View Single Post
  #49  
Old September 14th 06, 09:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jcarlyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default IMPORTANT- Seeyou V's Strepla and airspace violations.

Further to my last note. I forgot to point out that there are two
fundamental concepts in Erik's post that are being convolved. One is:
do you have insurance coverage? The second is: who pays for damages?

As I said above, if something isn't explicitly excluded in your
insurance contract, then you do have insurance coverage. This means you
will be defended by the insurance company in the lawsuit which will be
held to find fault, and that you will be reimbursed for your loss.

The second issue, who pays, is what I think Erik was really getting at.
In the lawsuit following an accident, someone will be found at fault.
If it's you, then your insurance company must pay the other party as
well as you. If it's the other party, then their insurance company will
pay you and their insuree.

Hope this clears up any confusion I might have left in people's minds.

-John


jcarlyle wrote:
Erik,

Insurance policies are "exclusionary contracts". This legal term means
that if something doesn't appear in writing as an "exclusion", then the
insuree has coverage. This came about because the law recognizes that
the insuree has no ability to change the contract, but rather must buy
it as it comes from the insurance company. To level the playing field,
the law will find in favor of the insuree unless the policy
specifically says in writing that something will not be covered.

I have an SSA policy on my glider issued through National Fire
Insurance of Pittsburgh, whose address is in New York City(!). Nowhere
in the policy does it state that I must operate the aircraft in
accordance with the FARs. I do not have any intention whatsoever of
violating the FARs, but if I did so inadvertently and something
happened, I would still have insurance coverage. I'd also have trouble
with the FAA, but that's another matter!

Interestingly, my policy doesn't say anything about an annual being
required, unless that could be tortured out of the following phrase:
"If (I) know that the aircraft is not certificated by the FAA under a
Standard Airworthiness Certificate in full force and effect while in
flight". It does, as you say, require that I have (a) "a current and
valid FAA Pilots Certificate with ratings and endorsements applicable
to (my) aircraft", (b) "if required, a current and valid Biennial
Flight Review", and (c) "a written endorsement from a Certified Flight
Instructor to solo the same make and model as (my) aircraft.

Bottom line: read your policy very carefully, word by word. If
something isn't specifically excluded, then you do have coverage.

-John

Papa3 wrote:
Ramy wrote:

This is an interesting assumption. I didn't dig my insurance policy
yet, but I don't recall that violations are excluded. I think, like car
accidents, you are covered whether it is your fault or not.


Wow - it's amazing pilots are so oblivious on their insurance coverage
(don't take that personally Ramy). In point of fact, insurance
companies can and will find every possible reason to avoid paying a
claim. Violation of FARs is one of the first places they will look.
This includes but is not limited to:

- Airworthiness of the aircraft (ship is within anual inspection,
required intrumentation operatinge, etc.).
- Pilot is properly qualified for the flight (cockpit checkouts,
Flight Review, etc.)
- Operation is conducted within FARs
- etc.

Erik Mann