Passenger liability

[modelman]

When renting from from a FTO and you have a spot of bad luck and wipe out yourself and pax, what is the situation regarding pax's dependants claiming compo from your surviving estate/wife/ kids etc. assume all the aircraft paperwork, inspections etc are up to date.
Can you indemnify yourself against this?

[Heston]

Can you indemnify yourself against this?


Er, no, since you'd be dead... And I don't see how they could make a claim against surviving relatives since it wouldn't have been them that had been negligent, if any negligence was to be shown.

(this is an opinion only and is worth what you paid for it, as folk say on t'internet)

[airpolice]

The difficulties faced by Colin McRae's estate would suggest that if the paperwork is not all in order, then the lawyers will have a feast.

[Daysleeper]

And I don't see how they could make a claim against surviving relatives since it wouldn't have been them that had been negligent, if any negligence was to be shown.

The claim would be against your estate, which would include any life insurance, property in your name etc etc. As many things are in joint names the net result is your relatives end up penniless and homeless anyhow. Equally, if you have survived, the claim may be directly against you.

There was a great article recently (September issue LAA mag here (http://lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2013/Magazine/September/insurance.pdf) ) where aviation solicitor Tim Scorer outlined some of the likely claims from injured pax. Some running to many millions. (think lifetime care for someone seriously disabled.)

Frankly it has been something troubling me as I rent GA.

[MOREOIL]

Ideally you should take the appropriate action to raise your handling skills and decision making to a level where " do I feel lucky" is no longer in your pre flight checks.

[Jonzarno]

As has been stated in earlier posts, passengers and their families would have a claim against you or your estate. The obvious remedy to this is to be sure you are covered by insurance.

As a first step, you should review the insurance cover of the people who are renting the plane to you. If it doesn't provide adequate cover, I suggest you contact a broker such as Haywards who should be able to provide a suitable policy.

[dubbleyew eight]

the obvious remedy is to get over big noting yourself and dont carry passengers. I don't.

[Groundbased]

Slight tangent, but I've recently started learning (6 hrs in) and I've been wondering if I need to notify my existing life insurers, and my company from a Death in Service perspective?

I can't see anything in the paperwork I've got, but this may not be the specific contract wording.

A general view would be helpful.

Thanks,

[dubbleyew eight]

groundbased you will find that private pilots will not be offered life insurance.

it is something to do with the mortality rate.
(all the pilots I know of, most died of old age.)

whenever the sales guys think they are on to a certainty I tell them that I have been a private pilot for 40 years. for some reason they all promptly vanish.:E

[Jodelman]

groundbased you will find that private pilots will not be offered life insurance.

Poppycock!!

[dubbleyew eight]

I can assure you that in australia being a private pilot means no life insurance.

I suggest you read the exclusions in your own policy before telling me about your family jewels.

[Jodelman]

The OP and Groundbased are in the UK not Australia.

[dubbleyew eight]

I suggest you read the exclusions in your own policy

you might just get a little surprise.

[Daysleeper]

Aren't most life insurance policies fixed on whatever you do when the policy is taken out?
Mine was loaded (slightly) for the flying I was doing when I took it out (long form fill in) , couple of years later I got asked to do some test flying ( post maintenance type) called the insurers up who said it made no odds now as the policy was in force.

[piperarcher]

When renting from from a FTO and you have a spot of bad luck and wipe out yourself and pax, what is the situation regarding pax's dependants claiming compo from your surviving estate/wife/ kids etc. assume all the aircraft paperwork, inspections etc are up to date.
Can you indemnify yourself against this?


Wouldnt the FTO's insurance cover this, or is it so wildly different everywhere that passanger liability is not covered?

[riverrock83]

The injury / death in service / health cover provided through my employer doesn't have a private pilot exclusion. At least it better not - I asked our HR department to check...

Personal life insurance cover might be different, however, as it is more personally tailored. I would expect a slightly higher premium or an add-on required (on the same lines if you regularly went skiing) but not a straight exclusion.

However you should check.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

A few things being slightly mixed up here.

First, the issue is not really one about indemnification. It's about liability (whether it exists) and insurance (whether you have cover for the liability if it exists).

Second, I don't see that it really makes much difference whether you rent or own, unless it transpires that the cause of the accident was a problem with the aeroplane rather than the pilot.

Third, I don't think it makes any difference (as regards liability) whether or not you are fatally injured. A big claim could affect your family finances whether you survive or not.

Fourth, there's no point limiting the issue to passengers. Same issue applies if you kill some poor soul on the ground or in another aircraft.

In fact, it doesn't really make sense to limit the issue to aircraft. Same issues apply if you drive your car negligently; ski negligently or whatever.

Sensible insurance; try your human best to take care; understand that imaginative lawyers can always think of liability scenarios which buy them attention, column inches in the press or fees; and, then live life with a sense of mortality for you and others.

[Ds3]

groundbased you will find that private pilots will not be offered life insurance.

I can assure you this most certainly isn't the case in the UK. Some policies may exclude it by default so if you have a policy and didn't disclose that you're a pilot it's certainly worth checking.

However dependant on the type of flying you do and that it's openly declared during application, a lot will not specify it as an exclusion.

I have recently taken out a policy via Stein Pilot Insurance who are a broker specialising in (surprisingly) insurance for pilots. As a basic PPL I fly around 50 hours per year, and this was accepted by a main stream insurer without any increase to the premiums.

[Groundbased]

HR at my company have confirmed there is no issue with the DIS. I am notifying the insurers for my personally held life insurance, so will update when I get a reply from them.

[Echo Romeo]

This a bit of a concern, my passenger liability cover is 125k, now if I was to kill, lets say, a young professional with a family in a flying accident, that amount of cover is not going to be nearly enough.

So where would you stand legally in the event of an accident, if you had fixed a placard in front of the righthand seat worded appropriately, but basically stating... if you fly in this aircraft you do so at your own risk, so therefore anyone flying would be deemed to have accepted those terms!

What is deemed negligent? For example, you suffer engine failure due to mechanical failure then in the ensuing forced landing run into power lines and kill your pax, would you in those circumstances be liable to a claim against you?

[modelman]

When I started flying my life cover company said as the policy was already established no problem but they wouldn't have taken me as a new client

[Jodelman]

This a bit of a concern

Echo Romeo - It is indeed a concern as £125,000 limit of indemnity for passenger liability is totally inadequate and the insurance broker that sold you such a limit is very unprofessional unless he explained the inadequacy and you accepted it.

A placard such as you describe would have no legal effect at all.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

if you had fixed a placard in front of the righthand seat worded
appropriately, but basically stating... if you fly in this aircraft you do so at
your own risk, so therefore anyone flying would be deemed to have accepted those
terms!

What is deemed negligent? For example, you suffer engine failure
due to mechanical failure then in the ensuing forced landing run into power
lines and kill your pax, would you in those circumstances be liable to a claim
against you?


Despite frequent signs that may suggest otherwise, English law does not allow you to exclude liability for causing death or personal injury through negligence.

IN answer to your second question, negligence is basically a combination of two things: 1) owing a duty of care to someone and 2) failing to discharge that duty of care. Whether or not you owe a duty of care to someone is largely a matter if law. You will owe a duty of care to passengers and pretty much anyone who is foreseeably affected by your actions. Whether you fail to discharge that duty is partly a question of fact and begins with an assessment of the standard of care required. Having an accident (even if it kills or injures someone) does not in itself equate automatically to negligence. To use an example, a freak weather event causing a CFIT beyond anyone's ability to control it, is not evidence of your negligence. There is a big grey area though. Your actual example would require closer examination. One would need to consider, for example, whether hitting the power lines was caused by a failure to use the skill expected of a PPL holder when executing a forced landing.

[dublinpilot]

This a bit of a concern, my passenger liability cover is 125k, now if I was to kill, lets say, a young professional with a family in a flying accident, that amount of cover is not going to be nearly enough.

Woudl the passenger not be claiming off the third party part of your policy, which would be much more than that?

[Ka6crpe]

Fortunately here in New Zealand we have an accident compensation scheme that automatically pays for medical costs etc in the event of an accident irrespective of the cause or fault, and it removes the right to sue in these cases.

However I think we need to look at the conditions of a PPL as opposed to a CPL. A PPL may not carry passengers for hire or reward, so the same degree of duty of care does not apply. That doesn't mean the pilot has no duty of care, just that it is not formed as part of a contract. I believe that for a case to be successfull against a PPL there would have to more than simple negligence, it would almost have to be culpable negligence or some deliberate act on the part of the pilot. ( I have no legal training, so this opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it).

[Echo Romeo]

Jodelman, the insurers I am with are probably the biggest providers to light GA in the country, all my friends who own aircraft use them and have the same level of cover as myself.

dublinpilot, I don't know, I am going look into this more thoroughly !

CharlieDeltaUK, Thank you for explaining that, there is indeed food for thought, I think I'll seek clarification from my insurers.

[Bob Bevan]

Echo Romeo

I created a thread on this subject a few weeks back (here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/523664-liability-insurance-article.html)), and I would really recommend reading the article in the LAA magazine for which I provided a link (http://lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/2013/Magazine/September/insurance.pdf) (same piece as referred to earlier in this thread).

As the article shows, £125k for passenger liability seems very low in the context of the types of compensation claims which are now being paid out on.

However a bigger question is whether you should even be arranging separate passenger liability cover and whether it might not be better to arrange cover based on a combined single limit (CSL) to encompass both the third party and passenger liability limits. This subject is again explained in the article.

While there are no absolute rules, I believe that CSL is often a better approach for light aircraft owners. The article suggests CSL is the norm amongst owners in the UK although your post suggests otherwise.

Cheers,

[Swiss Cheese]

The Combined Single Limit approach is better for protecting the Pilot, or his Estate, from pax and third party claims.

There are minimum insurance limits imposed by EU law - enter the reg of a UK aircraft into G-INFO and see them displayed.

I have a £7m+ CSL when flying, which for 4 pax seats in a turbine helicopter could easily fall short of the mark in the event of multiple death or catastrophic injuries. Were i routinely flying 5 up, then I would seek top up cover - known as Risk Excess.

Interestingly, in the US, there are no minimum insurance requirements in GA private flying, and the insurers rarely provide more than $100k per seat of liability cover. That may partially explain why more product liability claims are brought - the so called deep pocket theory.

Also, so-called disclaimers are rarely valid in the GA sector.

[gileraguy]

If you place a placard on the panel you may be advising that there is risk, but not limiting your liability. I believe it has been argued that if you have a "Beware of the Dog" notice on your property, then you are aware that the dog is dangerous and that INCREASES your Duty of Care!

The EXPERIMENTAL placard on some types is a warning notice of the passengers accepting the associated risk.

Lawyers being what they are, the defining factor in any argument will always be the equity and wealth (if any)held by the defendant, as long as that remains you'll always have litigation.

[Mike Cross]

As many things are in joint names the net result is your relatives end up penniless and homeless anyhow.
Errmmm...... My understanding is that a property that is held jointly as a joint tenancy (most commonly husband and wife) passes in its entirety to the surviving tenant(s) on death and does not form part of your estate. I don't know whether the same applies to other joint assets such as a bank account in joint names. Tenancy in common is different, if you are tenants in common then my understanding is that your share of the property does form part of your estate. Perhaps some legally qualified beagle can say whether I am right or wrong.

[Bob Bevan]

Mike,

I think you are right that there are circumstances in which your estate might be protected depending on the structure of holdings.

That said, there is more general point of the moral obligation to ensure that third parties or passengers are properly protected from the consequences of our actions. I think I would feel pretty guilty if I caused an accident that led to an innocent person being badly injured. However I would feel a hell of a lot more guilty if they went uncompensated because I had saved a few quid on my insurance and then relied on a technicality to avoid my responsibilities.

[Echo Romeo]

Ok, so all it will cost to convert my policy to 3.25 mil Indemnity CSL is £80 extra a year. Why I wasn't offered the choice in the first place, god only knows!

Above that level the premium ramps up dramatically, so I guess it's a case of risk assessment, I only have 1 pax seat I'll consider carefully who I offer it to.

[Jodelman]

Why I wasn't offered the choice in the first place

Good question! Do you really want to stay with such a broker?

[Bob Bevan]

Hi Echo,

Glad to hear you have got it sorted and that it has not cost that much more, although as you say, it does make you wonder why they did not offer CSL in the first instance.

To be honest though, they should not be ramping up the liability premium that much if you increase the level of liability cover. Liability risk does not increase in a linear fashion as the higher the limit the less likely that the insurer will have to pay out the the full amount of cover provided. For this reason increasing the limit from £3.5m to £7m (i.e. 100% increase in cover) should, depending on other rating factors, only result in an increase of about 40% in liability premium.

The mods (moderator that is, not skinheads on lambrettas :)) will beat me up if I mention my online aircraft insurance service by name, but as Jodelman says, maybe a bit of shopping around come renewal might be in order!

[Echo Romeo]

I have 5 Months to run I will then seek a couple more quotes.

But one thing I will say, is that In the last 3 years I have known 2 people, one of whom is a close friend who have had their aircraft written off, the latter in an arson attack.

Both were insured with who I am, and in both cases their claims were settled very quickly and to the complete satisfaction of the claimants. So on balance unless there is a massive difference in premiums come renewal time I shall probably stay with them.

[Mike Cross]

Just out of interest do you worrry about the liability limit on your car insurance?

[mm_flynn]

Just out of interest do you worrry about the liability limit on your car insurance?

Yes. Unless you are just buying the minimum to be legal, I would have thought most people should buy an amount of insurance that was sensible given their personal circumstances (how much they have to lose, the risk of creating the liability, and how much they can afford to insure against that liability). If one think they have bought 5m in liability cover and then discovers there are a bunch of sub limits that means only 100 grand is available, that would be 'unfortunate'.

[Mike Cross]

Not sure I follow your logic. Shirley it's not your own circumstances but those of the people you are contemplating slaughtering that determine the amount of cover you require? :hmm:

At the end of the day Insurance is a gamble. You insure against those things that would be a disaster for you to a level that you are comfortable with considering your own opinion on the likelihood of disaster striking.

I know people who are so risk averse (or gullible) that they insure thir iPhones, iPads, Dishwashers and Boilers. It's a bet where the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the insurers. Sure you may get unlucky and be glad of the cover but at the end of the day none of them would wipe me out so I'm happy to carry the risk myself.

[Jodelman]

Just out of interest do you worrry about the liability limit on your car insurance?

No need to worry - third party and passenger liability limits on UK private motor policies is unlimited! - Road Traffic Act requires it to be so.

Not so in other parts of the world. You might be worried if you realised the limit on many rental cars in the USA.

[Mike Cross]

Indeed, the limits on my car insurance in the US are $100,000 for Liability, $300,000 for bodily injury and $50,000 for property damage.

To add to the confusion if I drive a couple of miles north and have an accident I'm in South Carolina where the law is different. If I actually moved house a couple of miles north I'd have to re-register my car, turn in my Georgia Drivers license and get a South Carolina one.

So my driver's license is a State one and my Pilots license is a Federal one - go figure. As neither the licenses or the vehicles they cover were invented when the Constitution was written it's all a bit of a mystery to me (a non-resident alien who is nevertheless legally residing in the US and is a US taxpayer).

[Bob Bevan]

Mike highlights one of the biggest problems with insurance in post #38 which is that we as consumers have lost sight of what it should be for!

The earliest forms of insurance were to cover catastrophic loss, such as a ship and its cargo being lost at sea. Individual ship owners could not cope with the financial impact of such calamities so they created a pool of money from which those who suffered losses would be compensated. Building property insurance evolved from this, but the perils covered were limited to risks such as fire where the consequence was again usually a total, catastrophic loss.

However over time insurance has expanded to cover a whole range of risks which, if they were too occur, would not really cause a life changing loss to the owner, such as accidental damage to a TV set on a contents policy or adding cover for personal possessions to a motor policy. Insurers would argue that these are giving better cover but of course what they are really trying to do is generate additional income.

The results is that insurance is generally far more expensive than it needs to be because it now includes cover for minor events which do not really impact the livelihood of the owner at risk but which do cost insurers a lot because of the disproportionately high operational cost of servicing small claims.

This same problem can be seen in aviation insurance where a lot of ‘free’ covers are included which in truth the aircraft owner still pays for within their premium whether they want it or not. In addition owners are not encouraged to pay high excesses because that would reduce premiums and hence the commission paid to brokers. Aircraft owners should be allowed to choose stripped down hull or liability cover if they want, to add optional covers (e.g. spares, PA etc) only if they feel they need them, and to select higher excess levels in return for premium discounts.

Rant over :ugh:

[mm_flynn]

Not sure I follow your logic. Shirley it's not your own circumstances but those of the people you are contemplating slaughtering that determine the amount of cover you require? :hmm:

While there is admirable concern for others in your logic, no one insures for the maximum damage they might do to third parties. Some people choose the very selfish, ' I'll be dead and they can sort themselves so I don't need any insurance' strategy. Some look and say, 'I have a £100m estate, if anything happens that involves me at all, 'I will be the deep pockets so I need a lot of insurance'

But most people (who think about it at all) will have a logic something like 'what is the probability of a loss at x level and how much will it cost to insure against it, and what is the consequence to me and my loved ones of loosing everything if I don't insure to this level.

The end result should be, a reasonably high level of insurance for third party liability to cover the overwhelming majority of feasible outcomes. Pretty much everyone flying accepts that if through their negligence they take down a $400m American Airlines 747 with $5bn in personal injury claims, they and their estate are going to be wiped out, but also that the lawsuit will include ATC, American, Boeing, etc. in order to supplement the very shallow pockets of any normal individual.

What should be of concern to pilots is flying with 100k in passenger liability sub limits, which is in adequate to cover even the most basic and high probability liability.

[Groundbased]

By way of update I heard back from my life insurance company today, there is no rating or additional premium to be paid as a result of PPL training in my particular case.