"Roger Long" om wrote in message ...
Yeah, it isn't automatically invalid but there is a clause in most policies
giving them the option of not paying if the plane isn't flown in accordance
with regulations, which includes being airworthy (something 99.9% of
airplanes aren't in the strictest sense). These clauses are seldom used
but, is it a good idea to give the insurance company an out in today's
increasingly tight and un-competitive market?

Not this one again! Please, somebody document this mysterious
clause. I've been asking about it on Usenet for years. It can't be
an old wives tale because so many people know about it :-) Most
policies have certain exclusions for flying while intoxicated, or
while committing a crime. I've yet to see one that has a blanket
exclusion for not flying by the regs.

Having bought insurance from most of the underwriters over the last
13 years, I expect that I might have seen it before. I have a
feeling I haven't because such a clause would render the insurance
policy worthless. If you think about it, most airplane accidents
happen because the plane isn't flown in accordance with the
regulations. That's why people buy insurance. To cover them when
they do stupid things.

Would you buy auto insurance that only covered you only if you broke
no traffic laws?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)