jcarlyle wrote:
Erik,

I'm really intrigued that at one time there was specific language
that nullified aviation insurance coverage if you weren't operating
in compliance with the FARs. If you could find the exact phrase they
used, I'd love to see it.

Agreed - insurance companies will do everything they can to avoid a
payout, and it's smart to keep that in mind. Probably it would also
be wise to note that most (all?) US states have an insurance department
or agency. There's a very good reason for this - 100 years ago
there wasn't much difference between an insurance company and a
privateer.

The reason I gave my insurance company name and address was to make an
ironic point, and it clearly failed. You see, the company was formed in
Pittsburgh, PA, while the address is in New York. Furthermore, I live
in Pennsylvania. Oh, well...

I understand your mission to persuade/coerce people to play by the
rules. My own incentive to stay legal is simple - if it weren't for
bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all. Thus any rule I try to bend
will bite me in the butt. Instant rule enforcement!

-John

Papa3 wrote:


Sorry I was slow on the irony uptake. Friday and all that...

I filed away old hardcopy insurance policies when we moved and assume
they are buried somewhere beneath a godawful ugly cut glass picture
frame we got as a wedding present and some outgrown kids clothes. But
I digress.

I'm sure I recall the exclusion I mentioned. Googling around leads
to various aviation insurance brokers and court cases, and several
mention failure to operate in compliance with FARs as a potential
Exclusion. All of them very clearly point out the issues related to
pilot qualification and airworthiness. Articles include:

http://www.globalair.com/discussions...cle~/msgID=133

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49420EE0F8959C588256FC500824CBC/$file/0316671o.pdf

Interestingly, AVEMCO hilights the fact that they have "done away with
blanket FAR exclusions", implying at least that these used to exist.


Regardless, as others pointed out, $1M limit of liability that most
people carry won't scratch the surface if they were involved in a
serious accident where they were clearly at fault. Just another reason
not to tempt fate...

P3