• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Possible Static Display Cub

Boy, I'll say! Set up a corporation or LLC just to avoid liability, and fail to have sufficient assets/insurance to cover liabilities = something called "piercing the corporate veil."

If you set it up correctly, not only do you have to carry insurance until you croak, but you pay the state of incorporation fees every year! In California, that is $800/year, and for a J-3 you then are not eligible for property tax relief.

Unless I misunderstood AdirondackCub, the idea is that the LLC is the builder, not the owner. So the AWC is in the LLC's name, the registration is in the owners name.

Whether the LLC would provide real protection from liability doesn't matter in my case anyway. I never have been sophisticated enough to think of things like that!
 
I have purchased 3 Vanns RV’s throughout the years from original builders. The 1st two, a liability release wasnt involved.
The RV8 i now own involved a liability release signed by me, my wife and all adult children. Also i had 1000+ hours in make so the builder figured i likely was proficient. He also insisted i have the RV thoroughly condition inspected before leaving his possession.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I got sued over a mid-air in 2002. Very frustrating experience that got cleared up after 5 years but I learned a lot. I learned that you have to have a lot of assets to be a target. I had a $100,000 insurance policy but the lawyer was looking for more. I was sent an 18 page affidavit listing investments, properties, guns, vehicles etc. I laughed, threw it in the trash and called the lawyer who was being paid by my insurance company. I was recently married, bought a house and frankly didn't have ****. I told the lawyer that the opposing attorney could come up here and see what I had and visit with my banker. Having been around other lawsuits it usually involves deep pockets because the amount these lawyers have to make to make it all worth their while. I work on and rebuild airplanes for a living. Yes the liability is there, I do not carry product liability/finished product insurance. They can't take my house or one of our vehiocles and probably don't want either one. I guess basically to a lawyer I am not worth much so am less of a target. I don't know your situation but thought I would throw this out there. I was told it cost $200K to see a law suit through, do you have that much in assets that they are willing to gamble that much money to get what you have?
 
That's called being "judgment proof". Sometimes in that situation it is better to not have insurance - but there is the issue of social responsibility, which is why some states mandate auto liability insurance. I flew my first 15 years with no insurance at all.
 
I'm certainly judgment proof myself. Practically I'd rather NOT have liability insurance but take Bob's suggestion of responsibility seriously so I have insurance. I have to buy liability to purchase hull anyway but the liability is cheap.

I'm a gunsmith(or was). I opened a part time shop in 1983 with plans to go full time when I retired from civil service. There were only two companies selling product liability for gunsmiths. My first years premium was $500 based on business volume of $5000. When I went to renew only one company was left and they wanted $1000. I could NOT afford it, didn't do much business to start but managed to pay it. The third year they wanted $1800. I simply couldn't pay. I talked to a lawyer friend who advised to incorporate, have limited assets and I simply wouldn't be a target. I knew it was possible that someone might be hurt by my product so I quit. I remained a gun dealer and collector until 2006 but never fixed or built another gun....

I was building custom 1911's and there are about a doz. out there. Of coarse they had a "good" SAFE trigger, at least when they went out the door. I made the mistake of putting my name on them and some idiot 3rd party owner had an AD and shot his wife, very minor, but decided to find me over 10 years later. I got a package from a lawyer, first page mentioned too light trigger, quit reading and threw it in the trash. Got a call 6 weeks later and told the SOB I was worth about $100k including my house and to go XXXX himself. Last I heard.

Jack
 
<<<<Another option would be to sell it without the airworthiness/registration and let another take it apart and reassemble.>>>>

Quick story about people.

There was an exp. supercub for sale in MT that I called on a little while back, was advertised at 60k. Once you get into looking at ads, it's not hard to see oddities listed. The odd part on this one was where it was listed. (an obscure facebook page for aircraft parts) A friend of mine also reminded me that it was the same plane previously for sale last April from a builder in WA, as parts only, no paperwork, for 25k. The builder wanted to absolve himself of any liability. So I had to call.

The original (builders) ad showed 350 hours or so on the engine prior to install in cub. The current ad showed airframe and engine with a total hours of 178 or something low like that. When questioned, the fellow on the phone immediately stepped back and said it wasn't his airplane, he was just listing it for a friend. All he knew was what the hour meter showed in the panel. But they had just put the wings back on and had not flown the aircraft at all. He didn't have a contact for the builder, as they (they current owner and him) had dealt with a daughter, as the builder "has dementia or something". He would have his friend call me.

So I called the number in the original ad as parts for sale for 25k and left a message asking about the airplane, hoping for a call from the builders daughter or someone.

In the meantime the actual owner called me and regaled me in some wonderful flying stories around the country in all sorts of low and slow aircraft, all while avoiding most of the reasons for the call. I enjoyed the call, but also knew he avoided the question(s). So I point blank asked him about the paperwork, and he said they submitted an application for a duplicate airworthiness cert and were denied by the FAA as the builder had sent them a letter stating it was destroyed. The new owner took photos of the airplane and a bunch of build related receipts and sent them back to the FAA, stating that no, it's in his hangar and ready to fly. So the FAA issued him a duplicate AW certificate, in the original owner/builders name.

About the time I hung up with the current owner, the builder returned my call... in person, and sounding just fine. As he was driving at the time, I think he's in good health. He immediately questioned how the airplane was available to purchase because he sold it as parts, with no paperwork, and the new owner promised he would not get a certificate and sell it. This was exactly what he was trying to avoid. His next call was going to be to Oklahoma, asking how they could issue a certificate to a new owner in his name. He turned in the AW cert to turn the aircraft back into a pile of parts, and since they accepted it he expected they would keep it that way.

And that was the end of my connection with that situation. Sorry for the thread disruption, but I thought it may be relevant, as you never know where your airplane truly is going. My friend in Middlebury sold his Fouga Magister to a Museum in Britain or somewhere over on that side of the pond. The photos show it probably flys more there than it did here. Must be a different type of museum.

I saw that airplane listed today.
https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=1431743
 

Yep, it finally hit barnstormers. Another friend sent me that link as well. That's the one. Guess they must be in the clear. As I told my friend, it's probably a good airplane. I just can't buy into it. The AW cert is still listed in the builders name, as you'll see below.

N323es.jpg

Another item not mentioned anywhere, besides the engine time -
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/05/super-cub-n323es-incident-occurred-may_4.html?m=1

FullSizeRender.jpeg

IMG_4464.jpg
 

Attachments

  • N323es.jpg
    N323es.jpg
    111.3 KB · Views: 301
  • FullSizeRender.jpeg
    FullSizeRender.jpeg
    111.1 KB · Views: 240
  • IMG_4464.jpg
    IMG_4464.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 222
Good catch, the engine has had a prop strike albeit with a wood prop? Since it was sold for parts there is a strong likelihood that the engine has not had a prop strike inspection. Enough to walk away. Without that inspection the engine has zero value.
 
AE125297-CED6-4C4D-A308-0D20B72A7FFD.png Looks like the price has gone up quite a lot
 

Attachments

  • AE125297-CED6-4C4D-A308-0D20B72A7FFD.png
    AE125297-CED6-4C4D-A308-0D20B72A7FFD.png
    535.1 KB · Views: 253
$40K to transport, assemble and smooze the Feds. 8)

I think they just applied for a missing airworthiness. Obviously the price reflected that the airworthiness and logs were missing. Doesn’t seem right that you apply for a missing aw and make a bunch of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good catch, the engine has had a prop strike albeit with a wood prop? Since it was sold for parts there is a strong likelihood that the engine has not had a prop strike inspection. Enough to walk away. Without that inspection the engine has zero value.

It's a lycoming.... that prop strike AD is a joke.... wood prop, engine should be fine....
 
I think they just applied for a missing airworthiness. Obviously the price reflected that the airworthiness and logs were missing. Doesn’t seem right that you apply for a missing aw and make a bunch of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the guy that sold it as parts at an obvious loss is kicking himself since he surely lost money and is still listed as the builder.
 
It's a lycoming.... that prop strike AD is a joke.... wood prop, engine should be fine....

Did it have a wood prop on it then or was a wood prop installed afterwards because it was the cheapest? Odd airplane. They call it a Super Cub but a lot of differences, control cable routing, nose fuel tank etc.
 
It's a lycoming.... that prop strike AD is a joke.... wood prop, engine should be fine....


Simply not true. Internal damage may be less likely but still possible. The AD is likely "lawyer" driven in large part, indeed many if not most AD's may be but I certainly wouldn't rule out damage just because the propeller wasn't metal.
 
Simply not true. Internal damage may be less likely but still possible. The AD is likely "lawyer" driven in large part, indeed many if not most AD's may be but I certainly wouldn't rule out damage just because the propeller wasn't metal.

Not True? I'd like to know how you damage an engine when a wood prop hits something? Having done more prop strike inspections than I care to remember I have only seen a few that were damaged from a metal prop hitting and those were one blade coming to an abrupt stop.
 
Not True? I'd like to know how you damage an engine when a wood prop hits something? Having done more prop strike inspections than I care to remember I have only seen a few that were damaged from a metal prop hitting and those were one blade coming to an abrupt stop.

If you read the AD, its supposed to be done if the prop goes through high grass and slows down the rpm. Kind of a joke! I agree, very small likelihood of damage. Your mileage may vary!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IMG-20101006-00026.jpg
If you read the AD, its supposed to be done if the prop goes through high grass and slows down the rpm. Kind of a joke! I agree, very small likelihood of damage. Your mileage may vary!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I realize that. I think it is bullshit but being an IA and if it is on a certified airplane I will comply with it. Looking for reasoning on how a wood prop having a prop strike would tear up the dowel pin in the crank per the AD.
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20101006-00026.jpg
    IMG-20101006-00026.jpg
    80.9 KB · Views: 917
I think they just applied for a missing airworthiness. Obviously the price reflected that the airworthiness and logs were missing. Doesn’t seem right that you apply for a missing aw and make a bunch of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess the guy that sold it as parts at an obvious loss is kicking himself since he surely lost money and is still listed as the builder.

Yeah, I can't believe he would sell it as parts and then include all of the receipts and the builders log with the sale. Without those the new owner may not have been able to convince the feds to re-issue the airworthiness certificate.
 
Back
Top