![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's all about loss experience and exposure. Aircraft accidents tend to be
dramatic, newsworthy and expensive. Many employers will tell you that their carrier has dropped them for much, much less than an aircraft accident. I don't know whether the policy in the one WC aircraft accident I handled was renewed, but I doubt it. Not necessarily because it was an aircraft accident, but because it was a death claim for a high wage-earner. And a death claim is chump change compared to what a catastrophic injury would cost. "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message ... Oh, the policy will pay the claim if it is work related. But they will cancel at the next renewal or sooner. If you look at the first question on the standard ACCORD application there is a question. "Do you own operate or lease Aircraft or Watercraft?" As an attorney I'm sure you know that there are laws against lying on an insurance application. In the voluntary work comp market carriers can choose the risks they are willing to underwrite in many cases they choose not to underwrite companies that operate aircraft. "LWG" wrote in message . .. I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance policies must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of practice, I have not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use of any particular mode of transportation, so long as the use of the transportation "arises out of" and is "in the course of" the employee's employment. I have personally defended an employer and insurer where the employee died as a result of the crash of a helicopter he owned and operated. There was no question of compensability or coverage. If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be right-- without the appropriate rider. I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to me. I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat impossible without flying. Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop? Steve CP - ASEL/IA PA28-151 N43291 There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From the Jim Campbell, Captain Zoom archives (all of 6 years ago) | Mick | Home Built | 49 | February 3rd 06 03:27 PM |
Aviation Conspiracy: FAA Calls Controller Whistleblowers "Rogue Employees!!! | Bill Mulcahy | General Aviation | 0 | March 31st 05 04:29 AM |