Re: The need for original documents, N-reg aircraft?

[Bob Moore]

Peter > wrote
> There are various documents such as the cert of airworthiness, and
> (for an N-reg in Europe) the FAA radio license, which some say need to
> be carried in original.

The Radio License doesn't come from the FAA, it is isued by the FCC.

Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

You must have the original documents, as issued by the
proper government agency. The FAA may send you a fax copy
which can be used within the USA, but if outside the USA you
must have originals (they can be government issued
duplicates.)



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
|
| Bob Moore > wrote
|
| >> There are various documents such as the cert of
airworthiness, and
| >> (for an N-reg in Europe) the FAA radio license, which
some say need to
| >> be carried in original.
| >
| >The Radio License doesn't come from the FAA, it is isued
by the FCC.
|
| That's right. One has to pay for it, too.
|
| It was the *original* docs requirement that concerns me. I
was pretty
| sure it is false.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, but on the holiday I'm busy and don't have all the time
to look up the ref. for you. But it is in the FAR and the
"orders" the FAA issues.
here is start...

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart C-Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate
Requirements


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required.
(a) Except as provided in §91.715, no person may operate a
civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate.
Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this
subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the
applicable operations specifications issued under §21.197(c)
of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier
manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter
containing that portion of the operations specifications
issued under §21.197(c), or an authorization under §91.611)
must have on it the registration number assigned to the
aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the
airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned
special identification number before 10 days after that
number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised
airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special
identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft,
may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight
Standards district office.

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its
owner or, for operation within the United States, the second
duplicate copy (pink) of the Aircraft Registration
Application as provided for in §47.31(b), or a registration
certificate issued under the laws of a foreign country.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the
airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this
section or a special flight authorization issued under
§91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so
that it is legible to passengers or crew.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft with a fuel tank
installed within the passenger compartment or a baggage
compartment unless the installation was accomplished
pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, and a copy of FAA Form
337 authorizing that installation is on board the aircraft.

(d) No person may operate a civil airplane (domestic or
foreign) into or out of an airport in the United States
unless it complies with the fuel venting and exhaust
emissions requirements of part 34 of this chapter.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by
Amdt. 91-218, 55 FR 32861, Aug. 10, 1990]



Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 47-AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION
Subpart B-Certificates of Aircraft Registration


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 47.49 Replacement of Certificate.
(a) If a Certificate of Aircraft Registration is lost,
stolen, or mutilated, the holder of the Certificate of
Aircraft Registration may apply to the FAA Aircraft Registry
for a duplicate certificate, accompanying his application
with the fee required by §47.17.

(b) If the holder has applied and has paid the fee for a
duplicate Certificate of Aircraft Registration and needs to
operate his aircraft before receiving it, he may request a
temporary certificate. The FAA Aircraft Registry issues a
temporary certificate, by a collect telegram, to be carried
in the aircraft. This temporary certificate is valid until
he receives the duplicate Certicate of Aircraft
Registration.


Browse Previous | Browse Next






"Peter" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| >You must have the original documents, as issued by the
| >proper government agency. The FAA may send you a fax
copy
| >which can be used within the USA, but if outside the USA
you
| >must have originals (they can be government issued
| >duplicates.)
|
| Do you have a reference for the above?

[Chris]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
>>Yes, but on the holiday I'm busy and don't have all the time
>>to look up the ref. for you. But it is in the FAR and the
>>"orders" the FAA issues.
>>here is start...
>>
>>Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
>>PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
>>Subpart C-Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate
>>Requirements
> [snip]
>
> It doesn't actually state that the *original* must be carried.
>
> It does imply in
>
>>The FAA Aircraft Registry issues a
>>temporary certificate, by a collect telegram, to be carried
>>in the aircraft. This temporary certificate is valid until
>>he receives the duplicate Certicate of Aircraft
>>Registration.
>
> that if a temporary certificate is the only one about, then it needs
> to be carried, but again it doesn't say that the actual piece of paper
> received from the FAA has to be inside the aircraft.
>
> Obviously, the reason I ask this is because carrying original
> documents is not safe; if they get lost it is a major hassle, here in
> Europe where e.g. the French are occassionally hostile to U.S.
> registered aircraft.
>
More like persistently hostile. even more hostile when the certificates are
not government issued.

If you carry around the real free circulation certificate it makes no sense
not to have the other originals in the plane.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:20:45 +0000, Peter >
wrote:

>
>I disagree, but anyway that is not the question I was asking. I was
>looking for a reference for a requirement to carry *originals* in an
>N-reg.
>
>I don't believe there is such a requirement, despite frequent
>"information" posted in the usual places. But there is no harm in
>asking.

I'd posit that there's reasonable evidence to infer the original must
be carried, absent the specific wording you are looking for saying
that you have to use the original.

The certificate itself has "This certificate must be carried when the
aircraft is operated" (or something very close, I don't have mine in
front of me right now) printed on it in the upper-right hand corner.

The FAA makes a large deal about the application for registration
having to be done in original and signed in ink, no copies or
electronic versions allowed. They also state that the pink copy of
the application must be carried in the aircraft until the permanent
certificate is received. In the documentation for 8050-1 they don't
indicate that a photocopy of the pink temporary slip would be
acceptable, but specifically enumerating that the *pink* copy must be
carried (and reinforcing it in 47.31(b)) indicates that they intend on
the original pink copy being used, not a photocopy. It would be
reasonable to ask why would that requirement change once you get the
real card?

91.203(a)(2) also states specifically the pink copy, implying that an
original of the other two acceptable forms (effective U.S.
registration certificate, or a registration certificate issued under
the laws of a foreign country) would need to be an original as well.

47.49 deals with replacing a lost, stolen, or mutilated registration.
Paragraph B states that if you need to operate your aircraft before a
duplicate is received, you can get a collect telegram which must be
carried in the aircraft. Why would they require an original of the
collect telegraph, or an official FAA fax, if you could just photocopy
the original certificate for the aircraft, then lock it away, and
subsequently make additional copies to carry any time the photocopy
carried in the aircraft is misplaced, lost, whatever?

Although appearing to address operations outside the US,
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/volume2/media/2_044_01.pdf
para 2(a)(2)(b) states "The regulations do not authorize operation
outside the United States unless an actual registration certificate is
in the aircraft. However, the Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750,
will, upon request from the owner, fax a copy of the registration to
the individual whose name appears on the application as the registered
owner. The faxed copy may be used as a temporary registration until
the owner receives original registration. As with the original
registration certificate, the copy must be carried in the aircraft." I
would postulate that if they really wanted to violate someone under
91.203 for carrying a photocopy, they'd pull that last sentence out as
additional evidence of their intent that an original be carried.

I believe they'd also go as far as to point out that there are other
certificates (a-la pilots, medical) which must also be carried per
61.3. 61.3(a)(1) deals with the pilot certificate, and nowhere there
does it say it must be original, but it is implied by coupling it in
paragraph (2) with a Government-issued photo ID. A photocopy of your
drivers license isn't Government issued. 61.3(c)(1) deals with the
medical, and a case can be made that a photocopy of your medical isn't
issued under part 67, so it has to be original too. Why would the
registration be special if all the other documents have to be
original?

Just my 0x02c.
P

[George Patterson]

Peter Clark wrote:

> I believe they'd also go as far as to point out that there are other
> certificates (a-la pilots, medical) which must also be carried per
> 61.3. 61.3(a)(1) deals with the pilot certificate, and nowhere there
> does it say it must be original, but it is implied by coupling it in
> paragraph (2) with a Government-issued photo ID.

This matter came under discussion at a Wings meeting. The inspector giving the
lecture said that the FARs require that "this certificate" be carried, and that
means what it says. Only the original is legal. The topic under discussion was
pilots' certificates, not airworthiness certificates, but if the wording is the
same in the FARs, then I'd bet the FAA has the same interpretation.

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 16:10:24 +0000, Peter >
wrote:

>In which case, what could be the sanction if an original was not on
>board? (Forget the case of the French Customs for the moment; they are
>a law unto themselves).

In the US they would notify you of the alleged violation, give you a
chance to respond, and assuming you were found responsible they would
then impose whatever legal sanction is available to them for
violations 61.3 or 91.203(2). If an original is required (and it
appears to me that it is), carrying around a copy is the same as not
having it "in that person's physical possession or readily accessible
in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot
certificate or authorization", or WRT the registration/airworthiness
certificates, "displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it
is legible to passengers or crew." They would end up either
suspending for some length of time, or revoking your certificate(s)
depending on whatever other factors surround the incident and your
enforcement record.

[George Patterson]

Peter wrote:

> What would happen if the original was not on board, and there was an
> incident?

As far as a pilot's certificate is concerned, if you don't have that handy and
get caught flying an aircraft, the FAA would issue a violation.

> IME the first thing the insurance company checks is that all paperwork
> is in order. So, if e.g. the pilot was not licensed to do the flight,
> the insurer will walk away from it right away.

This is not true. If the aircraft was actually unairworthy (eg. expired annual),
then the insurer would walk away. If the pilot did not have a pilot's
certificate at all, or was not rated for that category and class of aircraft,
then the insurer would walk away. If you have all the paperwork but don't happen
to have it in the plane, you're still insured.

Read your policy. It will tell you what they cover and what they don't.

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[Sylvain]

Peter wrote:
> In the totalitarian communist countries an adult had to carry an
> internal passport / ID document, and if this was not carried, and he
> got stopped and checked, he'd be locked up until somebody produced the
> documents. I don't think the USA, or any other western country would
> do this.

you seem to be wrong

http://www.papersplease.org/

--Sylvain

[George Patterson]

Peter wrote:

> In the totalitarian communist countries an adult had to carry an
> internal passport / ID document, and if this was not carried, and he
> got stopped and checked, he'd be locked up until somebody produced the
> documents. I don't think the USA, or any other western country would
> do this.

In Atlanta in 1973, failure to produce identification on the request of a police
officer would get you jailed. You did get to explain the situation to a judge
within a couple days. I think the Federal courts eventually forbad that
practice, but I'm not sure when.

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[Jose]

> Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
> doesn't.

Yep.. you're right. I was thinking more along the OP (CFI with third
class medical) and didn't read fully. Required crewmembers must have a
current medical, but class III should be ok.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Peter > wrote
> The funny thing is that anyone can check out any pilot's (whose
> identity is confirmed with other means) licensing info via the
> internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
> like a CFII with a 3rd class medical :)

What's funny about that? I've been a CFII with a Third Class Medical
for the past 10 years. I don't tell the FAA anything about my physical
condition that they don't absolutely demand.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
PanAm (retired)

[Jim Macklin]

CFIs don't need any medical. Many just get a 3rd class
because it is less of a hassle, costs less. As long as the
CFI doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't need the medical. Even
w/o the medical, a CFI can log PIC anytime he is instructing
and makes an endorsement in the pilot's logbook.
What can a CFI w/o a medical do...flight review as long as
the pilot's review is still valid and not expired.
Sport Pilot instruction in a LSA.
Any instruction where the CFI is not a required crewmember,
required crewmembers must have a CFI.
Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
simulated instrument conditions.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm




"Peter" > wrote in message
...
|
| George Patterson > wrote
|
| >> IME the first thing the insurance company checks is
that all paperwork
| >> is in order. So, if e.g. the pilot was not licensed to
do the flight,
| >> the insurer will walk away from it right away.
| >
| >This is not true. If the aircraft was actually
unairworthy (eg. expired annual),
| >then the insurer would walk away. If the pilot did not
have a pilot's
| >certificate at all, or was not rated for that category
and class of aircraft,
| >then the insurer would walk away. If you have all the
paperwork but don't happen
| >to have it in the plane, you're still insured.
|
| I agree with the above.
|
| It's interesting regarding originals. If it is that
important, why
| don't the regs spell it out explicitly? They would just
need to insert
| the word "original" (or the American-English equivalent,
whatever that
| is).
|
| The funny thing is that anyone can check out any pilot's
(whose
| identity is confirmed with other means) licensing info via
the
| internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out
funny results,
| like a CFII with a 3rd class medical :)

[Jose]

> Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
> simulated instrument conditions.

Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot with a class III
medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI endorsement
should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is merely that a
pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:22:52 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot under
>> simulated instrument conditions.
>
>Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot with a class III
>medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI endorsement
>should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is merely that a
>pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?

Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
doesn't.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:06:30 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Your private pilot has a medical. The CFI in the quoted section above
>> doesn't.
>
>Yep.. you're right. I was thinking more along the OP (CFI with third
>class medical) and didn't read fully. Required crewmembers must have a
>current medical, but class III should be ok.

I figured something like that had happened. Been there, done that,
member of the club :)

[Jim Macklin]

The safety pilot is a required crewmember (observer),
required to be qualified to act as PIC since the pilot can't
see and avoid. The CFI must have the medical if the
"student" is under the hood. On the other hand, a CFI can
instruct in IFR procedures as long as the student is fully
qualified to be PIC (flight review, certificate and required
endorsements) if the student is not under the hood.

If the "student" is a qualified and current Instrument rated
pilot and the flight is conducted in IMC, the CFI would not
be a required crewmember.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
|> Thus, the CFI w/o a medical cannot be a safety pilot
under
| > simulated instrument conditions.
|
| Uhhh... I'm not so sure about that. If a private pilot
with a class III
| medical can be a safety pilot, the addition of the CFI
endorsement
| should not remove that privilage. Could it be that it is
merely that a
| pilot could not log such flight as =dual=?
|
| Jose
| --
| He who laughs, lasts.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Recurrent training is often done for fully qualified and
current pilots. And what I saw is to do with FAA in the
USA, as soon as you go over a border, the rules change.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
|
| >CFIs don't need any medical. Many just get a 3rd class
| >because it is less of a hassle, costs less. As long as
the
| >CFI doesn't act as PIC, he doesn't need the medical.
|
| Indeed. Maybe this doesn't matter in the USA, but surely
it does mean
| that all training must be done such that the pilot being
trained could
| legally be PIC if flying alone. Such a training flight
could not, for
| example, enter Class A airspace (I am thinking of FAA IR
training).
|
| Here in Europe, an instructor is nearly always PIC
(regardless of the
| student's existing privileges). While a CFII training in
an N-reg
| could do it with a Class 3 medical *anywhere* (provided
again the
| student was legal to fly that flight alone) it means one
could never
| carry out e.g. the 250nm IR x/c flight which needs to be
under ATS
| direction, because to get ATS direction one pretty well
needs to enter
| Class A.

[Sylvain]

Peter wrote:

> internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
> like a CFII with a 3rd class medical :)

why would that be funny?

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Peter wrote:
>>>internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
>>>like a CFII with a 3rd class medical :)
>>why would that be funny?
>
>
> When the CFII in question is offering flight training, in an airspace
> (Class A) where he **would have to be** PIC.

so? and what would the problem with this scenario?

completely legal, as least under FAA rules.

--Sylvain

[kgruber]

Yes, But!!!

The FAA web site is old and often has incorrect information.

For instance, the web site says I have a commercial rotorcraft cert. I
don't, it's only private privileges.

Karl
"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sylvain > wrote:
>
>>> internet. Same with aircraft. Sometimes, this digs out funny results,
>>> like a CFII with a 3rd class medical :)
>>
>>why would that be funny?
>
> When the CFII in question is offering flight training, in an airspace
> (Class A) where he **would have to be** PIC.
>
> This is why I can't see the need to carry original docs. Anybody who
> has verified the pilot's (or the aircraft's) identity is able to look
> up on the FAA website the current status. It's all there in the open.
> Carrying a piece of paper conveys no additional info. If I show you a
> piece of paper which says I am this and that, and you look on the FAA
> website and that says I haven't actually got that rating or whatever,
> you'd be a bit concerned, wouldn't you?
>

[Andrew Koenig]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...

> IME the first thing the insurance company checks is that all paperwork
> is in order. So, if e.g. the pilot was not licensed to do the flight,
> the insurer will walk away from it right away. But if the paperwork is
> in order, that is OK so far. I can't see them walking away from it
> because the originals were at home at the time. The CofA is just as
> valid, the pilot has still got the same license/rating.

You can't see an insurer walking away? I would think they'd take any
opportunity to avoid payment. I once read (in a well respected aviation
publication, either AOPA Pilot or Aviation Consumer) about a 172 that hit a
deer on landing and the insurance company refused to pay because the pilot
had failed to disconnect the cigarette lighter! The point was that there
was an AD out requiring the cigarette lighter to be disconnected or a fuse
installed. Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight was in
violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am pretty sure that
held up. So why would you think that an insurer would ignore something like
required documents not being carried?

> In the totalitarian communist countries an adult had to carry an
> internal passport / ID document, and if this was not carried, and he
> got stopped and checked, he'd be locked up until somebody produced the
> documents. I don't think the USA, or any other western country would
> do this.

How about the Denver woman who was arrested for failing to produce ID when a
cop asked her to do so on a public bus? More details here:
http://papersplease.org/davis/

[Andrew Koenig]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:xUlif.28166$4l5.18021@dukeread05...

> If the "student" is a qualified and current Instrument rated
> pilot and the flight is conducted in IMC, the CFI would not
> be a required crewmember.

I seem to remember an FAA ruling that the safety pilot must possess all the
qualifications required to be PIC of the flight if needed. The particular
question was whether a safety pilot had to be current with respect to
takeoffs and landings. Althought the FAR said only "appropriately rated
safety pilot," the FAA ruled that that phrase meant "a safety pilot with all
the attributes needed to be PIC of that flight."

[George Patterson]

Andrew Koenig wrote:

> Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight was in
> violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am pretty sure that
> held up. So why would you think that an insurer would ignore something like
> required documents not being carried?

Not equivalent at all. Failure to comply with an AD makes the aircraft
unairworthy. Every insurance policy I've had contains a clause that coverage
will be denied if the aircraft is unairworthy at the time of an accident. No
policy that I've had contained any clause about denying coverage if the FARs
were violated.

So, yes. The insurer would ignore something like required documents not being
carried.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jim Macklin]

About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
airplane. But then it was discovered that the insurance
company investigator had found it in his pocket and took it
with him. He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
A legal airplane is usually a requirement of any insurance
policy and that includes the paperwork.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:cxOkf.1476$ew5.329@trndny04...
| Andrew Koenig wrote:
|
| > Because the AD had not been complied with, the flight
was in
| > violation of FARs and the insurance was not valid. I am
pretty sure that
| > held up. So why would you think that an insurer would
ignore something like
| > required documents not being carried?
|
| Not equivalent at all. Failure to comply with an AD makes
the aircraft
| unairworthy. Every insurance policy I've had contains a
clause that coverage
| will be denied if the aircraft is unairworthy at the time
of an accident. No
| policy that I've had contained any clause about denying
coverage if the FARs
| were violated.
|
| So, yes. The insurer would ignore something like required
documents not being
| carried.
|
| George Patterson
| Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by
rights belong to
| your slightly older self.

[Jose]

> He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
> know that they could deny coverage because the airplane was
> not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
> discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
> result was the company had to pay something like $100,000 in
> damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.

Why didn't the company just "deny coverage because the airplane was not
airworthy"?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[RST Engineering]

Citation please. Otherwise this is just another BS OWT.

Jim



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:JMOkf.11643$QW2.3019@dukeread08...
> About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember correctly, a
> plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
> because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
> airplane.

[Jim Macklin]

This was related during a FIRC put on by the ABS in Wichita.
The course had a lawyer teaching. I do not remember the
exact date or the name of the insurance company. For $100
an hour, I'll research it in the OK records and get back to
you.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
| Citation please. Otherwise this is just another BS OWT.
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:JMOkf.11643$QW2.3019@dukeread08...
| > About 20 years ago, in Oklahoma, if I remember
correctly, a
| > plane crashed and the insurance company denied coverage
| > because the airworthiness certificate was not in the
| > airplane.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

They did try that based on the "missing Airworthiness Cert"
but that is what they had to pay punitive damages for, the
insurance company's attempted fraud.



"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> He also wrote a memo to the company letting them
| > know that they could deny coverage because the airplane
was
| > not airworthy as required by the policy. This was
| > discovered in the discovery phase of the trial and the
| > result was the company had to pay something like
$100,000 in
| > damages and $4,000,000 in punitive damages.
|
| Why didn't the company just "deny coverage because the
airplane was not
| airworthy"?
|
| Jose
| --
| You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose
whom to love.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.