T'is so. Aviation insurance operates under the old principles of contract
law, not the ones softened up for consumers.

There is a well-known case where a piece of a nose gear broke when a guy was
taxiing a twin, causing a double prop-strike. Insurance contract specified
he had to have 200 hours in type, or some-such number, and he had less.
Clearly time-in-type had nothing to do with failure of the gear, and his
negligence was not alleged. Insurer denied coverage, and was upheld on
appeal. I think you can find the details on AvWeb, under the legal section.

Aviation is a different world, in almost every respect.

Les

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance.
Rather, it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing
(warranting?) that everything is in order. And if the insurance
company can prove that something was NOT in order, then
ba-bing! it will disclaim any responsibility.

Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
the accident, at least in many states. Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?