Cessna Citation down in Penn Cove, WA

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
I hear comments like this a lot and I wonder where they come from.
The purpose of insurance is to pay for your damages, whether or not
you screwed something up.

My policy has an explicit exclusion for violations of FARs. Each policy is
different, of course, but I doubt that my policy is unique.

In this particular situation, I can easily imagine an insurance company
finding that the pilot violated some regulation such as fuel reserves or
other preflight action that would have prevented the accident had he
complied with it. Of course, until the NTSB decides what caused the
accident, we won't really know whether the pilot was potentially in
violation of any FARs.

I don't mean to imply that fighting with the insurance company is
commonplace. As far as I know, claims are almost always paid out just as
they ought to be. But there are enough instances of an insurance company
looking for an exclusion (perfectly legal, of course) in the policy and
interpreting things in their favor that one should not just assume there
will be no trouble.

Pete