Destruction of GA – huge indemnity insurance
You forget one thing, airport owners/operators are captive to their insurance advisors. I once had an 'insurance advisor' tell my company that we needed to have "unlimited" third party insurance in case our aircraft [Super King Air] hit a Qantas 747 over Cairns! Didn't seem to understand that there is no premium for "unlimited" insurance...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if the airport only owns the dirt and not the hangar on what grounds can they be sued. It wasn't their roof that rearranged the aerodynamics of some parked aircraft.
So I get the required insurance today, and show the certificate to the airport owner. Tomorrow I cancel the policy, get a refund and spend it all on flying.
Two months later the roof rips off my hangar and damages a bunch of aircraft. I’m uninsured and in breach of my lease. I’m worth $1.
What happens next?
Two months later the roof rips off my hangar and damages a bunch of aircraft. I’m uninsured and in breach of my lease. I’m worth $1.
What happens next?
I'm certainly no lawyer, but I would think the Airport does you for breach of contract, and the various aircraft owners take you to the cleaners. Because it appears to Blind Freddie that you have deliberately tried to avoid your liability, I'd say the lawyers would have a field day. To the sharks, there's blood in the water!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm certainly no lawyer, but I would think the Airport does you for breach of contract, and the various aircraft owners take you to the cleaners.
Precisely, RA.
Lots of people labour under the misconceptions that (1) imposing an obligation to have insurance is equivalent to the protection of having insurance and (2) having insurance is equivalent to the insurance company writing a cheque.
These levels of naïveté are why insurance companies (and now airport owners) make so much money.
Lots of people labour under the misconceptions that (1) imposing an obligation to have insurance is equivalent to the protection of having insurance and (2) having insurance is equivalent to the insurance company writing a cheque.
These levels of naïveté are why insurance companies (and now airport owners) make so much money.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 18th Mar 2018 at 06:49.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are insured for 1 Million, that is what the lawyers will sue you for.
If.................................10....................... ...................................................
If..................................20...................... ...................................................
Etc....
Guess how insurance brokers get paid!
If.................................10....................... ...................................................
If..................................20...................... ...................................................
Etc....
Guess how insurance brokers get paid!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is high time Australia looked at New Zealand's no fault insurance. It appears that in Australia most of the insurance money is wasted sorting out who's fault the accident was. NZ pisses all over Oz with more sensible aviation rules. Perhaps some of the Bros or Broesses over here could give us a heads up as to how no fault insurance works and if it's worth pursuing.
Yep.
And to reach the text minima: Yep (except “who’s” should be “whose”).
And to reach the text minima: Yep (except “who’s” should be “whose”).
I wasn’t aware that the usual house and contents policies of insurance included $20 to $30 million of third party property cover, TIEW. I mustn’t have been reading the policies closely enough.
Legal Liability
The most we will pay for all claims from any one incident for legal liability covered by this policy is
$20 million, including all associated legal costs we have agreed to pay following your claim.
Home legal liability
If you have home cover we cover your legal liability to pay compensation for death or bodily injury
to other people or loss or damage to their property resulting from an incident which happens during
the period of insurance:
– in connection with you owning or living in your home; and
– at the insured address.
The most we will pay for all claims from any one incident for legal liability covered by this policy is
$20 million, including all associated legal costs we have agreed to pay following your claim.
Home legal liability
If you have home cover we cover your legal liability to pay compensation for death or bodily injury
to other people or loss or damage to their property resulting from an incident which happens during
the period of insurance:
– in connection with you owning or living in your home; and
– at the insured address.
Aircraft over the fence are not “at the insured address”.
I should have said I wasn’t aware of usual house and contents policies of insurance that cover third party property damage at other than the insured address.
If the roof of the insured house blows over the fence of the adjacent aerodrome and damages aircraft there, the insurance will not respond to that damage.
I should have said I wasn’t aware of usual house and contents policies of insurance that cover third party property damage at other than the insured address.
If the roof of the insured house blows over the fence of the adjacent aerodrome and damages aircraft there, the insurance will not respond to that damage.
My understanding is: If one of my 30 odd metre tall gum trees in the backyard falls and crushes the house next door, I'm covered?
(Just like after the Brisbane floods of 2011? You then find out what was really covered..)
(Just like after the Brisbane floods of 2011? You then find out what was really covered..)
No, but the incident ie the roof coming off, did happen at the insured premises.
From another:
Doesn't stipulate where the other property has to be located.
From the same firm:
Not even at or on your property.
From another:
Home Insurance
Your legal liability as a landlord or owner-occupier of the home to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from an accident that occurs or arises at the insured address and which causes:
• death or injury
• loss of or damage to property.
Your legal liability as a landlord or owner-occupier of the home to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from an accident that occurs or arises at the insured address and which causes:
• death or injury
• loss of or damage to property.
From the same firm:
Contents Insurance
Your legal liability and the legal liability of anyone who permanently lives with you at the home (except for a boarder or housemate) to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from an accident that occurs in Australia and which causes:
• death or injury
• loss of or damage to property.
For example, if you are riding a bicycle and hit a jogger because you weren’t paying attention to the path in front of you, then you may be liable to pay them compensation for that accident.
Your legal liability and the legal liability of anyone who permanently lives with you at the home (except for a boarder or housemate) to pay compensation for loss or damage resulting from an accident that occurs in Australia and which causes:
• death or injury
• loss of or damage to property.
For example, if you are riding a bicycle and hit a jogger because you weren’t paying attention to the path in front of you, then you may be liable to pay them compensation for that accident.
Some evidently haven’t been paying attention to each flood - or is that inundation or act of God? - in the wake of which there’s controversy over what people thought their insurance covered. Believing that some words you read mean you’re covered for X is not the same as your insurance company writing a cheque when X happens.
Here’s an idea, TIEW: Write to one or more of the insurers you quoted, and ask them for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, in writing, to a specific scenario. “If the owner of a home adjacent to the airport where my aircraft is parked has one of your policies of insurance, will the policy respond if the roof of the home blows off and destroys my aircraft? Yes or no.”
I’ve been through these exercises a number of times. The answers are instructive - disappointly so. I suspect the answer to the specific hypothetical question I posed above would be neither yes nor no, but rather “Why did the roof blow off?” But I’m happy to stand corrected.
Here’s an idea, TIEW: Write to one or more of the insurers you quoted, and ask them for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, in writing, to a specific scenario. “If the owner of a home adjacent to the airport where my aircraft is parked has one of your policies of insurance, will the policy respond if the roof of the home blows off and destroys my aircraft? Yes or no.”
I’ve been through these exercises a number of times. The answers are instructive - disappointly so. I suspect the answer to the specific hypothetical question I posed above would be neither yes nor no, but rather “Why did the roof blow off?” But I’m happy to stand corrected.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My neighbor’s tree fell and damaged structures on their and my property.
The tree was chainsawed along the boundary!
Insurance claims were totally separate with excesses paid by both parties, and that was with both of us being insured by the same company!
Because they are really great people the neighbors paid our excess for us but there was no requirement for them to do so.
The tree was chainsawed along the boundary!
Insurance claims were totally separate with excesses paid by both parties, and that was with both of us being insured by the same company!
Because they are really great people the neighbors paid our excess for us but there was no requirement for them to do so.
Some evidently haven’t been paying attention to each flood - or is that inundation or act of God? - in the wake of which there’s controversy over what people thought their insurance covered. Believing that some words you read mean you’re covered for X is not the same as your insurance company writing a cheque when X happens.
Here’s an idea, TIEW: Write to one or more of the insurers you quoted, and ask them for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, in writing, to a specific scenario. “If the owner of a home adjacent to the airport where my aircraft is parked has one of your policies of insurance, will the policy respond if the roof of the home blows off and destroys my aircraft? Yes or no.”
I’ve been through these exercises a number of times. The answers are instructive - disappointly so. I suspect the answer to the specific hypothetical question I posed above would be neither yes nor no, but rather “Why did the roof blow off?” But I’m happy to stand corrected.
Here’s an idea, TIEW: Write to one or more of the insurers you quoted, and ask them for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, in writing, to a specific scenario. “If the owner of a home adjacent to the airport where my aircraft is parked has one of your policies of insurance, will the policy respond if the roof of the home blows off and destroys my aircraft? Yes or no.”
I’ve been through these exercises a number of times. The answers are instructive - disappointly so. I suspect the answer to the specific hypothetical question I posed above would be neither yes nor no, but rather “Why did the roof blow off?” But I’m happy to stand corrected.
My aircraft and hangar are insured.
All I’m now “aware of” is that you construe some insurers’ words as meaning that their policies of insurance will respond to ‘off-property’ damage. I’d suggest that it’s good to confirm that in writing in the context of a specific scenario, if it’s important that insurance respond in that particular scenario. As I said, I have written to insurers about specific scenarios and the response was instructive. Disappointingly so.
All I’m now “aware of” is that you construe some insurers’ words as meaning that their policies of insurance will respond to ‘off-property’ damage. I’d suggest that it’s good to confirm that in writing in the context of a specific scenario, if it’s important that insurance respond in that particular scenario. As I said, I have written to insurers about specific scenarios and the response was instructive. Disappointingly so.
I don't know how you would construe "if you are riding a bicycle and hit a jogger because you weren’t paying attention to the path in front of you" any differently. Are you suggesting the accident happened in my lounge room?
I'm sure their response was disappointing. Their credo is to deny first, accept if forced to.
I'm sure their response was disappointing. Their credo is to deny first, accept if forced to.
No, I’m not suggesting that the accident in the quoted scenario occurred in your lounge room. What I’m asserting is that the roof blowing off your house, causing property damage off the property, is not the same as an individual’s negligence causing personal injury.
What is the fine print of the policy to which you refer? Are you sure that it covers all off property damage resulting from e.g. a cyclone that ripped the roof off, or by unlawful and uncertified modifications to the roof structure done by the insured, or by an explosion caused on the premises by the meth lab being run by the insured, or by...
If folks want to live in blissful ignorance, that’s their choice. Fortunately for them (and insurance companies) we’re talking about events with very low probabilities.
What is the fine print of the policy to which you refer? Are you sure that it covers all off property damage resulting from e.g. a cyclone that ripped the roof off, or by unlawful and uncertified modifications to the roof structure done by the insured, or by an explosion caused on the premises by the meth lab being run by the insured, or by...
If folks want to live in blissful ignorance, that’s their choice. Fortunately for them (and insurance companies) we’re talking about events with very low probabilities.