On 2007-07-16, John Galban wrote:
On Jul 15, 3:12 pm, Justin Gombos
wrote:

In some cases, the risk will be less, and more in other cases. The
question is, if an unsafe pilot excercises poor judgement and violates
the weather minimums mandated by the FAR, is the insurance company
liable for the claim?

Of course they are. That's why we buy policies in the first place.
To cover us financially when we do something stupid. A policy that
only covers you when you do everything exactly by the FARs, should be
fairly inexpensive. It would be nearly worthless to the policyholder.

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to agree with your rationale for the
most part. OTOH, I personally would be willing to sign up for a
policy that would selectively exclude coverage for some of the blatant
and patently dangerous violations, like being compelled by
getmehomeitis to take off VFR w/ a reported and actual visibility that
is clearly below the minimum, if such an exclusion were to reduce the
premium.

An exclusion that would not allow for fuel errors would be
interesting. Considering fuel starvation is the leading cause of
crashes, a policy that voids when the pilot is negligent on takeoff
fuel capacity could be considerably cheaper. I would sign up for such
a policy.

--
PM instructions: caesar cipher the alpha chars in my addy (key = +3).