Aviation Risk

Turbulence Increasing

Political and cultural clashes are moving off the streets and into the aisles of airplanes.
By: | May 2, 2017

Turbulence in the air is increasing, and a change in flight plan isn’t the answer.

As cultural and political clashes move from the streets into the air — and onto YouTube — airlines must protect their brands and other passengers before events get out of hand. Liability is generally not an issue unless there is bodily injury, but even then it’s questionable whether an airline would be found at fault when a dispute is between two passengers.

Advertisement




While incidents involving unruly passengers on airplanes have been increasing, there are no statistics kept on the types of disturbance that have occurred.

Yet, anecdotal evidence abounds. More than 2 million people have watched YouTube videos about the New York attorney who was kicked off a JetBlue flight after verbally accosting Ivanka Trump and her family.

Both supporters and critics of President Trump have been kicked off airplanes after loudly proclaiming their political views, and sometimes refusing to sit next to people who have different opinions.

It’s not just political disagreements that bedevil airlines. Some Orthodox Jewish or Muslim men have refused to sit next to women. Some Muslim passengers have been removed from planes just for speaking Arabic or been refused boarding for praying before take-off.

Some men are asked to switch their seats to avoid having them seated next to unaccompanied underage females. Some women who travel alone have been assaulted by seatmates.

“The airline is truly caught in the middle of this situation and doesn’t want to be there,” said attorney Mark Dombroff, chair of the aviation practice at Dentons law firm. “Yet, they find themselves wrapped up in this cultural tension.

“You overlay heightened awareness of terrorism and cultural sensitivity, and put that in the context of the already stressful environment of aviation and I think it ratchets up the issue on airplanes.”

Two brokers who work with the aviation industry said no insurance claims relating to political or cultural disputes have been filed, according to the claims adjusters they spoke with.

A Difficult Situation

“It’s very difficult to answer on a universal level as to what an airline can do about it,” said Rob Lawson, a partner at the Clyde & Co. law firm, who specializes in aviation. “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

“Historically, the problem with unruly passengers has been in relation to passengers who have been fueled by alcohol. That’s a very different problem than a cultural issue.”

Mark Dombroff, chair of the aviation practice, Dentons

The number of incidents on-board airlines has been increasing.

From 2007 to 2013, an analysis by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) found one unruly incident per 1,600 flights. In 2015, it increased to one incident for every 1,205 flights. Intoxication was identified in about one-quarter of the reported cases. The majority of the incidents involved verbal altercations, 11 percent involved physical aggregation or damage to the aircraft.

More than half (53 percent) of IATA members surveyed in 2015 said that the frequency of unruly passengers had increased in the past five years, and 40 percent had diverted a flight in the past 12 months due to an unruly passenger.

“The airline is truly caught in the middle of this situation and doesn’t want to be there.” —Mark Dombroff, chair of the aviation practice, Dentons

According to the FAA — which tracks domestic flights as opposed to all flights tracked by the IATA — there was one unruly passenger for every 114,500 flights.

The FAA number reflects “the lowest it has ever been since the federal government has tracked this specific unruly passenger data,” according to Airlines for America (A4A), a trade organization representing airlines.

“The world of airline travel is not easy today. … You have a mix of every conceivable personality, heritage, weight, all sitting in these tiny seats that seem to get smaller all the time,” said Bradley Meinhardt, area president and managing director-aviation, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., a repeat Power Broker® in the aviation category. “That can be a volatile mix.”

One broker who asked not to be identified said she personally experienced a disconcerting incident on an airline when the Muslim man sitting next to her said he didn’t want to speak with her because she was not a believer. He did not ask that she be moved.

“It was a little uncomfortable,” she said. “This is definitely something that could be an issue and probably will be an issue.”

Decision-Making on the Fly

Safety will always be at the forefront of the airline cabin crew’s response.

“The safety of our passengers and crew are always our highest priority, and the crew members on board the plane are always mindful of the need to keep all passengers safe,” said Kathy Grannis Allen, managing director, airline industry public relations, communications, A4A, in an email.

“Airline employees rely on their extensive customer service training to address the rare instances when passenger disruptions happen on board … . A4A has supported vigorous prosecution of passengers charged with disruptive behavior aboard aircraft,” she said.

“Interfering with the flight crew’s performance of duty is a federal charge [on U.S. domestic flights],” said Dombroff.

Prosecution doesn’t require specific intent to interfere, he said. “The mere fact of it occurring is sufficient.”

For international flights, it’s more complex. In many cases, the country where a passenger leaves the plane does not have jurisdiction to prosecute if the aircraft is registered in another country, according to the IATA, which noted that the Tokyo Convention of 1963 governs offenses on flights.

The consequence is that the offenders are left unpunished, said the IATA, which noted that the high cost of extradition to the original country is likely to deter all but the most serious prosecutions.

Advertisement




The IATA has worked with some countries to permit “state-of-landing jurisdiction” to permit prosecution of events that occur onboard foreign aircraft.

But more often, it’s not prosecution that’s involved but escorting offending passengers off the plane if they fail to quiet down or comply with instructions from the cabin crew.

The practice of escorting passengers off planes became a huge international controversy in April when United Airlines forcibly removed a 69-year-old physician because it needed seats to fly crew members to another city.

Cell phone videos showed what appeared to be aviation security officers banging the man’s head into an armrest and dragging him from the plane. The passenger, who suffered a concussion and broken nose, planned to sue the airline.

Once a plane is in flight, the captain is the ultimate onboard authority, said Meinhardt.

If an incident occurs in the air, the captain can decide to divert the plane to a closer landing field, where the offending passenger will be removed.

According to the IATA, the cost of a diversion could cost from $6,000 to $200,000, depending on factors such as whether fuel has to be jettisoned to comply with the aircraft’s maximum landing weight limit, landing fees, accommodation, ground-handling charges, passenger compensation and fuel uplift to complete the journey.

IATA best practices call for using de-escalation techniques with unruly passengers “and as a last resort the use of restraints,” said Jonathan Jasper, IATA cabin safety manager, in an email.

Liability Limited

Ejecting a passenger or moving — or refusing to move — passengers is unlikely to trigger an insurance claim or successful litigation by a passenger. And losses associated with diverting a plane would not lead to a successful insurance claim by an airline, either, experts said.

Lawson of Clyde & Co. said that an airline’s terms and conditions usually give it the right to move passengers, to refuse boarding and eject passengers if they behave in an unreasonable manner. Should that occur, “case law says that if you merely are upset by what an airline says to you in the course of a flight, you have no right of action.”

Bradley Meinhardt, area president and managing director-aviation, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The same is true if a passenger upsets another passenger, he said, explaining that the Montreal Convention [a global airline treaty that establishes airline liability] has an exclusive liability code which says the airline will be liable for bodily injury caused by an accident.

“If nothing qualifies as an ‘accident’ and/or you don’t have any ‘bodily injury’ — in the sense those terms are used in the convention — then there is no basis for a carrier to be held liable,” Lawson said.

“You would not be able to claim, for example, the humiliation and vexation of being moved from your assigned seat or, for example, as a result of having to sit next to a woman on a flight — if that was contrary to your religion — because the Montreal Convention does not provide for liability in such circumstances,” he said.

What’s important, he said, is to have clear policies and procedures for how such situations should be dealt with.

“The system is all important,” he said. “If you try to deal with things ad hoc, you are opening yourself up to an unnecessary and potentially avoidable complaint.”

Advertisement




Meinhardt said even though such conflicts don’t typically trigger an airline’s insurance policies, that doesn’t mean an airline wouldn’t attempt to soothe hurt feelings by offering apologies, flight vouchers or other amenities.

“I think airlines are doing a great job,” he said. “When they have bad press associated with these incidents where a passenger feels they were mistreated or had a situation that unfortunately got out of control, they are very proactive these days.

“They defuse it, accept it or immediately try to resolve it. They don’t keep quiet, but behind the scenes they move to resolve it by reaching out to the passenger.”

Dombroff added: “Airlines are in the business of passenger satisfaction and they want to protect their brand. While there probably isn’t liability, airlines have settled claims filed against them related to these types of issues to resolve the issue and remove themselves from controversy.

“So long as cultural sensitivity and political sensitivity continue as part of our lives, it will intrude into aviation. It’s inevitable,” he said. “Airlines are the ones caught in the middle. &

The late Anne Freedman is former managing editor of Risk & Insurance. Comments or questions about this article can be addressed to [email protected]

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Risk Scenario

The Betrayal of Elizabeth

In this Risk Scenario, Risk & Insurance explores what might happen in the event a telemedicine or similar home health visit violates a patient's privacy. What consequences await when a young girl's tele visit goes viral?
By: | October 12, 2020
Risk Scenarios are created by Risk & Insurance editors along with leading industry partners. The hypothetical, yet realistic stories, showcase emerging risks that can result in significant losses if not properly addressed.

Disclaimer: The events depicted in this scenario are fictitious. Any similarity to any corporation or person, living or dead, is merely coincidental.

PART ONE: CRACKS IN THE FOUNDATION

Elizabeth Cunningham seemingly had it all. The daughter of two well-established professionals — her father was a personal injury attorney, her mother, also an attorney, had her own estate planning practice — she grew up in a house in Maryland horse country with lots of love and the financial security that can iron out at least some of life’s problems.

Tall, good-looking and talented, Elizabeth was moving through her junior year at the University of Pennsylvania in seemingly good order; check that, very good order, by all appearances.

Her pre-med grades were outstanding. Despite the heavy load of her course work, she’d even managed to place in the Penn Relays in the mile, in the spring of her sophomore season, in May of 2019.

But the winter of 2019/2020 brought challenges, challenges that festered below the surface, known only to her and a couple of close friends.

First came betrayal at the hands of her boyfriend, Tom, right around Thanksgiving. She saw a message pop up on his phone from Rebecca, a young woman she thought was their friend. As it turned out, Rebecca and Tom had been intimate together, and both seemed game to do it again.

Reeling, her holiday mood shattered and her relationship with Tom fractured, Elizabeth was beset by deep feelings of anxiety. As the winter gray became more dense and forbidding, the anxiety grew.

Fed up, she broke up with Tom just after Christmas. What looked like a promising start to 2020 now didn’t feel as joyous.

Right around the end of the year, she plucked a copy of her father’s New York Times from the table in his study. A budding physician, her eyes were drawn to a piece about an outbreak of a highly contagious virus in Wuhan, China.

“Sounds dreadful,” she said to herself.

Within three months, anxiety gnawed at Elizabeth daily as she sat cloistered in her family’s house in Bel Air, Maryland.

It didn’t help matters that her brother, Billy, a high school senior and a constant thorn in her side, was cloistered with her.

She felt like she was suffocating.

One night in early May, feeling shutdown and unable to bring herself to tell her parents about her true condition, Elizabeth reached out to her family physician for help.

Dr. Johnson had been Elizabeth’s doctor for a number of years and, being from a small town, Elizabeth had grown up and gone to school with Dr. Johnson’s son Evan. In fact, back in high school, Evan had asked Elizabeth out once. Not interested, Elizabeth had declined Evan’s advances and did not give this a second thought.

Dr. Johnson’s practice had recently been acquired by a Virginia-based hospital system, Medwell, so when Elizabeth called the office, she was first patched through to Medwell’s receptionist/scheduling service. Within 30 minutes, an online Telehealth consult had been arranged for her to speak directly with Dr. Johnson.

Due to the pandemic, Dr. Johnson called from the office in her home. The doctor was kind. She was practiced.

“So can you tell me what’s going on?” she said.

Elizabeth took a deep breath. She tried to fight what was happening. But she could not. Tears started streaming down her face.

“It’s just… It’s just…” she managed to stammer.

The doctor waited patiently. “It’s okay,” she said. “Just take your time.”

Elizabeth took a deep breath. “It’s like I can’t manage my own mind anymore. It’s nonstop. It won’t turn off…”

More tears streamed down her face.

Patiently, with compassion, the doctor walked Elizabeth through what she might be experiencing. The doctor recommended a follow-up with Medwell’s psychology department.

“Okay,” Elizabeth said, some semblance of relief passing through her.

Unbeknownst to Dr. Johnson, her office door had not been completely closed. During the telehealth call, Evan stopped by his mother’s office to ask her a question. Before knocking he overheard Elizabeth talking and decided to listen in.

PART TWO: BETRAYAL

As Elizabeth was finding the courage to open up to Dr. Johnson about her psychological condition, Evan was recording her with his smartphone through a crack in the doorway.

Spurred by who knows what — his attraction to her, his irritation at being rejected, the idleness of the COVID quarantine — it really didn’t matter. Evan posted his recording of Elizabeth to his Instagram feed.

#CantManageMyMind, #CrazyGirl, #HelpMeDoctorImBeautiful is just some of what followed.

Elizabeth and Evan were both well-liked and very well connected on social media. The posts, shares and reactions that followed Evan’s digital betrayal numbered in the hundreds. Each one of them a knife into the already troubled soul of Elizabeth Cunningham.

By noon of the following day, her well-connected father unleashed the dogs of war.

Rand Davis, the risk manager for the Medwell Health System, a 15-hospital health care company based in Alexandria, Virginia was just finishing lunch when he got a call from the company’s general counsel, Emily Vittorio.

“Yes?” Rand said. He and Emily were accustomed to being quick and blunt with each other. They didn’t have time for much else.

“I just picked up a notice of intent to sue from a personal injury attorney in Bel Air, Maryland. It seems his daughter was in a teleconference with one of our docs. She was experiencing anxiety, the daughter that is. The doctor’s son recorded the call and posted it to social media.”

“Great. Thanks, kid,” Rand said.

“His attorneys want to initiate a discovery dialogue on Monday,” Emily said.

It was Thursday. Rand’s dreams of slipping onto his fishing boat over the weekend evaporated, just like that. He closed his eyes and tilted his face up to the heavens.

Wasn’t it enough that he and the other members of the C-suite fought tooth and nail to keep thousands of people safe and treat them during the COVID-crisis?

He’d watched the explosion in the use of telemedicine with a mixture of awe and alarm. On the one hand, they were saving lives. On the other hand, they were opening themselves to exposures under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. He just knew it.

He and his colleagues tried to do the right thing. But what they were doing, overwhelmed as they were, was simply not enough.

PART THREE: FALLING DOMINOES

Within the space of two weeks, the torture suffered by Elizabeth Cunningham grew into a class action against Medwell.

In addition to the violation of her privacy, the investigation by Mr. Cunningham’s attorneys revealed the following:

Medwell’s telemedicine component, as needed and well-intended as it was, lacked a viable informed consent protocol.

The consultation with Elizabeth, and as it turned out, hundreds of additional patients in Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, violated telemedicine regulations in all three states.

Numerous practitioners in the system took part in teleconferences with patients in states in which they were not credentialed to provide that service.

Even if Evan hadn’t cracked open Dr. Johnson’s door and surreptitiously recorded her conversation with Elizabeth, the Medwell telehealth system was found to be insecure — yet another violation of HIPAA.

The amount sought in the class action was $100 million. In an era of social inflation, with jury awards that were once unthinkable becoming commonplace, Medwell was standing squarely in the crosshairs of a liability jury decision that was going to devour entire towers of its insurance program.

Adding another layer of certain pain to the equation was that the case would be heard in Baltimore, a jurisdiction where plaintiffs’ attorneys tended to dance out of courtrooms with millions in their pockets.

That fall, Rand sat with his broker on a call with a specialty insurer, talking about renewals of the group’s general liability, cyber and professional liability programs.

“Yeah, we were kind of hoping to keep the increases on all three at less than 25%,” the broker said breezily.

There was a long silence from the underwriters at the other end of the phone.

“To be honest, we’re borderline about being able to offer you any cover at all,” one of the lead underwriters said.

Rand just sat silently and waited for another shoe to drop.

“Well, what can you do?” the broker said, with hope draining from his voice.

The conversation that followed would propel Rand and his broker on the difficult, next to impossible path of trying to find coverage, with general liability underwriters in full retreat, professional liability underwriters looking for double digit increases and cyber underwriters asking very pointed questions about the health system’s risk management.

Elizabeth, a strong young woman with a good support network, would eventually recover from the damage done to her.

Medwell’s relationships with the insurance markets looked like it almost never would. &

Bar-Lessons-Learned---Partner's-Content-V1b

Risk & Insurance® partnered with Allied World to produce this scenario. Below are Allied World’s recommendations on how to prevent the losses presented in the scenario. This perspective is not an editorial opinion of Risk & Insurance.®.

The use of telehealth has exponentially accelerated with the advent of COVID-19. Few health care providers were prepared for this shift. Health care organizations should confirm that Telehealth coverage is included in their Medical Professional, General Liability and Cyber policies, and to what extent. Concerns around Telehealth focus on HIPAA compliance and the internal policies in place to meet the federal and state standards and best practices for privacy and quality care. As states open businesses and the crisis abates, will pre-COVID-19 telehealth policies and regulations once again be enforced?

Risk Management Considerations:

The same ethical and standard of care issues around caring for patients face-to-face in an office apply in telehealth settings:

  • maintain a strong patient-physician relationship;
  • protect patient privacy; and
  • seek the best possible outcome.

Telehealth can create challenges around “informed consent.” It is critical to inform patients of the potential benefits and risks of telehealth (including privacy and security), ensure the use of HIPAA compliant platforms and make sure there is a good level of understanding of the scope of telehealth. Providers must be aware of the regulatory and licensure requirements in the state where the patient is located, as well as those of the state in which they are licensed.

A professional and private environment should be maintained for patient privacy and confidentiality. Best practices must be in place and followed. Medical professionals who engage in telehealth should be fully trained in operating the technology. Patients must also be instructed in its use and provided instructions on what to do if there are technical difficulties.

This case study is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to be a summary of, and does not in any way vary, the actual coverage available to a policyholder under any insurance policy. Actual coverage for specific claims will be determined by the actual policy language and will be based on the specific facts and circumstances of the claim. Consult your insurance advisors or legal counsel for guidance on your organization’s policies and coverage matters and other issues specific to your organization.

This information is provided as a general overview for agents and brokers. Coverage will be underwritten by an insurance subsidiary of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, a Fairfax company (“Allied World”). Such subsidiaries currently carry an A.M. Best rating of “A” (Excellent), a Moody’s rating of “A3” (Good) and a Standard & Poor’s rating of “A-” (Strong), as applicable. Coverage is offered only through licensed agents and brokers. Actual coverage may vary and is subject to policy language as issued. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions. Risk management services are provided or arranged through AWAC Services Company, a member company of Allied World. © 2020 Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd. All rights reserved.




Dan Reynolds is editor-in-chief of Risk & Insurance. He can be reached at [email protected]