Aircraft hull insurance claim rejection

[OverRun]

I'm working with an airline and wondering how to deal with a possible problem on hull insurance claim rejection if a pavement concession is not in place at the time of an accident, and I would appreciate the experience of others.

Background
Scheduled RPT operation, 150 seat single aisle jet, landing at a licensed airport. Aircraft weight/ACN meets published PCN, but tyre pressure at 1500 kPa is higher than the 1000 kPa published Y rating. No pavement concession was got despite trying hard (suspected due to language barrier, culture, or simply lack of folding stuff??). Airport flight schedule shows other airlines with same equipment are operating there.

Hypothetical problem
Crosswind landing, drop it onto one main gear leg, blow a tyre, brake/wheel fire, pull up and evacuate, fire service is slow to get there, wheel fire continues and eventually damages wing, etc. AOG. A large bill to pay.

Aircraft hull insurance claim
When the airline claims that on insurance, will the insurance company:

(a) ever check the aircraft weight and tyre pressures against the published PCN rating ?
(b) pay the claim, or
(c) will they refuse the claim on the grounds that the tyre pressure was higher than allowable for the runway and therefore they won’t pay (irrespective of whether that issue actually caused the problem)?

Cheers

[parabellum]

Depending on who the leading underwriters are they will be talking to either Lloyds Aviation or Airclaims, both organisations have highly qualified engineers on their staff.

If the insurers disallowed the claim because of tyre pressure then they can expect a court case to ensue and experts to be called who will say that tyre pressure had no influence on this accident.

Also, an engineer could stand up and say that prior to the flight commencing he reduced the tyre pressures;)

[compressor stall]

and were the same typed aircraft using the same tyres / mtow? This can alter the pcn required. Refer to the table in the Jepps.

[parabellum]

In which case they would ask to see a copy of the tech log entry referring to the SB he was incorporating calling for the reduction of the tyre pressures....


Yes, very true. I wasn't being too serious with that suggestion. The previous paras still stand though.

[lomapaseo]

It's one thing to file a claim for wheel damage and quite another to expect a hull loss due to unforseen cascading of events.

Should you by chance find yourself in this situation you need some expert advice:)

[OverRun]

This is a hypothetical question because - touch wood - it hasn't happened. Thanks for the replies so far, and the information about Lloyds Aviation and Airclaims.

Good point Compressor Stall about same type aircraft having varying tyres and MTOW. They can vary by a few tonnes easily. I would assume that Murphy's law would prevail, and it would be the heaviest aircraft of the type . . . . . .

Unforeseen cascading of events is the big worry. I've been involved in quite a few construction court claims as an expert working for insurers, and I have seen that they can cascade out of all proportion. I have an airport one now, where the original advice cost under EUR 20,000, a taxiway was built, and the taxiway failed soon after due to omissions in the advice. The repair costs will be anything from EUR 100,000 for a limited fix, to over EUR 1 million if the taxiway is to be rebuilt as it should have been. And if it gets to court (too early to say yet), the legal and expert bills will be in the vicinity of EUR 200,000 whatever the judgment is. Not nice for something that started out as a EUR 20,000 problem.