5 ms·

If they falsely deny the claim, they should have to pay double or triple damages. Otherwise there's nothing stopping them from denying every claim until you fig

If they falsely deny the claim, they should have to pay double or triple damages. Otherwise there's nothing stopping them from denying every claim until you fight them hard enough to force them to pay (and in fact it seems like many airlines do just this).

waqf 3y ago
Triple damages, that reminds me of something … if you happen to live in Massachusetts you might be able to send them a Chapter 93A letter (which entitles you to triple damages if they don't attempt to settle in good faith)
tehwebguy 3y ago
This may be the difference between arbitration and court. My guess is the arbitration company doesn’t care if their biggest client is always lying or not but a judge might just ruin your attorney’s week if you give them lies to present in court.
occz 3y ago
Mandatory fines in the seven figure range would maybe be a sufficient deterrent, on account of most people probably not even filing claims, and less people disputing a denial. The penalties need to be extremely harsh to make up for this imbalance. Another solution would maybe be to not require people to claim by law, and make it mandatory for airlines to pay this out themselves. Combine with airlines having to self-report every flight and its on-time status to a governing body, which can then audit their honesty in this regard. The current system, while better than nothing, is in all honesty inadequate.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
I've been saying this for years. Improper denials or non-payments (like when the other driver's insurance went silent after agreeing on what they owed me) should carry a penalty multiplier and a high interest rate beyond that. If improper rejection saves them money they'll do it. The system has to be engineered that proper behavior is also economically sensible behavior.

5 ms·

If they falsely deny the claim, they should have to pay double or triple damages. Otherwise there's nothing stopping them from denying every claim until you fig

by gavinsyancey 3y ago

waqf 3y ago
Triple damages, that reminds me of something … if you happen to live in Massachusetts you might be able to send them a Chapter 93A letter (which entitles you to triple damages if they don't attempt to settle in good faith)
tehwebguy 3y ago
This may be the difference between arbitration and court. My guess is the arbitration company doesn’t care if their biggest client is always lying or not but a judge might just ruin your attorney’s week if you give them lies to present in court.
occz 3y ago
Mandatory fines in the seven figure range would maybe be a sufficient deterrent, on account of most people probably not even filing claims, and less people disputing a denial. The penalties need to be extremely harsh to make up for this imbalance. Another solution would maybe be to not require people to claim by law, and make it mandatory for airlines to pay this out themselves. Combine with airlines having to self-report every flight and its on-time status to a governing body, which can then audit their honesty in this regard. The current system, while better than nothing, is in all honesty inadequate.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
I've been saying this for years. Improper denials or non-payments (like when the other driver's insurance went silent after agreeing on what they owed me) should carry a penalty multiplier and a high interest rate beyond that. If improper rejection saves them money they'll do it. The system has to be engineered that proper behavior is also economically sensible behavior.