In article , "Bill Denton"
writes:

I've only owned one house, but my homeowner's policy covered replacement
housing. I've forgotten the exact amount, but it was paid on an "$X per day"
basis. But you have to remember that it is the pilot who is ultimately
liable. Depending upon your policy, you may be able to sue the pilot for any
damages not paid by your homeowner's insurance, including replacement
housing.

Yes, your stuff will get replaced, and you will have somewhere to live in the
meantime. But you will never be compensated for the inconvenience and time
lost from your life.

"Plus, installing strobes definitely would have had a direct impact on their
(KFI's) insurance premiums as well."

Actually, no. The radio station is only required to paint and light the
tower in accordance with FAA regulations. As long as they do that, they are
under no liability if an airplane crashes into the tower, guy wires, etc.

Insurance premiums are based upon risk. Insurance companies frequently reward
policy holders for behavior or investments that reduce risk. For example, I
pay less for health insurance because I do not smoke and am not overweight. I
get a discount on my homeowners insurance because of my fire and security
alarms. I have little doubt that a radio station would get a discount for
installing strobe lights, or taking other actions beyond what the regulations
require. The only question is exactly how long would it take to recoup that
cost in saved premiums over time.

And yes, the pilot is finanically responsible for the tower. However, that
doesn't mean that the radio station will ever get to collect. Did the pilot
have enough insurance or assets to cover the cost of cleaning up the damage and
replacing the tower? If it is found that the pilot violated some aspect of his
policy (like being intoxicated, for instance) the pilots insurance may not pay
out at all. That's why the radio station has insurance in the first place. If
everyone was adequatly covered, they wouldn't need insurance in the first
place.

As for the tower being a hazard: Yup, that wasn't an ideal location at all.
But then again, our airspace is full of stuff in less than ideal locations.
Towers at that location have survived half-a-century next to the airport
without a hit. It was legally marked. It's on the charts. It's even in
Microsoft Flight Simulator! The radio station is hardly responsible.
John