Originally Posted by
Captain Stable
When people enter the contract, they agree to fulfill one part of the bargain like (a) maintaining their licence currency, (b) maintaining their medical currency (c) etc. In return, the insurance company agrees to maintain their side of the bargain in paying out in case of a loss. If one side doesn't keep their side of the bargain, why should the other?
Why are so many people here continually trying to find loopholes and wriggle out of minor points like OBEYING THE LAW???????
My public policy points was,
- The law now requires us to carry a minimum level of third party insurance. This is so that the reasonable financial consequences of an error on our part can be insured (rather than being met from the estate of the pilot - whom if flying professionally is likely to have a minimal estate due to the current levels of pay in the industry).
- This seems like good public policy, we pay to insure the public against our actions.
- However, the more significant the damage to the public, the more likely the insurer is to dig for a reason not to pay - and these reasons need have nothing to do with the accident in question. In fact, read literally, these reasons are so numerous that many to most fatal accidents will have a non-compliance.
- So, not withstanding the public policy requirement to have third party liability insurance, there is a significant chance the injured parties will be facing an uninsured pilot
Is this good public policy?