PA28 down Switzerland
Moderator
KNOW FOR CERTAIN that an insurance company has not paid out to a victim in an accident?
Insurers might refuse to pay out the hull portion of a claim if the owner was found to be in violation of any of a number of requirements for legal flight. They might also pay out a third party claim, and then sue the owner, or other "negligent" insured party, for what they had payed out to the "victim".
All in all, best to not have the insurer turn on you, when you've had the accident, keep everything in order.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told by various insurance people here in the UK that they won't pay out if the flight was illegal to start with e.g. no CofA, no/expired pilot license, medical, etc.
Yes, Graham Hill is a well known example of a non-payout following a void CofA. According to several accident books which discuss his accident, the aircraft had been de-registered from N but nobody noticed. I have never found anybody who knows the details but I suspect that somebody did an Export CofA on it and this is known for causing the FAA to assume it has been exported from the US reg, and strike it off.
The grey area is how far the insurers dig. Every 747 landing at LHR this moment is technically unairworthy, in that there will be a washer or a light bulb somewhere which was fitted without the correct traceability data entered in the work pack. The old joke is that bulbs on AOC aircraft last for ever, because nobody can be bothered to do the paperwork for them. In GA terms, if you dismantled a plane and noted the serial numbers of every item (incl. avionics) and traced it all the way back, you would find that bits were changed without being logged. And of course most of today's 30 year old planes don't have the full logs back to Day 1 anyway. I have never seen evidence that insurers look for that kind of stuff, but I suppose in theory they could.
However
is a different question because that asks about passenger liability. The pilot is obviously dead. I have no idea what the law is where this plane crashed. In the UK, negligence needs to be demonstrated for passenger liability to kick in, AIUI.
Yes, Graham Hill is a well known example of a non-payout following a void CofA. According to several accident books which discuss his accident, the aircraft had been de-registered from N but nobody noticed. I have never found anybody who knows the details but I suspect that somebody did an Export CofA on it and this is known for causing the FAA to assume it has been exported from the US reg, and strike it off.
The grey area is how far the insurers dig. Every 747 landing at LHR this moment is technically unairworthy, in that there will be a washer or a light bulb somewhere which was fitted without the correct traceability data entered in the work pack. The old joke is that bulbs on AOC aircraft last for ever, because nobody can be bothered to do the paperwork for them. In GA terms, if you dismantled a plane and noted the serial numbers of every item (incl. avionics) and traced it all the way back, you would find that bits were changed without being logged. And of course most of today's 30 year old planes don't have the full logs back to Day 1 anyway. I have never seen evidence that insurers look for that kind of stuff, but I suppose in theory they could.
However
KNOW FOR CERTAIN that an insurance company has not paid out to a victim in an accident?
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
We had a talk form a very familiar Insurance Company and the guy was tellling us about some recent cases.
He went on to explain that they dont refuse to pay out if there is some small technicality (you can always find one) but may start to debate when there is a long line of invalid documentation...as so often is the case in accidents involving a pilot with some sort of "form".
This may not necessarily relate to aircraft docs (if hired) but personal documentation, i.e. licence , medical, lack of IR or IMC Ratings etc...mmm... you only have to look through AAIB Bulletins to see this.
He cited the Colin MacRae case where they arrived at an "agreement"...
He went on to explain that they dont refuse to pay out if there is some small technicality (you can always find one) but may start to debate when there is a long line of invalid documentation...as so often is the case in accidents involving a pilot with some sort of "form".
This may not necessarily relate to aircraft docs (if hired) but personal documentation, i.e. licence , medical, lack of IR or IMC Ratings etc...mmm... you only have to look through AAIB Bulletins to see this.
He cited the Colin MacRae case where they arrived at an "agreement"...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See Aviation Law Blog for a 2011 Appeal court decision in Canada which confirmed that without a valid, in-date medical certificate the pilot does not have a valid license, and the insurer was not liable for the hull value of the aircraft.
2006 crash, pilot deceased, insurer refused to pay out, estate of the deceased sued for C$60,000.
Full case http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...011abqb283.pdf
2006 crash, pilot deceased, insurer refused to pay out, estate of the deceased sued for C$60,000.
Full case http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc...011abqb283.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not likely that the insurance position is similar to that (for the UK at least) for motor vehicles.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
UK law says that having issued a certificate of (motor) insurance, an insurer is always responsible for third party claims and cannot avoid them. This is regardless of what the insured may have done (i.e. drunk driving is in breach of insurance conditions but anyone you injure will be able to claim).
That means they pay any third parties and then have to try and recover what they can from the insured (or insured's estate) via the civil courts.
That's exactly what seems to happened in the Graham Hill case?
Insurers don't have to pay out the policyholder claim.
As a note, various people claim one or both of the above to have been true in the GH case.
The link to the Canadian judgment is interesting, but not that relevant as insurance practice is quite varied by jurisdiction. Also, it referred only to hull insurance, and I would have thought walking away from this part of the claim is the aspect least likely to be regulated as it only involves the insurer and the operator - who is clearly in a position to know about any lack of compliance with the conditions of insurance.
People's main concern should be with the liability side of their insurance as this is the one likely to wipe out your estate and impact your family.
TOFO:
Not yet! There is no such process for flying schools/clubs that are Registered Facilities, there will be under EASA. There is no requirement for a RF to have any specific paperwork. You must have worked at an approved FTO!
Feel free to flame me, but every flying school/club has an Ops manual (copy lodged with CAA??)
OK - so let's start a list the things "wrong" in that video that IO540 posted.
I'll start...
1) Satnav propped up against the magnetic compass
2) 1/2 mil map on back seat behind pilot - i.e. impossible to reach
3) No decent lookout/scan done throughout duration of video
4) Night light in overhead panel ON
I'll start...
1) Satnav propped up against the magnetic compass
2) 1/2 mil map on back seat behind pilot - i.e. impossible to reach
3) No decent lookout/scan done throughout duration of video
4) Night light in overhead panel ON
I still don't understand this concept of carrying the paperwork in the aircraft so that in the event that it crashes and burns the paperwork is lost.
You are not required to carry the important stuff like Aircraft Log Books, maintenance records etc.
Last edited by UV; 24th Oct 2011 at 19:18.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: eu
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another crash in the Swiss fog...
http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=87189
Navaho, HB-LOT, trying to get out of the fog at Fribourg/Ecuvillens.
http://www.flightforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?t=87189
Navaho, HB-LOT, trying to get out of the fog at Fribourg/Ecuvillens.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding insurance....
we bought our aeroplane from an insurance company following a landing accident (and then went and rebuilt it to as new). But the interesting thing is that during the rebuild we found several things which one would have thought should have lead to an invalid CofA - for example lifed hoses which had never been replaced and had no markings on. The previous owner received a full settlement.
So this leads me to believe that actually the insurance companies don't look very hard trying to find a loophole, I think the surveyor came down, spent half a day checking paperwork and seeing that the aeroplane was indeed beyond economic repair and signed on the line rather than a full technical audit.
Maybe it is different if your aeroplane is worth half a million?
we bought our aeroplane from an insurance company following a landing accident (and then went and rebuilt it to as new). But the interesting thing is that during the rebuild we found several things which one would have thought should have lead to an invalid CofA - for example lifed hoses which had never been replaced and had no markings on. The previous owner received a full settlement.
So this leads me to believe that actually the insurance companies don't look very hard trying to find a loophole, I think the surveyor came down, spent half a day checking paperwork and seeing that the aeroplane was indeed beyond economic repair and signed on the line rather than a full technical audit.
Maybe it is different if your aeroplane is worth half a million?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are very unlikely to do a full back to birth "export CofA" job on a plane, because if they did, every one would be technically illegal, and that includes every 747 taking off at LHR as I write this.
All you need is a light bulb in the loo to be changed, without the batch traceability number etc written up in the work pack, and the plane is illegal to fly.
All you need is a light bulb in the loo to be changed, without the batch traceability number etc written up in the work pack, and the plane is illegal to fly.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this leads me to believe that actually the insurance companies don't look very hard trying to find a loophole, I think the surveyor came down, spent half a day checking paperwork and seeing that the aeroplane was indeed beyond economic repair and signed on the line rather than a full technical audit.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Age: 56
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final Report is out
Final report is out:
http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/2175_e.pdf
Spatial disorientation due to flight in IMC.
sad....
regards,
Adrian
http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/2175_e.pdf
Spatial disorientation due to flight in IMC.
sad....
regards,
Adrian
