Gross Weight

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:57:36 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured.

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance. Rather,
it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing (warranting?)
that everything is in order. And if the insurance company can prove
that something was NOT in order, then ba-bing! it will disclaim any
responsibility.

I'm not even sure it's the case with automobile insurance, though to
be sure I've always gotten a fair shake from mine. People who insure
with the cut-rate companies (Giego, Allstate, Progressive) sometimes
have a different experience.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance.
Rather, it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing
(warranting?) that everything is in order. And if the insurance
company can prove that something was NOT in order, then
ba-bing! it will disclaim any responsibility.

Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
the accident, at least in many states. Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" wrote:

Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
insurance.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Howdy!

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:
On 9 Jul 2005 05:33:59 -0700, "Mike Granby" wrote:

Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

You, after all, are the one encouraging risky behavior vis-a-vis
insurance.

No. That's not how it works. You claimed that insurance companies
*will* deny a claim if they find something "wrong" such as being
over gross. You have been asked to back up that claim (footnote
call) with just one citation of an actual incident. You don't get
to deflect that by insisting that someone else must show the
contrary first.

By trying to dodge the request, you suggest that you are bull****ting
us. If you weren't, why would you be avoiding the question? Or
is it actually the case that you are just making this up?

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

Generally, if it is not excluded, it is covered. So look in the
exclusions. Mine does not have an exclusion for over maximum weight. So
I am covered.

But does an exclusion requiring the aircraft to be operated in accordance
with it's type certificate?

That will exclude overgross operations.

So will an exclusion requiring operation in accordance with the FARs...



"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
Generally, if it is not excluded, it is covered. So look in the
exclusions. Mine does not have an exclusion for over maximum weight. So
I am covered.

No such exclusions for those either.

It would seem more reasonable that you provide a cite of a case where
an aircraft insurance company paid off in a case where a pilot was not
copacetic--say, he was flying without a current medical, or flying
drunk,or making an off-airport landing.

First off, this is backwards (as the other poster remarked).

But second, I can provide such examples.

Pilot flew without current BFR. Didn't pay attention to storm, landed
downwing, wrecked aircraft but walked away. Insurance paid.

Glider pilot with rope break, no medical, and medications in his blood
(determined by toxicology) that would have precluded the issuance of a
medical. Spun in and died. Insurance paid.

Now - can you provide contrary examples?

Michael

T'is so. Aviation insurance operates under the old principles of contract
law, not the ones softened up for consumers.

There is a well-known case where a piece of a nose gear broke when a guy was
taxiing a twin, causing a double prop-strike. Insurance contract specified
he had to have 200 hours in type, or some-such number, and he had less.
Clearly time-in-type had nothing to do with failure of the gear, and his
negligence was not alleged. Insurer denied coverage, and was upheld on
appeal. I think you can find the details on AvWeb, under the legal section.

Aviation is a different world, in almost every respect.

Les

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance.
Rather, it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing
(warranting?) that everything is in order. And if the insurance
company can prove that something was NOT in order, then
ba-bing! it will disclaim any responsibility.

Not so. Avemco says they won't do this, and others will have a hard job
disclaiming responsiblity based on something that didn't contribute to
the accident, at least in many states. Further, as I've asked before,
can you provide a cite of a real example to support your claim that
insurance companies behave this way?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:57:36 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

That is NOT true. If you're insured, you're insured.

This does not appear to be the case with aircraft insurance. Rather,
it seems that every time you go up, you are warranteeing (warranting?)
that everything is in order. And if the insurance company can prove
that something was NOT in order, then ba-bing! it will disclaim any
responsibility.

I'm not even sure it's the case with automobile insurance, though to
be sure I've always gotten a fair shake from mine. People who insure
with the cut-rate companies (Giego, Allstate, Progressive) sometimes
have a different experience.


Automobile insurance has to cover the claim no matter what. (at least in
california) Its the law.
Airplane insurance is different. A buddy of mine was asked how many hours he
had he guessed at the number, he hit the gear up switch instead of the flap
switch in a 55 Barron I watched both props hit. The insurance company asked
to see the hours and he came up short. They did not cover the claim so he
went and saw a lawyler he basicaly said your screwed.
-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com