Companies Allowing Employees to Fly

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.

"LWG" wrote in
:

I don't think so.

I'd have to concur based on my own experiences.

I used to work for the gubment, and claimed privately owned aircraft when I
travelled. If something happened during my commute, then I was covered
under the Workers comp provisions.

I was paid $1.08 per mile.

Only thing I had to do was a cost comparison to show my flying was cheaper
then an overnight stay, which was very easy considering, I'd have been
paid, hotel, per diem and car mileage for the overnight stay.

On my shorter trips, it was cheaper to stay at a hotel, claim per diem and
car mileage. If I flew, I just took the cheaper of the two, and still got
to fly.

Best part of my workday was my commute to and from work on those days *big
smile* and I'd return home to my own bed that night.

Allen

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:


When I worked for Texas Instruments we had a specific policy AGAINST it.
I had several occasions that would have been nice. When Raytheon bought
the defense business of TI, I checked the policy and we COULD use
personal aircraft. But, then again, Raytheon owns Beech.


Yeah, I'll let you know. Textron (Cessna, Lycoming, Bell Helicopters)
just announced they are buying my company.

Why would they let you fly a Navion?
Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
:-))

When I asked my company if I could use private planes for business travel,
they said no. Then I looked at our policy. There was no exclusion. So I
asked a different question, "show me where it says that your not covered."
The end result is that the company agreed that private plane travel is
sanctioned for business and that our AD&D policy covers it for personal use.
That was many years ago. Since then, they have changed carriers many times
and each time they have received explicit inclusionary clauses. I don't take
credit for it, half of the executives either use or own private aircraft.

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

john smith wrote:


Why would they let you fly a Navion?
Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
:-))

I used to have a Lycoming, but Lycoming disavows all knowledge
of that engine. I now have a low time Continental IO-550.

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:

john smith wrote:


Why would they let you fly a Navion?
Oh yeah... you have a new Lycoming engine!
:-))

I used to have a Lycoming, but Lycoming disavows all knowledge
of that engine. I now have a low time Continental IO-550.

Uhn-oh!

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.

wise purchaser wrote:
Steve - KDMW wrote:

Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

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


If you are using YOUR car for THEIR business endevors YOU many NOT be
covered under your insurance! You need to GET IT IN WRITING from YOUR
insurance company and theirs!! that YOUR covered! PERIOD no BULL-
**** this is serious!!!!!!!!!!

Or their insurance company. My company
covers employee vehicle liability while on
company time. The coverage doesn't cost
much at all and I think a company would
be foolish not to carry it.

On 7 Nov 2006 05:34:37 -0800, "Steve - KDMW"
wrote:

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?


Thanks for the post, and everyone who responded. This came up for me
a couple months ago and the company paid $1,000 for me to fly
commercial when it would have cost only about $300 for me to fly
myself. I was pretty frustrated and have been wondering why they
would exclude use of personal aircraft ever since.

This thread has given me some insight as to why.

z

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.