"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