Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Matt Herron Jr." wrote in message
oups.com...
Looks like paragraph f) prohibits it, but I know for a fact it is
happening. Interesting. So then what happens in the event of an
accident in an experimental rental? Lawsuit? Or worse, your insurance
that claims to cover experimental then denies coverage based on
91.319f. They would still be on the hook for "borrowed" experimental
aircraft I expect.

Any lawyers out there have an opinion?

Would it be OK in a true club situation? ...where the members are actually
equity owners and arguably not renters? Oh; then "non owner's" insurance
becomes a problem!

Vaughn
Depends on the club business model. Could be that members are not
equity owners and have no owner rights nor obligations. At least one
large club carries no hull coverage, has a $3000 member deductible, and
encourages members to have non-owner/renter coverage. Another has a
category of owner members, has no hull coverage, requires higher dues
of non-owner members, and maintains a high repair fund. Whether the
non-owner members carry renter/non-owner coverage isn't clear.

YMMV,

Frank