T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

This is also true, but from a practical matter, the attorney
handling the case will know it's far easier to get money out
of the insurance company than the uninsured pilot defending
his assets.

That's true if you make the assumption that the open pilot has no
assets. I know a few P.I. attornies and they tell me that they will go
after anyone they can who has any assets and is remotely involved in
the case. It's not an either/or situation. The plaintiffs attorney
may very well go for the insurance AND whatever assets the open pilot
owns. If the open pilot was truly at fault, there's no reason why they
wouldn't.

The insurance company is obligated to defend.
If they win, the open pilot is safe. If they lose, they
pay.

This is why I posted in the first place. The insurance company is
NOT obligated to defend the open pilot. Why do you think that the
insurance company representing the owner will automatically be
representing the open pilot? It doesn't work that way in real life.
As a matter of fact, the insurance company's lawyer will probably
attempt to place most of the burden of responsibility on the open
pilot, rather than their client (the owner).

It's seldom that anyone goes after more than the
insured amount. If they do, the owner is at risk too. The
real risk is that the insurance company will settle, then go
after the open pilot for their losses. That's why IMHO,
subrogation is a bigger issue here.

I disagree. The open pilot now has two things to worry about. 1)
His assets are at risk from the plaintiff. (He was, after all, pilot in
command of the accident aircraft) 2) If there are any assets left over
after the plaintiff's attorneys are through with him, then whatever he
has left is at risk if the ins. co. decides on subrogation. As I
implied in my original post, if you're an open pilot without your own
policy, you're on your own.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)