Fri, Oct 08, 2004
NASA Responds To SPACEHAB Claim for Losses On Columbia
Mission
SPACEHAB says it's received NASA's
determination about the company's claim for the loss of its
Research Double Module, destroyed during the STS-107 space shuttle
tragedy. NASA's determination states that its liability is limited
to the contractually stipulated $8.0 million contract provision.
The Company is pursuing receipt of the $8.0 million plus interest
from NASA in this fiscal quarter.
As reported in January 2004, SPACEHAB's contract with NASA
included an indemnification provision providing for any loss of, or
damage to, the Company's flight hardware up to $8.0 million.
SPACEHAB filed a formal claim against NASA in the amount of $87.7
million for its loss in the shuttle accident which includes the
$8.0 million contractually-stipulated provision.
NASA's notification to SPACEHAB in
response to the claim represents the final decision of NASA.
Although SPACEHAB has agreed to accept the contract indemnification
amount of $8.0 million, the Company has the right to file an appeal
for the difference between the $8.0 million amount specified by
NASA and the amount identified in SPACEHAB's claim. The right can
be exercised by filing an appeal with either the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals or the US Court of Federal Claims.
SPACEHAB is evaluating whether it will pursue an appeal. In
addition to an appeal, SPACEHAB has other legal recourse it can
pursue. Once an assessment of its options is complete, SPACEHAB
will make a formal announcement of its decision.
SPACEHAB's insurer for the STS-107 space shuttle mission,
Lloyd's of London, paid the full proceeds of a $17.7 million policy
to the Company shortly after the accident. Now, Lloyd's is suing
SPACEHAB for the very same $17.7 million. Lloyd's says its payment
was in error because SPACEHAB and its insurance broker misled
Lloyd's in issuing the policy and hasn't cooperated with Lloyd's in
protecting Lloyd's right of subrogation. SPACEHAB says it believes
that the Lloyd's complaint is without merit.
More News
Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]
The Pilot Attempted Several Times To Restart The Engine And Diverted To Long Beach Airport/Daughtery Field On October 20, 2025, about 1603 Pacific daylight time, an experimental am>[...]
Hazardous Weather Information Summary of significant meteorological information (SIGMET/WS), convective significant meteorological information (convective SIGMET/WST), urgent pilot>[...]
"The latest development underscores the government of Malaysia’s commitment in providing closure to the families affected by this tragedy..." Source: From statements made by >[...]
Also: IAE Acquires Diamond Trainers, Army Drones, FedEx Pilots Warning, DA62 MPP To Dresden Tech Uni The danger to the flight training industry and our future pilots is clear. Dona>[...]
Aero-FAQ: Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories -- ITBOA BNITBOB
See All