Denny wrote:

Newp's ol bud, you are defending the status quo, and I continue say it
is unreasonable and needs to be changed by force of law...
If the airport requires you to abrogate your insurance to them because
your C-150 sleeps in a hangar there and only flys on weekends, but lets
Joe Hotrod come screaming over the fence in his Stage 1 Lear every
weekend without a penny of abrogated coverage to the airport; I
propose to you that is discriminatory...
And, how about the public roaring into the parking lot in a 4 ton SUV,
with their little darling, Dennis the Hatchet Kid, just rearing to the
demolish everything in sight... Why does not the airport owner demand
named insured status from them before the door locks are popped? They
demand it of you before your airplane is tied down (like little Denny
should be)

The answer is simple, because it hasn't been done before (that I know
of), status quo again... At that point it is discrimination against a
class of people, airplane owners who are hangared on the field versus
airplane owners who use the field without hangaring there... Now it
will take some deep pockets to herd a discrimination suit through the
courts for a decade or so.... Non the less, my gut instinct tells me
that the Appeals and Superior courts are going to take a hard look at
any case where there is blatant discrimination between classes of
airplane owners...

Cheers;

denny


The real result of such a successful legal challenge is likely to be the
elimination and/or curtailment of hangar rentals at the airport in
question, not the airport in quesiton giving up a liability coverage
they have come to rely on.