Nevada governor to bill Fossett widow for search expenses

[Matt Molnar]

Nevada governor to bill Fossett widow for search expenses

created: 5/1/2008 9:17:49 AM
Last updated: 5/1/2008 9:27:52 AM

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Gov. Jim Gibbons intends to bill the widow of missing multimillionaire adventurer Steve Fossett for $687,000 the state spent in searching for the famed aviator last fall, a spokesman said.

Gibbons spokesman Ben Kieckhefer told the Las Vegas Review-Journal it was his understanding that the governor will bill Peggy Fossett for costs of the unsuccessful search.

Fossett, 63, took off Sept. 3 from Barron Hilton's Flying M Ranch, south of Yerington, in a small plane on what was supposed to be a short pleasure flight. [Full Article]

[PhilDernerJr]

Is that even legal?

What a scumbag move.

[MarkLawrence]

As I read that to my wife...she said...if that was you or I...would they try to recover the expenses...heck no...because the family has a great deal of money...that's despicable! I hope they fight it with everything possible...

[T-Bird76]

I don't see the big deal with the State trying to recovery the money for the search. Part of the reason Fossett went unfound was his own negligence by not filing a flight plane. Yes he didn't have to but why take a chance when you are flying over remote terrain? Why should the Taxpayers get stuck with the bill for a hot shot Billionaires antics? His estate can well afford to repay the citizens of Nevada.

[Matt Molnar]

It is harsh, but I kind of agree with Tommy. If you're doing something recreational and somewhat dangerous that leads to your disappearance, you (or your estate) should have some responsibility for the cost of looking for you. If they had found him alive, would there be such an outcry against billing him for it? There'd be some, but I don't think as much.

Sending a bill for this does, however, bring up a question. If your husband/wife goes missing and you expect to be billed for the search, can you tell the police to stop searching because you can't afford it or just don't want to pay a huge bill?

[RDU-JFK]

Many aviation insurance policies have endorsements that provide coverage for search and rescue expenses--and an adventurer like him should have purchased coverage (I'd be shocked if he didn't have any coverage at all).

The state used great expense and resources to find the wreckage, and they need to be reimbursed. This is what insurance is for.

[cancidas]

i too agree with tommy on this one. the money they spent was because they didn't know where the guy was, because he didn't file a flightplan. around here i don't file on VFR flight simply because it's easier to skirt around airspace that you don't need to fly through in the first place. if you do have to go down there is always someone nearby listening on 21.5 and can help out. even last week when i did have to declare an actual emergency i was so near another airport that we simply called them. out there in NV it's a different story. there is a lot of open land, and compared to here, very few towered airports. if i were doing the same thing out there i'd file each and every time. just a boneheaded move on Fossett's part that ultimately cost him his life. RIP...

[PhilDernerJr]

He can't be blamed because he didn't file a flight plan. Careless or not, there's no he was following rules that the FAA created, and therefore his wife can't be held liable for it.

This is clearly the local gov lookin to be greedy for some cash wherever they can get it from. If it was a problem at the time of the search, then they should have said something beforehand. You don't offer to help and then open your hands expecting to collect later unexpected.

Can't afford to search? THEN DON'T DO IT.

[Midnight Mike]

Don't see any problems with the state trying to recoup the money spent, in fact, the estate/wife should have offered to foot part of the bill.

The state on behalf of pleading from the family pleaded for the state to do all it can, so, the state went over & beyond the call of duty....

[PhilDernerJr]

But they do that when searching for ANYONE. Would they not have searched as much if he wasn't rich? That's what our taxes are for. They are SUPPOSED to go above and beyond. The FD doesn't foot us with a bill when they put out a fire, and the cops don't send an invoice when they catch a crook.

[Midnight Mike]

But they do that when searching for ANYONE. Would they not have searched as much if he wasn't rich? That's what our taxes are for. They are SUPPOSED to go above and beyond. The FD doesn't foot us with a bill when they put out a fire, and the cops don't send an invoice when they catch a crook.

Those are accidents, this was a PR stunt....

[moose135]

The FD doesn't foot us with a bill when they put out a fire, and the cops don't send an invoice when they catch a crook.

When NCPD transported my mother-in-law to the hospital some years ago, they did send a bill for ambulance services to the insurance company. I doubt they would have come after her if she wasn't insured, but they did recover something from insurance (probably not close to covering their actual costs, however).

[Matt Molnar]

But they do that when searching for ANYONE. Would they not have searched as much if he wasn't rich? That's what our taxes are for. They are SUPPOSED to go above and beyond. The FD doesn't foot us with a bill when they put out a fire, and the cops don't send an invoice when they catch a crook.

More often than not, NOT extinguishing a fire or catching a crook would do harm to the entire community, not just the victim, so there should not be a bill as it would discourage people from calling the police.. In contrast, if you call an ambulance for a medical emergency, where only the victim is affected, the victim gets a bill. The same should go for people who utilize any government resources as the direct result of becoming lost and/or injured while participating in a relatively dangerous recreational activity, whether it's flying a small plane over rugged terrain just for fun, or surfing during a hurricane, or climbing an iceberg.