Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Unless things have changed drastically since I was dealing with
insurance matters vs airplanes, the issue insurance wise isn't poor
decision making but rather operating the aircraft CLEARLY OUTSIDE it's
documented operating limitations. In other words, if you fly over gross,
you are wide open if you have an accident WHILE the aircraft is being
operated over gross, for a potential fight with the insurance carrier.
I believe this is correct. Please feel free to check this out.
I'd be interested to know if this situation has changed.

This is what I asked my friend the insurance company lawyer. He tells me
that there has to be some language in the contract that excludes coverage for
operating outside operating limitations. The cannot make up exclusions after
the accident/incident. None of the policies I have says one word about
operating outside documented limitations. Anecdotally, I do know one
pilot that was tagged by the FAA for an incident while overweight. While the
FAA gave him 90 days to think about his error, the insurance company didn't
say boo.

The question is quite simple;
Is your insurance valid if you knowingly operate the insured aircraft in
violation of existing FAA regulations and the manufacturer's limitations
for gross weight? (Flying over gross without a waiver to do so I believe
meets both these parameters)

Well, the FAR part is obvious. If they denied claims for violating FARs,
they wouldn't have to pay 95% of claims. As for the rest, it's fairly
simple. If it's not in the contract, it's not grounds for denying a claim.

Interestingly, flying with a valid ferry permit generally invalidates
coverage. Specifically the requirement that the standard airworthiness cert.
be in effect. A ferry permit is a Special Airworthiness Cert. and does not
meet the standards in any policy I've had. Every plane I've ever ferried
required the insurance company to issue a specific waiver for the flight
under the permit, because the policy specifically states an exclusion for it.


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

Interesting. Changed indeed!

--
Dudley Henriques