rental in USA with existing validation
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non US Citizens Uninsured
The article is also on Page 34 of the June '07 edition of Pilot.
It states quite plainly that hour builders are not covered and even casts doubt on whether non-US citizens on approved courses are actually covered when flying PIC. At the risk of breaching copyright I will reproduce the article but I'm sure both Pilot and PPRuNe will forgive the minor transgression given its significance.
However, apart from it being quote (more or less) verbatim from Pilot I cannot make any statement regarding its accuracy.
"AOPA is seriously concerned that UK pilots renting aircraft in the US are flying uninsured even if they take out 'renter's insurance' policies provided by many flight schools and Fixed Base Operators.
Renter's insurance policies in America specifically exclude foreign nationals flying solo and all of AOPA UK's efforts down the years to have non-American pilots included on policies have come to nothing. Even AOPA US's own renter's insurance policy will not cover foreigners - their underwirters say that problems associated with dealing wiht foreign nationals make such cover unworkable.
Similarly, no underwriter with Looyd's will back a policy that covers British private pilots flying solo in America. Income from such policies would be small, while the potential liabilities from a single accident could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.
AOPA UK Chief Executive Martin Robinson says, "Many British pilots who pay for renter's insurance in the US don' read the small print and they're unaware that they are flying without insurance.
Policies can cover foreigners if they are flying under instruction but not when they are flying solo. It's debatable whether British students engaged in solo flying as part of licence courses are covered, given that their instructor will not be physically present in the aircraft. Pilots under training (my addition: I take this to mean DUAL, i.e. with the instructor) shouldbe covered by the Club's insurance policy but it would be wise to ask to see a copy of this before flying and to read the small print.
Effectively, many a renter in the US will be accepting an open ended liability. Given the propensity of the Americans to resort to the courts in case of accidents and the tendency of US juries to award vast sums in damages a British pilot is accpeting a significant risk of which he or she should be aware before take-off.
FBOs abnd flight schools may be able to say that they sold renter's insurance policies while being unaware that the buyer was aforeign national but every pilot should read the small print and know what it means in practice.
For years AOPA UK has been trying to find a way around this problem but even with the support of AOPA US we have been unable to make progress. We are concerned that one day a British pilot will find out the hard way that a policy he or she has does not in fact provide any cover.
Caveat emptor (Me again: Buyer beware!)."
It states quite plainly that hour builders are not covered and even casts doubt on whether non-US citizens on approved courses are actually covered when flying PIC. At the risk of breaching copyright I will reproduce the article but I'm sure both Pilot and PPRuNe will forgive the minor transgression given its significance.
However, apart from it being quote (more or less) verbatim from Pilot I cannot make any statement regarding its accuracy.
"AOPA is seriously concerned that UK pilots renting aircraft in the US are flying uninsured even if they take out 'renter's insurance' policies provided by many flight schools and Fixed Base Operators.
Renter's insurance policies in America specifically exclude foreign nationals flying solo and all of AOPA UK's efforts down the years to have non-American pilots included on policies have come to nothing. Even AOPA US's own renter's insurance policy will not cover foreigners - their underwirters say that problems associated with dealing wiht foreign nationals make such cover unworkable.
Similarly, no underwriter with Looyd's will back a policy that covers British private pilots flying solo in America. Income from such policies would be small, while the potential liabilities from a single accident could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.
AOPA UK Chief Executive Martin Robinson says, "Many British pilots who pay for renter's insurance in the US don' read the small print and they're unaware that they are flying without insurance.
Policies can cover foreigners if they are flying under instruction but not when they are flying solo. It's debatable whether British students engaged in solo flying as part of licence courses are covered, given that their instructor will not be physically present in the aircraft. Pilots under training (my addition: I take this to mean DUAL, i.e. with the instructor) shouldbe covered by the Club's insurance policy but it would be wise to ask to see a copy of this before flying and to read the small print.
Effectively, many a renter in the US will be accepting an open ended liability. Given the propensity of the Americans to resort to the courts in case of accidents and the tendency of US juries to award vast sums in damages a British pilot is accpeting a significant risk of which he or she should be aware before take-off.
FBOs abnd flight schools may be able to say that they sold renter's insurance policies while being unaware that the buyer was aforeign national but every pilot should read the small print and know what it means in practice.
For years AOPA UK has been trying to find a way around this problem but even with the support of AOPA US we have been unable to make progress. We are concerned that one day a British pilot will find out the hard way that a policy he or she has does not in fact provide any cover.
Caveat emptor (Me again: Buyer beware!)."
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook
Sounds like a load of nonsense to me. If they take your money they are on the hook
Having been totally f*cked over by insurance companies before, I can categorically state the above to be completely untrue.
And having worked as an investigator for insurance companies I can agree with PompeyPaul 100%. Some companies will go to some lengths to avoid payment.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes it is , bose dear boy, oh yes it is..................
Cusco
Cusco
As a member of the AOPA MWG this subject has been discussed on a number of occasions and both AOPA USA and AOPA Europe believe there is a significant issue around this.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a link to a PDF which has the Avemco Non Owner's Rental Policy
https://www.avemco.com/insuranceprod...licy%20PDF.pdf
Can somebody point out where it says that because I cannot find it.
It does say
which makes the insurance company most definitely 'on the hook' but they usually struggle and sometimes it takes a lawyer to land them.
Here is the policy for the renters insurance sold by AOPA
http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf
Where are the exclusions?
https://www.avemco.com/insuranceprod...licy%20PDF.pdf
Renter's insurance policies in America specifically exclude foreign nationals flying solo
It does say
We agree to provide insurance in return for your premium payment.
Here is the policy for the renters insurance sold by AOPA
http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf
Where are the exclusions?
Last edited by slim_slag; 10th Jun 2007 at 22:31.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Daventry UK
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Renter's Insurance
I'm glad that AOPA (UK) is taking an interest in this subject because AOPA (US) just stopped answering my emails once I pressed the point that I was a foreigner living in foreign land who was seeking insurance to fly in the US. (I am referring to the association, not the insurance broker).
It seems that Insurers may be willing to take your money and turn a blind eye, even in the case of using the FBO address, so long as you don't labour the point that you don't actually live there. If you do labour the point, they will just stop responding to your enquiries.
I wonder if this behaviour, which seems consistent between brokers, is the result of some insurance industry convention. After, there's a similar practice over car insurance which prevents your UK insurer covering you in the US, even though they will cover you in exotic countries elsewhere. Perhaps the word 'cartel' comes into it?
As to flying uninsured in the US, well that's the deal. In addition, you have to assume that the FBO's hull insurance is an unknown quantity because even if he claims to have it, you have no realistic way to find out if he's paid the premium. Funny thing is, I wouldn't dream of renting a car there without the LDW and SLI.
Realistically your chances of injuring a 3rd party are pretty small provided you don't carry passengers. But you might have to buy the FBO a new plane.
I'm glad that AOPA (UK) is taking an interest in this subject because AOPA (US) just stopped answering my emails once I pressed the point that I was a foreigner living in foreign land who was seeking insurance to fly in the US. (I am referring to the association, not the insurance broker).
It seems that Insurers may be willing to take your money and turn a blind eye, even in the case of using the FBO address, so long as you don't labour the point that you don't actually live there. If you do labour the point, they will just stop responding to your enquiries.
I wonder if this behaviour, which seems consistent between brokers, is the result of some insurance industry convention. After, there's a similar practice over car insurance which prevents your UK insurer covering you in the US, even though they will cover you in exotic countries elsewhere. Perhaps the word 'cartel' comes into it?
As to flying uninsured in the US, well that's the deal. In addition, you have to assume that the FBO's hull insurance is an unknown quantity because even if he claims to have it, you have no realistic way to find out if he's paid the premium. Funny thing is, I wouldn't dream of renting a car there without the LDW and SLI.
Realistically your chances of injuring a 3rd party are pretty small provided you don't carry passengers. But you might have to buy the FBO a new plane.
Last edited by david viewing; 12th Jun 2007 at 08:41.
Bose...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not getting into a spat with you on this. Read the entire thread and who poisted what. I merely commented on what others posted as an extract from AOPA. AOPA US and UK are concerned and this issue has been ongoing for sometime. If you have an issue with my opinion then put your request in writing to them and seek clarification.
I am certainlky concerned enough about the facts that I have at hand to consider my options. If you are prepared to follow your own very clearly stated belief then you are free to do so. I merely think encouraging others to follow you without clear clarification is ill advised.
I am certainlky concerned enough about the facts that I have at hand to consider my options. If you are prepared to follow your own very clearly stated belief then you are free to do so. I merely think encouraging others to follow you without clear clarification is ill advised.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not going to get 'clear clarification' on US insurance policy from a UK based organisation of debatable ability even within it's own sphere of influence. The clearest clarification provided on this thread are links to two actual insurancy policy documents, and a report of a phone conversation held with a US insurance company.
I am also not 'encouraging others to follow', I am presenting an argument with documentary evidence to back this up. Most people on here are smart enough to read both sides of the debate and make their own minds up. Hopefully my use of decent evidence makes my case stronger.
You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims. Such are bulletin boards of course. If you have known about this for some time from your claimed involvement on some group then why hasn't this come out before? Surely it's AOPAs job to look after the interests of its members, and warning them that they are uninsured while in the USA would appear to be something important to publicise as soon as possible.
Funnily enough I am also quite happy to be proven incorrect, it doesn't bother me one bit, but there is nothing of substance which comes close to doing so. That article demonstrates to me a lack of understanding of how the US flying industry works. Hardly surprising, I wouldn't expect AOPA in the US to understand how it works in the UK. I certainly wouldn't write to AOPA (US) to find out whether a UK issued insurance policy was valid. What a funny thing to expect. So, has anybody got anything that can demonstrate it is actually me that is talking nonsense?
I am also not 'encouraging others to follow', I am presenting an argument with documentary evidence to back this up. Most people on here are smart enough to read both sides of the debate and make their own minds up. Hopefully my use of decent evidence makes my case stronger.
You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claims. Such are bulletin boards of course. If you have known about this for some time from your claimed involvement on some group then why hasn't this come out before? Surely it's AOPAs job to look after the interests of its members, and warning them that they are uninsured while in the USA would appear to be something important to publicise as soon as possible.
Funnily enough I am also quite happy to be proven incorrect, it doesn't bother me one bit, but there is nothing of substance which comes close to doing so. That article demonstrates to me a lack of understanding of how the US flying industry works. Hardly surprising, I wouldn't expect AOPA in the US to understand how it works in the UK. I certainly wouldn't write to AOPA (US) to find out whether a UK issued insurance policy was valid. What a funny thing to expect. So, has anybody got anything that can demonstrate it is actually me that is talking nonsense?
Last edited by slim_slag; 13th Jun 2007 at 08:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er! AOPA HAVE told the membership there is a problem........ Thats where this comes from. Read the AOPA magazine and the website.
The AOPA Members Working Group represents the AOPA membership, we review what is happening that can effect our membership and highlight it.
AOPA UK and US feel there is an issue. I am not arguing for or against I am pointing out what is be circulated by AOPA to it's membership. They are issuing a warning that they do not think you are covered. AOPA US and UK are working on this together. AOPA UK is a franchise of the US and very active communication does occur.
I have made no "claims" I have referred to what is clearly in print. I have referred to discussions made available to the AOPA MWG.
You have read the policy and have issued your expert opinion on it. AOPA and the lawyers have read it and issued there opinion which is in print in the AOPA magazine. It is the choice of the reader who they chose to believe.
You are looking for a fight for a reason I am not quite sure on but I would suggest your energies are better directed elsewhere.
In the meantime I am happy to sit and await the outcome from AOPA.
The AOPA Members Working Group represents the AOPA membership, we review what is happening that can effect our membership and highlight it.
AOPA UK and US feel there is an issue. I am not arguing for or against I am pointing out what is be circulated by AOPA to it's membership. They are issuing a warning that they do not think you are covered. AOPA US and UK are working on this together. AOPA UK is a franchise of the US and very active communication does occur.
I have made no "claims" I have referred to what is clearly in print. I have referred to discussions made available to the AOPA MWG.
You have read the policy and have issued your expert opinion on it. AOPA and the lawyers have read it and issued there opinion which is in print in the AOPA magazine. It is the choice of the reader who they chose to believe.
You are looking for a fight for a reason I am not quite sure on but I would suggest your energies are better directed elsewhere.
In the meantime I am happy to sit and await the outcome from AOPA.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Often flying schools will offer a 'waiver' for lets say $5 an hour. If you pay it they promise not to come after you for the excess/deductable and will claim the balance from their insurance. It's not an insurance policy per se, but acts like one as far as the client is concerned. If only covers you for the hull loss, you are not covered if you cause damage to a third party in the same way an avemco policy would.
If there is a insurance policy available by the hour which covers third party liability then I have not heard of it. This thread has certainly become a bit messy.
If there is a insurance policy available by the hour which covers third party liability then I have not heard of it. This thread has certainly become a bit messy.
