Frank Olson wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

I missed Frank's original post but I have to ask. Was there wording in
the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that? There
seem to be some policies out there that don't have such an exclusion.

You have to read your specific policy to make sure. Most insurance
companies would consider deliberately operating an aircraft outside of
regs (or while impaired by alcohol or drugs) to be pretty good cause to
deny liability. What does your auto insurance policy have to say about
street racing, or DUI? Aviation insurance is no different and if you
honestly believe that an adjuster in the employ of the underwriter isn't
going to be looking for "an out", then you're smokin' something
"home-grown" in BC and seein' "rose coloured skies" without the tinted
specs. :-)

The deductibles on most aviation polices are a tad higher too. On some
of the helicopter claims I processed, you were looking at a 30% (of hull
value) for "Rotors in Motion" versus $5000.00 for "static" claims.

I have no doubt that an adjuster for any insurance company is looking
for an out and that the carrier is going to subro if they can. But they
have to have wording in the policy that gives them the out. Hence ,my
question to you "Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance
company the right to do that?"