![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
WingFlaps wrote:
I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Does that mean you are not covered for a stall-spin-crash? This is outside FAA regs if the plane is not certified for aerobatics -right? That generally refers to deliberate spins. I'm not aware of any production airplane that is certified for a crash. -c |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Did he point you to the pertinent language in the policy? For now, I'm sticking with the guy who represents the underwriters. Someone was good enough to post Avemco's various exclusions above (which are similar to my USAIG and Phoenix exclusions). If there is such an exclusion for operating outside the limits, why isn't it there with the rest of the exclusions? This notion that there are secret exclusions has me baffled. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200804/1 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote: I whizzed this past our insurance guy yesterday by simply asking him the simple question concerning what would happen insurance wise if an accident occurred to an insured airplane being operated outside it's manufacturer's limitations and in violation of existing FAA regulations. He actually laughed and told me he would LOVE to be representing the insurance company on that one! :-) Did he point you to the pertinent language in the policy? For now, I'm sticking with the guy who represents the underwriters. Someone was good enough to post Avemco's various exclusions above (which are similar to my USAIG and Phoenix exclusions). If there is such an exclusion for operating outside the limits, why isn't it there with the rest of the exclusions? This notion that there are secret exclusions has me baffled. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) Actually he didn't. He addressed the issue generally based on his own experience. I didn't press him really as we had other business to discuss. I think what he was saying is that there are certain conditions that are cut and dried by the exact reading of the policy, but that these conditions assume certain factors in place. if a pilot accepts a known condition BEFORE TAKEOFF that places the aircraft in violation of FAA regulations, depending on the insurance company and what is involved, a decision to litigate a claim might come into play. Whether or not the insurance company wins the litigation is another matter. I should add that it was here he started laughing. I got the impression he was salivating at the prospect of representing the insurance company, and knowing this specific attorney's reputation as a trial lawyer, (long time friend and associate) I wouldn't want to be on the opposing side I'll tell you that much :-) -- Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
I missed Frank's original post but I have to ask. Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that? There seem to be some policies out there that don't have such an exclusion. You have to read your specific policy to make sure. Most insurance companies would consider deliberately operating an aircraft outside of regs (or while impaired by alcohol or drugs) to be pretty good cause to deny liability. What does your auto insurance policy have to say about street racing, or DUI? Aviation insurance is no different and if you honestly believe that an adjuster in the employ of the underwriter isn't going to be looking for "an out", then you're smokin' something "home-grown" in BC and seein' "rose coloured skies" without the tinted specs. :-) The deductibles on most aviation polices are a tad higher too. On some of the helicopter claims I processed, you were looking at a 30% (of hull value) for "Rotors in Motion" versus $5000.00 for "static" claims. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Olson wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote: I missed Frank's original post but I have to ask. Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that? There seem to be some policies out there that don't have such an exclusion. You have to read your specific policy to make sure. Most insurance companies would consider deliberately operating an aircraft outside of regs (or while impaired by alcohol or drugs) to be pretty good cause to deny liability. What does your auto insurance policy have to say about street racing, or DUI? Aviation insurance is no different and if you honestly believe that an adjuster in the employ of the underwriter isn't going to be looking for "an out", then you're smokin' something "home-grown" in BC and seein' "rose coloured skies" without the tinted specs. :-) The deductibles on most aviation polices are a tad higher too. On some of the helicopter claims I processed, you were looking at a 30% (of hull value) for "Rotors in Motion" versus $5000.00 for "static" claims. I have no doubt that an adjuster for any insurance company is looking for an out and that the carrier is going to subro if they can. But they have to have wording in the policy that gives them the out. Hence ,my question to you "Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that?" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
I have no doubt that an adjuster for any insurance company is looking for an out and that the carrier is going to subro if they can. But they have to have wording in the policy that gives them the out. Hence ,my question to you "Was there wording in the policy that gave the insurance company the right to do that?" Yes, there was. Any time an insurance company denies a claim they're always going to reference the policy conditions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Interesting that insurance seems to be a stronger motivation than safety. The reason such limits exist is to preserve safety, not to preserve insurance coverage. Interesting that someone to whom personal safety flying aircraft is of no importance at all would care. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
Interesting that someone to whom personal safety flying aircraft is of no importance at all would care. Sometimes I have to fly as a passenger in real aircraft. I'd prefer to have a competent pilot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My wife getting scared | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 271 | October 11th 07 08:19 PM |
Scared of mid-airs | Frode Berg | Piloting | 355 | August 20th 06 05:27 PM |
UBL wants a truce - he's scared of the CIA UAV | John Doe | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 19th 06 08:58 PM |
Max gross weight | Chris | Piloting | 21 | October 5th 04 08:22 PM |
Scared and trigger-happy | John Galt | Military Aviation | 5 | January 31st 04 12:11 AM |