A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid pilot tricks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 04, 12:08 AM
Icebound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"James M. Knox" wrote in message
2...
"Maule Driver" wrote in
m:

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?


Assuming all the details were in fact as reported, then:

Flying his own plane - various insurance companies would pay off on all
other planes and structures, but almost certainly not on his. His own
insurance company (if he has insurance) would be eventually be the payee

to
everyone else.

Flying his fathers plane, with permission - insurance would pay off on
everything,



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??






  #2  
Old September 17th 04, 12:44 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #3  
Old September 17th 04, 01:25 AM
Icebound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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??


...snip...
... 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.


I would have expected the scenerio as you state here. Thanks for the
complete explanation.



  #4  
Old September 17th 04, 02:41 AM
john smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #5  
Old September 17th 04, 03:15 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #6  
Old September 17th 04, 01:46 PM
Maule Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #7  
Old September 18th 04, 06:24 PM
aluckyguess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #8  
Old September 18th 04, 06:44 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
Car insurance is different than plane insurance.


In some ways it is. In many ways, it is not.

Every state has its own rules but usally the state has regs
that say, the insurance company has to pay.


As I said.

With plane insurance that is not always the case.


It's not always the case with auto insurance either. Like I said, you have
to look at the state regulations. But the state regulations are mostly
non-specific to the type of insurance; what applies to auto insurance in a
state most often will apply to any similar insurance (including aircraft).

I would alsmost bet if the insurance was in the drunks
name they wont pay.


As I said, it just depends on the state laws and the various insurance
companies. Most of the time, an insurance company does not have the option
to withhold payment to third parties injured by that company's insured
parties.

Pete


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Instrument Flight Rules 117 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Owning 114 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Seeking anecdotes about "instructor in command" Andrew Gideon Piloting 22 July 8th 04 02:40 PM
AmeriFlight Crash C J Campbell Piloting 5 December 1st 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.