Companies Allowing Employees to Fly

Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291

"Steve - KDMW" wrote:

Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

The difference is probably that they're insured when you're in your car but
not when you're in an airplane.

Another difference is that they understand and are comfortable with the
risks of you being in your car, but they don't understand the risks of you
being in an airplane.

They could gain an understanding of the risks. They could meet with their
insurance carrier, and their lawyers, and look carefully at the issue to
better understand exactly what their liability exposure is. This would
take time and money, and be of no benefit to them.

Roy Smith wrote:
"Steve - KDMW" wrote:

Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

The difference is probably that they're insured when you're in your car but
not when you're in an airplane.

Another difference is that they understand and are comfortable with the
risks of you being in your car, but they don't understand the risks of you
being in an airplane.

They could gain an understanding of the risks. They could meet with their
insurance carrier, and their lawyers, and look carefully at the issue to
better understand exactly what their liability exposure is. This would
take time and money, and be of no benefit to them.
Actually I would argue that it is of tremendous benefit to the company
because they can get a lot more work out of their worker if he does not
spend time on the road butter rather doing what he is paid for. That's
the argument I would use.

PS It did not work for me

Dave Touretzky won this battle in an academic environment;
I suspect you can find his writeup.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Steve - KDMW wrote:
Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

I believe what they are worried about is if you crashed into a
house or something that other people would sue your company. It
happens all the time and what they don't realize is that they
are also just as easily sued if you ran into someone with your car.

In this day and age people sue other people at the drop of a hat.
A plane crash is just more 'spectacular' for a lawyer because they
can play many angles (generally ignorance and envy) and end up
with a much bigger pot o'gold.

If it were me I'd just fly anyway, screw 'em. I hate driving.

"Steve - KDMW" wrote in message
oups.com...
Question...

I have to do a lot of regional travel for my company and, due to the
work we do, most of my work is actually at airports. I've asked my
company if I can use my personal aircraft for a lot of this travel and
they denied my request due to what the company percieves as their
liability in the matter.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291


There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered
employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Steve - KDMW" wrote in message
There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban covered
employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.

True, and Worker's Comp is just the begining. Try looking into general
liability policies. If your company normally has $10 million in
liability when you're driving the rental car, they'll need at least
that for the plane. Now try to find that coverage for a C-172.

-Robert

I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance policies
must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of practice, I have
not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use of any particular
mode of transportation, so long as the use of the transportation "arises out
of" and is "in the course of" the employee's employment. I have personally
defended an employer and insurer where the employee died as a result of the
crash of a helicopter he owned and operated. There was no question of
compensability or coverage.

If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
right-- without the appropriate rider.

I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was
with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm
business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to me.
I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat impossible
without flying.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291


There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.

"LWG" wrote in
:

I don't think so.

I'd have to concur based on my own experiences.

I used to work for the gubment, and claimed privately owned aircraft when I
travelled. If something happened during my commute, then I was covered
under the Workers comp provisions.

I was paid $1.08 per mile.

Only thing I had to do was a cost comparison to show my flying was cheaper
then an overnight stay, which was very easy considering, I'd have been
paid, hotel, per diem and car mileage for the overnight stay.

On my shorter trips, it was cheaper to stay at a hotel, claim per diem and
car mileage. If I flew, I just took the cheaper of the two, and still got
to fly.

Best part of my workday was my commute to and from work on those days *big
smile* and I'd return home to my own bed that night.

Allen

Oh, the policy will pay the claim if it is work related. But they will
cancel at the next renewal or sooner. If you look at the first question on
the standard ACCORD application there is a question. "Do you own operate or
lease Aircraft or Watercraft?" As an attorney I'm sure you know that there
are laws against lying on an insurance application.

In the voluntary work comp market carriers can choose the risks they are
willing to underwrite in many cases they choose not to underwrite companies
that operate aircraft.


"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
I don't think so. State law defines what a compensable injury is for the
purposes of workers' compensation. Workers' compensation insurance
policies must hew to that statutory line. In twenty-eight years of
practice, I have not seen any state laws which bar compensation for the use
of any particular mode of transportation, so long as the use of the
transportation "arises out of" and is "in the course of" the employee's
employment. I have personally defended an employer and insurer where the
employee died as a result of the crash of a helicopter he owned and
operated. There was no question of compensability or coverage.

If you change the statement from workers' compensation to CGL, you may be
right-- without the appropriate rider.

I fly in my current employment to get to and from hearings. The firm I was
with previously was very much against my use of an airplane while on firm
business. My new firm has no reservations which have been expressed to
me. I can handle hearings in opposite corners of the state, a feat
impossible without flying.

Is my company misguided or do they really have some liability if I use
my airplane instead of my car for regional travel? What's the
difference between me crashing my airplane into a school (their
example) or plowing my car into the same school's bus stop?

Steve
CP - ASEL/IA
PA28-151
N43291


There are MANY workers' compensation policies that specifically ban
covered employees from flying in non-commercial aircraft.