Stupid pilot tricks

Why not just put it into plain language like an auto policy and refer to
the different coverages?
Liability Insurance
Comprehensive Insurance
Collision Insurance

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...

If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred

while

he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the

insurance

contract?? Or is that a myth??


James' post seems pretty much right on the money to me, except *maybe* the
"flying his own plane" case where he says "his own insurance company would
be [sic] eventually be the payee [sic] to everyone else". The reason for
that "maybe" is that, assuming operating while under the influence is not
covered by the pilot at fault's policy, the true "eventual" payer (not
payee...a payee is someone *to* whom money is paid) would be the pilot at
fault, even though his insurance company may initially pay third-party
claims, and even possibly first-party claims.

In particular, the first thing that happens is that all of the involved
insurance companies look at who they are insuring. If those policies are in
good standing, and the damage is covered by the policy (and in this case, it
probably would be...can't say for sure without looking at each specific
policy), the covered party is protected.

The person who is NOT protected is the pilot flying drunk (most
likely...though there may even be policies that cover piloting while under
the influence). But that's an issue that, for any damage to property
covered by policies in good standing, will be resolved later, by subrogating
(that is, replacing one liable party, the insurance company, with another,
the pilot at fault) the payout back to the pilot at fault.

Note that a key part of James' description is that the son (the pilot at
fault) is almost certainly going to be the ultimate party to pay damages.
Any third party who suffered damage will have their damages covered by some
insurance company, but in each claim the insurance company will turn around
and extract that money from the son.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the son's insurance company
(assuming he has a policy) might try to get out of paying even the third
party claims, but that seems unlikely, and may not even be permitted by the
applicable state insurance regulations. For example, imagine you are
driving along minding your own business, and a drunk driver crashes into
you. Imagine also that, amazingly enough, that driver has a valid insurance
policy in effect. Would you expect your own insurance to have to pay the
damages? Or don't you think that the drunk driver's policy would have to
pay, even if the driver is ultimately not covered by his own policy due to
some provision against drunk driving?

As the representative of the party at fault, it would be the drunk driver's
policy that pays you. Though, of course, your own insurance company may
initially provide payment for the damages, passing on that payment to the
drunk driver and/or his insurance company later.

Pete

john smith wrote:

Why not just put it into plain language like an auto policy and refer to
the different coverages?

Well, Pete was answering the original questions which was "who pays". He seemed to do
a bangup job of doing that, as far as I'm concerned.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Thanks all - makes sense.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred
while
he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the
insurance
contract?? Or is that a myth??

James' post seems pretty much right on the money to me, except *maybe* the
"flying his own plane" case where he says "his own insurance company would
be [sic] eventually be the payee [sic] to everyone else". The reason for
that "maybe" is that, assuming operating while under the influence is not
covered by the pilot at fault's policy, the true "eventual" payer (not
payee...a payee is someone *to* whom money is paid) would be the pilot at
fault, even though his insurance company may initially pay third-party
claims, and even possibly first-party claims.

In particular, the first thing that happens is that all of the involved
insurance companies look at who they are insuring. If those policies are
in
good standing, and the damage is covered by the policy (and in this case,
it
probably would be...can't say for sure without looking at each specific
policy), the covered party is protected.

The person who is NOT protected is the pilot flying drunk (most
likely...though there may even be policies that cover piloting while under
the influence). But that's an issue that, for any damage to property
covered by policies in good standing, will be resolved later, by
subrogating
(that is, replacing one liable party, the insurance company, with another,
the pilot at fault) the payout back to the pilot at fault.

Note that a key part of James' description is that the son (the pilot at
fault) is almost certainly going to be the ultimate party to pay damages.
Any third party who suffered damage will have their damages covered by
some
insurance company, but in each claim the insurance company will turn
around
and extract that money from the son.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the son's insurance company
(assuming he has a policy) might try to get out of paying even the third
party claims, but that seems unlikely, and may not even be permitted by
the
applicable state insurance regulations. For example, imagine you are
driving along minding your own business, and a drunk driver crashes into
you. Imagine also that, amazingly enough, that driver has a valid
insurance
policy in effect. Would you expect your own insurance to have to pay the
damages? Or don't you think that the drunk driver's policy would have to
pay, even if the driver is ultimately not covered by his own policy due to
some provision against drunk driving?

As the representative of the party at fault, it would be the drunk
driver's
policy that pays you. Though, of course, your own insurance company may
initially provide payment for the damages, passing on that payment to the
drunk driver and/or his insurance company later.

Pete

"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
Maule Driver wrote:
So, as an owner I should know this but I'll ask anyway..... Will
insurance
payoff on this one? If he was flying his own plane? If he was flying
Dad's
plane?

I sincerely hope not - why should you and I pay higher premiums for some
intoxicated fool (assuming he was intoxicated).

I assume that in the end, we all do pay for the aggregate sum of fools with
licenses.

Just like we all pay for people to build homes on moving spits of sand (NC
outer banks) where we all KNOW that the homes will eventually be destroyed
by storm.

"Maule Driver" wrote in

Just like we all pay for people to build homes on moving spits of sand (NC
outer banks) where we all KNOW that the homes will eventually be destroyed
by storm.


That is one slant, but here is another.

I know a guy that recently built a house on the end of one island that is
gradually, but regularly being consumed. He calculated the rate of loss of
land, the location, and the number of years it will take before the house is
consumed. He can get no insurance on it, so when it is gone, it is gone.
He will have paid for it by then by rentals, and make nearly a 100% return
on his investment. He gets a place to stay when he wants, and makes a good
chunk of change. No one else pays for it. Do you see a down side here?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I was over at the airport this afternoon and got some better information.
The guy who caused (had) the accident is not related to the guy whose plane
was in the hangar. In fact the guy in the amphibian was just a transient
who lost it on landing and ran into the hangar (but he WAS apparently high
on prescription meds for which he had no prescription and is now in the
slammer). Some one who seemed to know told me that the hangar and plane
inside belonged to the pilot's father, but I guess I misunderstood. Sorry
for the wrong info. The amphibious 185 was parked out behind the T hangars
today. The tail is bent about 45 degrees to the left of the fuselage
centerline. Perhaps that's what caused the sudden left turn :-). Pretty
sad looking. A nice airplane treated badly.

SMQ is under a lot of pressure from the township and the neighbors right
now. This is the third crash in a couple of months. Something like this
certainly won't help. I just hope that, this being the third, it's now
over.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:26:00 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

No one else pays for it. Do you see a down side here?


IMO, this is how it should work.

z

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Maule Driver" wrote in

Just like we all pay for people to build homes on moving spits of sand
(NC
outer banks) where we all KNOW that the homes will eventually be
destroyed
by storm.


That is one slant, but here is another.

I know a guy that recently built a house on the end of one island that is
gradually, but regularly being consumed. He calculated the rate of loss
of
land, the location, and the number of years it will take before the house
is
consumed. He can get no insurance on it, so when it is gone, it is gone.
He will have paid for it by then by rentals, and make nearly a 100% return
on his investment. He gets a place to stay when he wants, and makes a
good
chunk of change. No one else pays for it. Do you see a down side here?

Fire, tornado, hurrricane just to name a few.

--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004

Well I was referring to insurance. My sense that the insurance burden in
these situations is borne by many unknowingly and unwillingly. But it's not
an entirely negative situation.

In the case you described, insurance doesn't seem to play. There are tax
implications - depreciation, loss claims - that may not be viewed as 'fair'
by some. When the storm takes them out, local emergency forces will be on
the hook to limit losses but that's what the taxes they collect are for.

Seems to me that insurance coverage for beach building and drunken flying
are good things as long as we understand what we are doing.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Maule Driver" wrote in

Just like we all pay for people to build homes on moving spits of sand
(NC
outer banks) where we all KNOW that the homes will eventually be
destroyed
by storm.


That is one slant, but here is another.

I know a guy that recently built a house on the end of one island that is
gradually, but regularly being consumed. He calculated the rate of loss
of
land, the location, and the number of years it will take before the house
is
consumed. He can get no insurance on it, so when it is gone, it is gone.
He will have paid for it by then by rentals, and make nearly a 100% return
on his investment. He gets a place to stay when he wants, and makes a
good
chunk of change. No one else pays for it. Do you see a down side here?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004

Car insurance is different than plane insurance. Every state has its own
rules but usally the state has regs that say, the insurance company has to
pay. With plane insurance that is not always the case. I would alsmost bet
if the insurance was in the drunks name they wont pay. Your policy would pay
and sue the drunk.
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Icebound" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
If he was proveably intoxicated, would not "his" insurance company fight
against paying anything at all, on the basis that the damage occurred
while
he was involved in an illegal activity, and thus he had voided the
insurance
contract?? Or is that a myth??

James' post seems pretty much right on the money to me, except *maybe* the
"flying his own plane" case where he says "his own insurance company would
be [sic] eventually be the payee [sic] to everyone else". The reason for
that "maybe" is that, assuming operating while under the influence is not
covered by the pilot at fault's policy, the true "eventual" payer (not
payee...a payee is someone *to* whom money is paid) would be the pilot at
fault, even though his insurance company may initially pay third-party
claims, and even possibly first-party claims.

In particular, the first thing that happens is that all of the involved
insurance companies look at who they are insuring. If those policies are
in
good standing, and the damage is covered by the policy (and in this case,
it
probably would be...can't say for sure without looking at each specific
policy), the covered party is protected.

The person who is NOT protected is the pilot flying drunk (most
likely...though there may even be policies that cover piloting while under
the influence). But that's an issue that, for any damage to property
covered by policies in good standing, will be resolved later, by
subrogating
(that is, replacing one liable party, the insurance company, with another,
the pilot at fault) the payout back to the pilot at fault.

Note that a key part of James' description is that the son (the pilot at
fault) is almost certainly going to be the ultimate party to pay damages.
Any third party who suffered damage will have their damages covered by
some
insurance company, but in each claim the insurance company will turn
around
and extract that money from the son.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the son's insurance company
(assuming he has a policy) might try to get out of paying even the third
party claims, but that seems unlikely, and may not even be permitted by
the
applicable state insurance regulations. For example, imagine you are
driving along minding your own business, and a drunk driver crashes into
you. Imagine also that, amazingly enough, that driver has a valid
insurance
policy in effect. Would you expect your own insurance to have to pay the
damages? Or don't you think that the drunk driver's policy would have to
pay, even if the driver is ultimately not covered by his own policy due to
some provision against drunk driving?

As the representative of the party at fault, it would be the drunk
driver's
policy that pays you. Though, of course, your own insurance company may
initially provide payment for the damages, passing on that payment to the
drunk driver and/or his insurance company later.

Pete