About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
airplane. But then it was discovered that the insurance
company investigator had found it in his pocket and took it
with him. He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
A legal airplane is usually a requirement of any insurance
policy and that includes the paperwork.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:cxOkf.1476$ew5.329@trndny04...
| Andrew Koenig wrote:
|
| Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight
was in
| violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am
pretty sure that
| held up. So why would you think that an insurer would
ignore something like
| required documents not being carried?
|
| Not equivalent at all. Failure to comply with an AD makes
the aircraft
| unairworthy. Every insurance policy I've had contains a
clause that coverage
| will be denied if the aircraft is unairworthy at the time
of an accident. No
| policy that I've had contained any clause about denying
coverage if the FARs
| were violated.
|
| So, yes. The insurer would ignore something like required
documents not being
| carried.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.