Originally Posted by
IO540
That is an old sleeping dog which
AFAIK has never been clarified either way.
...
But insurance works the other way. The insurer has a duty (to his shareholders) to avoid paying out unless legally obliged, and anyway it is a civil action which is going to cost megabucks to argue. So if there is any doubt, he can avoid paying out and just say "sue me if you don't like it" and leave you p1ssing in the wind.
.....
I think you may be a bit harsh on the insurers. I would agree that things like No CofA, substantially over weight at takeoff (particularly for a takeoff accident), Un-registered aircraft, pilot with no licence or a substantially expired licence, etc. all run a high risk of the insurer walking away from the claim.
However, in a case where the insurer had agreed to insure on the basis of an FAA licence and the State where the crash occurs is not prosecuting for flight with an invalid licence, and the insurer needs to interpret a third country's legislation - I suspect they would accept it was a legitimate claim.
However, we will never know until people who have gone through this experience either confirm or deny what the insurers did. There are a number of cases where the facts would be substantially the same - such as NPPL pilots who have crashed in France (although I believe this is no longer a restriction) The BE90 that crashed at Blackbush (VP with an FAA licence but the Bermuda endorsement had expired), another BE90 (I think) in Ireland where the combination of licence, medical and rating didn't matchup (individually he had an IR, ME and was medically fit - but all from different countries)
As such, one can only try ones best to comply with the applicable laws and not just accept that if one state says something is ok that it is actually legal.