Private Aircraft Insurance - War Risks

[Grandad Flyer]

Our group has received a notice of termination of certain parts of our insurance, namely those relating to war.
I suspect what will happen is that we will be re-offered the risk coverage but at a higher rate.
If the rate is significantly higher I am inclined to keep the exclusion. The risk I guess is that of losing the hull if someone bombs our airfield. Personally I think the risk is pretty small, particularly as our aircraft lives inside and our airfield is only home to private aircraft.
I assume we can still fly privately with the exclusion in the policy. I think 3rd party liability risks are still covered, even in war conditions.
What does everyone else think and what are you going to do?

[Fujitsu]

Haven't received news of termination of that clause yet, but you can (if you like) fly privately without any insurance at all.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Here's what we got from our insurer as "re-instated" exclusions. I can't honestly say it worries me, except that apparently the offshoot of this is that according to our broker vandalism is now excluded - a bit naughty that and I think we need to be having words. I'd recommed that everybody else checks this.

G


"(a) War, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, hostilities (whether war be
declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, martial
law, military or usurped power or attempts at usurpation of power.

(b) Any hostile detonation of any weapon of war employing atomic or nuclear
fission and/or fusion or other like reaction or radioactive force or matter.

(c) Strikes, riots, civil commotion's or labour disturbances.

(d) Any act of one or more persons, whether or not agents of a soveriegn
Power, for political or terrorist purposes and whether the loss or damage
resulting therefrom is accidental or intentional.

(e) Any malicious act or act of sabotage.

(f) Confiscation, nationalisation, seizure, restraint, detention,
appropriation, requisition for title or use by or under the order of any
Government (whether civil or military or de facto) or public or local
authority.

(g) Hi-jacking or any unlawful seizure or wrongful exercise of control of the
Aircraft or crew in Flight (including any attempt at such seizure or control)
made by any person or persons on board the Aircraft acting without the
consent of the Insured.

Furthermore this Policy does not cover claims arising whilst the Aircraft is
outside the control of the Insured by reason of any of the above perils.

The Aircraft shall be deemed to have been restored to the control of the
Insured on the safe return of the Aircraft to the Insured at an airfield not
excluded by the geographical limits of this Policy, and entirely suitable for
the operation of the Aircraft (such safe return shall require that the
Aircraft be parked with engines shut down and under no duress)."

[amackinnon]

One thing to beware of - the 'malicious acts' clause may mean that if someone puts sugar in your tanks (for example) and you have an accident involving a collision with something on the ground, you have no third party liability insurance.

In my view, the insurance companies are being entirely unreasonable with this clause as it's far too wide ranging.

[mickypitch]

Thats interesting as my policy although now amended not to cover me for war and associated perils still stipulates that I am covered for malicous acts, but this will also terminate in the event of war between certain countries.
I have read it and reread it to make sure, so I am wondering whether some people posting on this thread MAY have mis-read their policies?
Cheers