Didn't someone post once that the FAA treat Europe as one airspace.
Yes, I think that was IO.
I am not sure it was me. I am sure it would be more accurate to say that most Americans, even those working in FAA offices, don't know much about Europe, about the JAA mutual-validation system, etc. and that is why one gets different replies from different bits.
Similar with JAA regulators - few of them will know anything about FAA regs.
I know a man who bought an N-reg TB-something; the CAA told him he cannot fly it in the UK on a UK PPL, so (on the basis of that crap piece of advice) he sold it
I must emphasise that on the subject of whether a JAA license meets FAR 61.3 (which uses the word "issued" which a JAA license certainly is
not, except in the one country which issued it) there are conflicting replies from the FAA. If anybody wants some examples, email me.
Whether a particular FAA reply is good for insurance purposes, well a lawyer could answer that.
I do know that, in UK law, an incorrect reply from an apparently authoritative source in an organisation does not modify the law, but the recipient has a reasonable expectation of receiving the correct information from an organisation (unless the reply from from somebody signing as the lavatory cleaner, and obviously subject to a full disclosure of relevant facts, etc) and can thus
rely on that reply. This principle makes a criminal prosecution virtually impossible, if the recipient relied on a reply which turned out to be incorrect. This principle has led to the CAA losing some well publicised court cases - the defendant had a letter from them which they "never knew" they had written.
Whether this is good enough for insurance purposes (a civil action, not a criminal action), I don't know but I would hope it would be.