Cessna Citation down in Penn Cove, WA

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
His biggest concern in that respect will be arguing with the
insurance company about whether dumping the plane in the water was the best
decision. Hopefully his insurance company will be better than that, but
I've heard plenty of horror stories about getting claims paid.


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. I've yet to see an insurance policy that
says, "We won't pay if you didn't make the best decision about the
site of your crash". I can't see an insurance company "arguing" with
a policy holder about this.

I've heard horror stories about claims not being paid promptly, but
it was always the result of incompetent management.

If you happen to crash while doing something contrary to your policy
(like drinking or commiting crimes), that's another story altogether.

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

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"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.

Oddly enough, when I got my policy, I went hunting for these kind of exclusions
(including also things like restrictions to public airports or hard surfaces).
Oddly, enough, mine while it goes to great lengths to cover things like nuclear
war, really just says that I have to be operating the aircraft for my personal use.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Oddly enough, when I got my policy, I went hunting for these kind of
exclusions
(including also things like restrictions to public airports or hard
surfaces).
Oddly, enough, mine while it goes to great lengths to cover things like
nuclear
war, really just says that I have to be operating the aircraft for my
personal use.

Well, like I said, each policy is different.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"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.

You can't be serious! I've been buying aircraft insurance for 14
yrs. and have never had a policy with such an exclusion. Just about
every accident involves a violation of some FAR. Such a policy would
be virtually worthless. Please tell me who your insurance company is,
so I can avoid it.

As I said previously, most policies exclude coverage if you are
commiting a crime or flying while impaired, But a blanket exclusion
for violations of FARs is just plain ridiculous.

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