Ual Sued For 9/11

[BigRed1]

WTC insurers sue airlines over 9/11 attack
Fri Sep 10, 2004 03:57 PM ET

NEW YORK, Sept 10 (Reuters) - On the day before the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, insurers for some World Trade Center buildings sued American and United Airlines and others alleging their negligence allowed the deadly hijackings.
The suit, which was filed by London's QBE International Insurance and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London (LOL.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) , seeks over $300 million from each of the two airlines and various amounts from other defendants. The insurers want to recover monies they paid out for property damage and other losses caused to World Trade Center buildings 1,2,4 and 5 and nearby structures.

The case is among a number of Sept. 11 related suits filed recently to meet the three-year statute of limitations deadline on Saturday. Among defendants in the case are the airlines' parents AMR Corp. (AMR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and UAL Corp. (UALAQ.OB: Quote, Profile, Research)

United said it does not comment on pending litigation. American did not have an immediate comment.

On Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers penetrated security at Boston's Logan airport and flew American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 to Manhattan crashing the aircraft into the World Trade Center and causing towers One and Two to collapse.

Among other defendants named in the suit are Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , Pinkerton's Inc. (PKT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , ICTS International NV and US Airways Group (UAIR.O: Quote, Profile, Research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insurance companies and lawyers make me ill sometimes.

BigRed1

 

[chexfan]

Among other defendants named in the suit are Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , Pinkerton's Inc. (PKT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , ICTS International NV and US Airways Group

Why is US Airways being named here?

 

[jimntx]

It's called throw as much s**t against the wall as possible and see how much of it sticks. Remember, at that time the airlines were "responsible" for airport security. They are probably trying to make the case that because of the size of US Airways presence in the departure airports--particularly, BOS--they had some culpability in the security failure.

It's only in criminal cases that you are innocent until proven guilty. In civil cases such as this, the defendant ends up having to prove why they should not be a party to the suit.

 

[local 12 proud]

why don't they sue the friggin government, they are the ones responsible for allowing those islamist fanatics to enter our country unchecked and obtain pilot training in our own backyard. the airlines did not make the lax rules for entry into our country our government did and continue to do so to this very day!

 

[Borescope]

why don't they sue the friggin government, they are the ones responsible for allowing those islamist fanatics to enter our country unchecked and obtain pilot training in our own backyard. the airlines did not make the lax rules for entry into our country our government did and continue to do so to this very day!

[post="178161"][/post]​

They might have tried, but unless the government give you permission to sue them, you can't.

 

[ualdriver]

Yeah! Sue a bankrupt carrier for 300M! Brilliant idea!

What's that expression? You can't suck blood from a rock......

 

[mrfish3726]

Actually I don't think that would be considered in the BK. It's kind of like running up a credit card after you already filed BK, they'll make UAL pay if they are found to be liable. Not a good thing for UAL right now, but it could take years to settle to.

 

[Light Years]

That is absolutely sick.

 

[novaqt]

If the airlines were in compliance with the laws in effect at the time of the attacks, the lawsuits will not go anywhere. The real culprit is the spread of Islam mosques around the world for the purpose of destroying western civilization! The insurers should bring their cause of action against the Islamic religious entities and the Saudi government and the Bin Laden family. They have a better chance of winning there. The airlines were doing their jobs. The case should be dismissed.

 

[mrfish3726]

NOVAQT,

Finally something we can agree upon! And the US government can shoulder alot of that blame to!

 

[PSALUS]

Why is US Airways being named here?

[post="178133"][/post]​

Mohammed Atta originated on a USAirways Express flight at PWM and connected on to his AA flight.

 

[ITRADE]

I do believe that PSALUS has the correct reasoning.

 

[casual rat]

Don't even think about blaming a system that allowed passengers to bring their 'beloved' box cutter on board....that would be ludicrous...under Bush (the defender's) watch? No way in hell.

"Don't piss on my back and tell me it's rainin' Senator"...Fletcher in The Outlaw Josey Wales

 

[Whadayano]

Now that's just silly. The security rules for airlines and airports had been designed for the hijackings that usually went to Cuba, only oh, about 25 or 30 years worth of habit. Bush, whatever his faults, had been in office just over 7 and a half months. That comment is as silly as these law suits.

 

[Fly]

Well let's all vote him in again and see if he can outdo this term's body count. We're at more than 4000 now......do I see 8000 for term 2? No biggie, at least there will be jobs for all of us who lost out due to outsourcing (at minimum wage of course).