![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |