Should I be scared -- C172 over Gross

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

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

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

wrote:
On Apr 17, 10:02 pm, Frank Olson

I worked for a large insurance adjusting firm in Canada many years ago.
I had to hand deliver a denial of claim letter to a small time
operator whose stock in trade was to hire low time commercial pilots and
bully them into ignoring the gross weight limits.


Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is
shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to
believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to
the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's
limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation.

Dan


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.

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.

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?"

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.

writes:

Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion that insurance is
shot if you operate outside the legal limits. Some didn't want to
believe it. Seems to me that the policy will have some statement to
the effect that any deliberate violation of the regs or manufacturer's
limits is sufficient cause for denial of compensation.

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.

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.

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.