In article ,
Tom Seim wrote:

1. So, assuming there was insurance, would this accident be covered? Or
would the insurer say:

a) you didn't put it together correctly; bad dog, no coverage
b) you didn't comply with the AD; bad dog, no coverage
c) both


Well, in the US, many states say that if ANY aircraft maintenance
was not done as required, coverage is null. 43.5 and 43.9
require logging the assembly before return to service (flight).
If he logged it, but did the assembly incorrectly, I'd suspect
he'd be fine. If he didn't log it, then it is illegal
maintenance, and the insurer could have a case against payment.

I am NOT talking about the AD here. Just the assembly.
AOPA magazine had a good article on insurance and maint.
last month. It seems an aircraft was lacking an AD compliance
that had nothing to do with the fuel starvation that caused the
accident, but the insurer got out of paying because the
aircraft was generally not airworthy due to the not recorded
as done AD. I suppose an insurer could say that assembly
was "required maint" before flight, but since it was not logged,
the aircraft was not airworthy.

That's my take on it anyway...fear not the FAA, better to
focus on how to keep your insurance valid...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA