"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know
exactly what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that
your "knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the
plane. You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your
consent uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent
for... an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean
that the unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it
could be argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my
knowledge and consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful
purpose.

In fact, the latter is true for motor vehicles, maybe bicycles too. So it
probably applies to planes, boats, ATVs, etc. If you loan your vehicle to
someone and, with or without your knowledge, it's involved in certain types
of crime, your insurer won't willingly pay. And, I suspect, the test of the
definition of "crime" becomes looser with the enormity of the claim. I know
of one case where a body shop owner wasn't paid for loss of property when a
loaner vehicle was involved in an accident that resulted in criminal
negligence charges against the driver. I don't know if there was any
liability claim paid out by his insurer or if they subsequently sued him for
it. Insurers, obviously, have plenty of motivation to aggressively deny any
claim that their policy gives them a chance to litigate. And, in my
experience, they do.

A few years ago, I was walking down a quiet residential street in downtown
Toronto when I saw an SUV with major damage to the front pull up at an
intersection next to me. It had obviously just been involved in a major
shunt and was barely drivable. The fender was pressing so hard against the
tire that it could barely maneuver and smoke from the friction billowed from
the front when it moved. I phoned the police and gave a description of the
vehicle and driver (a young Asian male). The investigating officer called
me a week later and told me that they were pretty sure that they knew who
the driver was (and there was an accident and injury involved) but the kid's
mother said she was driving. Why? Who knows? But, if I testified, I
couldn't positively identify the driver (it was dark) but if I was sure that
it was a young man, and not an old lady, which I was, then the prosecutor
wouldn't proceed with charges. And that was the end of it. No charges,
insurance pays. Another cop told me that it's remarkably easy to get away
with a hit and run if nobody can positively ID the driver and the owner
claims that he loaned the vehicle to someone but doesn't know where they
live and hasn't seen them since.

Anyway, back to the idiot who's the topic of the thread, he's double ****ed.
I can't imagine explaining this one to the wife. How long was it after the
landing that he attempted to take off? Traumatic experiences, like an
emergency landing, tend to screw up people's ability to think for a period
afterward. I once saw a new pilot park on a restricted air ambulance ramp
next to the flight school hangar. I'd just landed myself and the conditions
were really challenging. I told him he should move it and he said that he'd
just had a really bad landing and was a bit pumped up and parked in the
wrong place by mistake. I laughed and told him I'd almost done exactly the
same thing when I was a student; and helped him push the plane next door.
I'm not making any excuses for this moron, but I suspect that his, already
questionable, judgment abilities were further diminished by the preceding
screw-up.

moo