On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:59:05 -0600, "F.L. Whiteley"
wrote:

[snip]

IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
might play in denial of future coverage.

Frank, I think this issue came up in the Seventies when some aviation
insurers were trying to deny claims based on FAR violations, and there
was some sort of gubmint action to put a stop to that. The way the
FARs are written, essentially anything that happens to an aircraft can
be traced to either an FAR violation or an "act of God" -- so a policy
that excluded both would never pay on anything!

rj