think you might charge a higher premium if the person was engaged in an occupation that was more likely to lead to death? Like mountain climbing guide? Or fireman? Or pilot?

Or maybe not. Maybe instead of charging a higher premium to climbing guides, you might just charge them the same premium as anyone else, but tell them that if they die climbing a mountain, they don't get the benefit. If they want mountain climbing insurance, then they can buy that separately, right? Pay a little more for the higher risk? What's that? You at the Tribune...

"I'm proud of Darcy and Paul's family in their determination to keep AFLAC accountable."

Yes, but...

"Aflac refuses to uphold the ethical and common sense standards which are supposed to guide Aflac’s business. Is Aflac proud in the cases of Dengel & Erickson?"

Wait a minute. What is this accountability and ethics stuff? Isn't this a contract? If you made a contract wouldn't you be entitled to enforce it? Imagine you sold a car to an airman. Pretend he still owes you $10,000.00. Then he gets killed rescuing hostages in Iraq. Does he still owe you the money, even though he is a great guy and a hero? Leave the emotion out of this. It's a commercial transaction.

"We have people who lost their lives trying to help others and their loved ones can't be compensated for that??? I'm sure when Paul & Darcy signed those policies they believed they would be covered during a flight - otherwise as a flight crew member why would they sign it if it wouldn't pay?? I hope that everyone else on the flight team at Benefis cancels their policies and finds a real life insurance company."

Well, Paul and Darcy's heirs have a little advantage. It's called reasonable expectations. If the Court or the jury finds that they had a reasonable expectation they were covered, and that the exclusion is not clear, they'll recover their benefits.

But have you priced Aflac insurance lately? It's kind of a cheap, filler product. They are not in the business of writing aviation life insurance.

I mean, come on. Let's be honest here. What we have is a plaintiff's attorney with a (pretty good) legal theory who he thinks he can persuade a judge or jury. I truly believe that if you are intellectually honest and read the policy language in a vacuum that does not include Mercy Flight deaths, you're not going to be thinking they intended to cover people who fly for a living. And I'm betting they did not charge a premium that covered the risk that these people would spend an inordinate amount of time in a small aircraft in Montana skies.

If Pinski wins, good for him. He will, no doubt, be well compensated. But I hope you're not as naïve as the Tribune chatroom folks who think these people should recover just because the decedents were good people.

Oh yeah. And why do you think it is that the Tribune didn't ask the obvious question? What kind of life insurance did Benefis, who put these folks in the air, offer them? What kind of death benefit did Benefis pay? After all, it is Benefis who benefited from their willingness to fly, not $5.00 a week Aflac.