Sure, little Damien Sosa was on the cover of People with Flight 1549 Captain Chesley Sullenberger—but his mom and 4-year-old sister are supposed to pay for their own therapy after the scary though miraculous flight. At least that's what U.S. Airways' insurer, AIG, tells the Sosa family, according to the NY Times. While the family has health insurance, Tess Sosa thinks AIG should help foot the bill, "It’s like telling me, ‘We aren’t responsible for this. This is your trauma. You deal with it.'" And when Sosa mentioned the taxpayer bailout, the AIG claims person said "their division didn’t get a cent from the bailout." AIG has offered others passengers $10,000 if they release them further liability. Airline insurance expert Bruce Chadbourne isn't surprised AIG is playing "hardball" but adds, "Even though they’re giving the passengers a hard time, eventually they will be compensated to some extent. There’s no big pot because there’s no death. But there’s still mental distress, and it is a compensatable illness which, eventually, in my opinion, they deserve. They went through hell."





We can't cover those costs but we CAN sell you volcano insurance!
"They went through hell" - Perhaps Mr. Chadbourne has led a very sheltered life, but what the passengers on that plan experienced was not hell.
These people need to accept the fact that one-in-a-billion accidents do happen, and they are extremely lucky to be alive. US Airways already gave them each $5,000 even though they were legally owed $0.
AIG's insurance policy only owes them money if it can be shown that the crash was caused by US Airways' negligence. There is nothing to show that US Airways acted negligently...the same thing could have happened to any plane at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Typical insurance company. Collect premiums, payout almost nothing.
"US Airways already gave them each $5,000 even though they were legally owed $0."
And in some cases more than that. The guy who says he lost his laptop, keys, clothes, etc. has been given $10,000 -- and he's probably not the only one. Seems pretty generous. And he was offered another $10,000 but turned it down because he doesn't want to risk not being able to cash in big later if there's eventually a finding of liability.
OK, he wants to gamble. His choice.
What insurance is about. Collect premiums, pay out when client is at fault.
People are ALWAYS looking to make easy money. If there is a loophole or opportunity available you can guarantee people will try to get the money.
In all seriousness this is about the money not the "trauma" she experienced.
I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if it happened to you.
I'll be happy being able to have another chance at life.
If this was pilot fault or engine failure I could understand, but flight 1549 didn't go down because of U.S airways.
BTW...They should happy they're ALIVE!
How is US Air at fault in this case? The plane gets hit by a flock of birds, the pilot makes a miraculous landing in the Hudson River, the passengers walk away with nary a scratch on their heads, and somehow they're entitled to some sort of jackpot?
How about they say "Thank you for saving my life" and call it a day.
Wait until the movie comes out, they'll want royalties.
It'll be better than snakes on a plane!
Totally disgusted when I read this. Sorry but bad things happen sometimes. It doesn't mean cash money in the bank, or even your medical bills paid. I'm sure that was a traumatic experience but we all have them, and the people are fine now. Time to move on.
Just give them Air France tickets from Rio De Janeiro to Paris.
These people are so greedy it blows my mind. They should be thanking their lucky stars that a highly skilled pilot was able to save their lives.
Word is they're forming a class action lawsuit against canadian geese.
If those Canadians didn't give us all those damn stinking geese this would never have happened. I think a few nukes on their major cities will shape up those war mongers.
I find it interesting that AIG is getting a bad rap for not being willing to shell out money to the passengers (well, really, to US Airways, to reimburse whatever they decide to give to the passengers--). Precisely since they've been bailed out by taxpayers, shouldn't we be glad that they're not jumping to complain a claim that doesn't fit the policy that US Airways purchased?
I'm actually surprised that AIG has reimbursed US Airways for anything at all. It seems to me that the $5,000 that US Airways gave to each passenger could easily be considered a justifiable business (marketing) expense in the interest of further propping up their reptutation (as not only the airline of a heroic pilot, but one that is generous with its passengers when it has no obligation to be).
Brand expert John Tantillo did a post shortly after the accident naming US Airways the weeks' 'Brand Winner' - http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2009/01/17/brand-winners-and-losers-us-airways-and-citibank.aspx - They stand to gain much more in branding power from having a pilot like Sully than they have shelled out to the passengers--even if it is hard to assign a monetary value to the goodwill and confidence that this incident generated.)
Arguably, US Airways should further compensate the passengers and perhaps pay for therapy--either for ethical reasons or simply, again, because it's a smart way to build a solid reputation, goodwill, and customer loyalty. But I don't see why AIG (who sold them an insurance policy that only covered cases of negligence) should have anything to do with it.