High Speed Passes & the FAA (long)

Good report Tom,
What's happening here? JJ being civil to a MG pilot? John Cochrane and I are
bud's over the 500 foot gate (still got a needle in your doll, over the +15
minute thing)
By Spring we'll all be Kissin' Cousins.

I would add one thing though, you wrote

If the pilot kills himself breaking the rules: end of story.

If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it, They
may not pay your claim, if the violation is "Causial" to the accident. Bad news
for your Hull insurance claim. REAL Bad News to your LIABILITY Claim.

I wonder it the BOD has thought about this in relation to the controversial 50
foot, Finish Line Rule which is ALLOWED in SSA Sanctioned Contests?

JJ Sinclair

I recommend you look at your liability policy. Violating FARs is no longer
an "out" for an insurance company. For example, my policy has no
limitations concerning FAR violations. A conversation with Pat Costello
several months ago confirmed that, with AIG at least, there is no longer an
exclusion associated with violating FARs. There is an exclusion involving
flying with FAA "Waivers" but it does not include "Wave Windows".

No folks, I am not recommending that anyone violate FARS. I'm merely
pointing out how things evolve.

Allan

".....................................

If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it,
They
may not pay your claim, if the violation is "Causial" to the accident. Bad
news
for your Hull insurance claim. REAL Bad News to your LIABILITY Claim.

I wonder it the BOD has thought about this in relation to the
controversial 50
foot, Finish Line Rule which is ALLOWED in SSA Sanctioned Contests?

JJ Sinclair

On 05 Oct 2003 15:07:46 GMT, JJ Sinclair wrote:
If the FAA issues a citation and your insurance company gets wind of it, They
may not pay your claim

Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
the accident chain.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
the accident chain.


Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident involves
breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay the
claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.
JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote
Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation during
the accident chain.

Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident involves
breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay the
claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.

Insurance adjustors say a lot of things. The more they can scare you,
the better. After all, they don't want you to have a claim. FUD.
Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Your not wanting to test this is exactly
what he's counting on.

Insurance companies love to deny claims. Many adjusters will deny a
claim just because they're having a bad quarter. They figure that
even if the insured fights them, it will get pushed out into next
quarter (which they always think will be better). And there's always
the chance the insured will just roll over. Every time I've had
medical problems, I've had to fight with my insurance company. I've
always won, too, without having to go to court.

In reality, unless the contract spells out a way for an insurance
company to not pay, they'll pay eventually. The final test is always
this - do we think we can win this one in front of a jury that won't
contain ANY insurance adjusters, but will contain lots of people who
have insurance?

The reality is that Dylan is right - most accidents have an FAR
violation in there somewhere in the causation chain. If insurance
companies denied claims on that basis, the insurance would be
worthless.

I have personal knowledge of quite a few accidents that involved quite
blatant FAR violations, including a pilot with expired BFR crashing
due to blatant pilot error and a student pilot electing to take a tow
above a cloud deck geting lost and crashing. Insurance paid in both
cases, even though the details were well known to the carrier.

Michael

A close friend died in a glider accident. His widow asked that I call the
adjuster since they were threatening to deny the claim because she didn't
know the weather at the time of the accident. She wasn't even there. I
spoke with some guy in NYC that sounded like he was saying with a straight
face, that unless he had exact weather information at the time of the
accident that he would deny the claim. I took his name, asked for his
supervisors name, told him that there were no less than a dozen ways that he
could have found that out without hassling the widow and told him what a
slimy piece of low lifeform he was then let him know that if it took every
last cent that I had I intended to make his life miserable and that I would
let everyone know that had the same insurance how this grieving widow was
treated. They paid up the next week.

KC
Phoenix

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
(JJ Sinclair) wrote
Where does this OWT come from? If this were the case, insurance would
be virtually useless as most accidents have at least one FAR violation
during
the accident chain.

Here is the direct quote from an insurance adjuster. "If the accident
involves
breaking an FAR and it is causative, the insurance company may not pay
the
claim". I don't want to be in a position to test this.

Insurance adjustors say a lot of things. The more they can scare you,
the better. After all, they don't want you to have a claim. FUD.
Fear, uncertainty, doubt. Your not wanting to test this is exactly
what he's counting on.

Insurance companies love to deny claims. Many adjusters will deny a
claim just because they're having a bad quarter. They figure that
even if the insured fights them, it will get pushed out into next
quarter (which they always think will be better). And there's always
the chance the insured will just roll over. Every time I've had
medical problems, I've had to fight with my insurance company. I've
always won, too, without having to go to court.

In reality, unless the contract spells out a way for an insurance
company to not pay, they'll pay eventually. The final test is always
this - do we think we can win this one in front of a jury that won't
contain ANY insurance adjusters, but will contain lots of people who
have insurance?

The reality is that Dylan is right - most accidents have an FAR
violation in there somewhere in the causation chain. If insurance
companies denied claims on that basis, the insurance would be
worthless.

I have personal knowledge of quite a few accidents that involved quite
blatant FAR violations, including a pilot with expired BFR crashing
due to blatant pilot error and a student pilot electing to take a tow
above a cloud deck geting lost and crashing. Insurance paid in both
cases, even though the details were well known to the carrier.

Michael

Quite, you are insuring against your neglience, not against "Acts of God."
That's what liability coverage is. Comprehensive, e.g. hull, protects you
from property loss.

Pat Costello gave an interesting example at the SSA convention a few years
ago. You park your glider in a row of gliders, but don't show due diligence
and tie it down. Maybe you leave for a while to get something. In the
meantime, a gust front comes through and lifts your glider and it comes down
on the glider next to you. Your liability coverage will pay for the damage
to the other glider. However, say you used the appropriate tie downs and
the glider was secured against all reasonable wind. An extreme wind
condition manages to lift your glider and it smashes down on the next
glider. You were not negligent and the owner of the other glider would have
to depend on his own comprehensive coverage to make him whole again as it
would be considered an "Act of God".

This doesn't say anything about your future insurability and rates.

IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
might play in denial of future coverage.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:%j3hb.11797$hp5.3902@fed1read04...
A close friend died in a glider accident. His widow asked that I call the
adjuster since they were threatening to deny the claim because she didn't
know the weather at the time of the accident. She wasn't even there. I
spoke with some guy in NYC that sounded like he was saying with a straight
face, that unless he had exact weather information at the time of the
accident that he would deny the claim. I took his name, asked for his
supervisors name, told him that there were no less than a dozen ways that
he
could have found that out without hassling the widow and told him what a
slimy piece of low lifeform he was then let him know that if it took every
last cent that I had I intended to make his life miserable and that I
would
let everyone know that had the same insurance how this grieving widow was
treated. They paid up the next week.

KC
Phoenix

That may well be the difference between insuring directly with the
underwriter or through an independent agency, advocacy. When you insure
directly with the underwriter, those agents are company advocates and are
representing the best interests of the company's bottom line. An
independent agent generally should perform as the insured's advocate.

Choose wisely.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote
IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
might play in denial of future coverage.

And indeed the club that had the accidents I mentioned (as well as
others) eventually found itself unable to secure hull insurance.

Michael

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:59:05 -0600, "F.L. Whiteley"
wrote:

[snip]

IANAL, but violation of an FAR would seem to fit the case of neglience,
hardly a cause for denial of coverage for the incident in question. It
might play in denial of future coverage.

Frank, I think this issue came up in the Seventies when some aviation
insurers were trying to deny claims based on FAR violations, and there
was some sort of gubmint action to put a stop to that. The way the
FARs are written, essentially anything that happens to an aircraft can
be traced to either an FAR violation or an "act of God" -- so a policy
that excluded both would never pay on anything!

rj