No medical = no insurance (Canada)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No medical = no insurance (Canada)
The Alberta court of Appeal has just supported an insurance company that refused to pay out the hull insurance after a total write-off crash (also a fatal crash) because the pilot had an expired medical certificate.
Article here Aviation Law Blog
The insurance policy required an "approved pilot ... who has the required license .... to fly." It was held that this means that the license has to be valid, and in force. As a current medical certificate is needed for the pilot's license to be valid, if the pilot did not hold a current medical certificate then he did not have the required license to fly. Therefore the exclusion contained in the insurance policy was effective.
The pilot was flying uninsured
Edited to add:
News article here Plane crash kills 4 as neighbours watch - Canada - CBC News
I can't find a Canadian Transportation Safety Board Report for the aircraft, which I believe to be C-FIHA RegoSearch | C-FIHA Canadian Aircraft Registration Details
Article here Aviation Law Blog
The insurance policy required an "approved pilot ... who has the required license .... to fly." It was held that this means that the license has to be valid, and in force. As a current medical certificate is needed for the pilot's license to be valid, if the pilot did not hold a current medical certificate then he did not have the required license to fly. Therefore the exclusion contained in the insurance policy was effective.
The pilot was flying uninsured
Edited to add:
News article here Plane crash kills 4 as neighbours watch - Canada - CBC News
I can't find a Canadian Transportation Safety Board Report for the aircraft, which I believe to be C-FIHA RegoSearch | C-FIHA Canadian Aircraft Registration Details
Last edited by John R81; 13th Mar 2012 at 13:21.
Moderator
A good reminder.
This not the first such case, as I know of three similar in Canada. It is really only fair that the pilot exercise the same diligence of keeping everything in order, as the pilot would expect the insurance company to do while paying out a claim....
This not the first such case, as I know of three similar in Canada. It is really only fair that the pilot exercise the same diligence of keeping everything in order, as the pilot would expect the insurance company to do while paying out a claim....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read through the various blogs and everything that the OP refers to, and I find this interesting, to say the least. (Thanks for posting it!)
I have always understood that insurance companies will disregard a minor transgression of the law, as long as that transgression is not directly or indirectly the cause of the damage.
For example, if your medical is expired by a few days, you then develop an engine failure and damage the aircraft in the subsequent forced landing, the expired medical will be disregarded since it is clearly not the (main) cause of the accident and subsequent claim.
In this case however, there is no discussion whatsoever about whether the cause of the accident is (at least partly) to blame on the pilot not being medically fit to fly. It only focuses on whether the pilot was legally allowed to fly. In other words: Whether all the boxes were ticked.
Obviously letting your medical expire by a year and a bit is not really a minor issue anymore, but did it have anything to do with the crash? There is no link between those facts whatsoever, as far as I can see. In fact, the cause of the crash is not subject of discussion in any legal document. Only the non-legal summary talks about flying low and slow. (And I can't find any reference or link to an AAIB report either.)
So in my opinion, although the insurance company is legally right in refusing the claim, I find I'm missing a lot of information to determine whether this was morally right too.
I have always understood that insurance companies will disregard a minor transgression of the law, as long as that transgression is not directly or indirectly the cause of the damage.
For example, if your medical is expired by a few days, you then develop an engine failure and damage the aircraft in the subsequent forced landing, the expired medical will be disregarded since it is clearly not the (main) cause of the accident and subsequent claim.
In this case however, there is no discussion whatsoever about whether the cause of the accident is (at least partly) to blame on the pilot not being medically fit to fly. It only focuses on whether the pilot was legally allowed to fly. In other words: Whether all the boxes were ticked.
Obviously letting your medical expire by a year and a bit is not really a minor issue anymore, but did it have anything to do with the crash? There is no link between those facts whatsoever, as far as I can see. In fact, the cause of the crash is not subject of discussion in any legal document. Only the non-legal summary talks about flying low and slow. (And I can't find any reference or link to an AAIB report either.)
So in my opinion, although the insurance company is legally right in refusing the claim, I find I'm missing a lot of information to determine whether this was morally right too.
If your medical has expired, you shouldn't be flying, end of. 
It is just isn't worth the risk in case an incident should occur. The resulting investigation will not be kind, as in this case.
It is just isn't worth the risk in case an incident should occur. The resulting investigation will not be kind, as in this case.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an insurance company that refused to pay out the hull insurance after a total write-off crash (also a fatal crash) because the pilot had an expired medical certificate.
With all the changes going on with EASA, there will probably be a lot of pilots flying without a valid licence in the new future, and not realise it.
It was bad enough with the JAA 5-year license expiry. I never got any reminders, and mine lapsed. Luckily I had the FAA papers by then, and was flying only my N-reg. When I came to renew it, I had to do it with an examiner. I always had the UK medical.
Ultimately, that is why I did the JAA IR. The EASA regs on dual papers for N-reg pilots are so vague they are meaningless and cannot possibly be inspected and enforced by the normal "airport policeman" types, but insurance is a different thing...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your medical has expired, you shouldn't be flying, end of.
But they were claiming that it's not the insurance that needs to uphold the law. The insurance is a private contract between two parties and "illegal flying" was not worded as such in the contract.
The resulting investigation will not be kind, as in this case.
But I have read AAIB investigations where somebody was technically flying illegally. Typically a situation like Peter describes, where somebody was dual licensed (typically JAA and FAA), and had his FAA side of things completely in order (including an FAA class I medical for instance), but there was a technical issue on the JAA side (a slightly lapsed JAA class II medical for instance). In those cases the AAIB made a note of this, but also readily admitted that that fact had no influence on the accident. So they went on to pursue other matters.
What happened between the insurance company and the estate was not part of the AAIB report though.
Moderator
and "illegal flying" was not worded as such in the contract
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, in UK law you cannot enforce a contract that concerns an illegal act (that's why bookies break your legs instead of suing you).
There doesn't have to be anything specific in the policy; if something about your flight is illegal (such as not being properly licenced) the insurer is entitled to walk away. For the same reason, it's fairly unusual to be able to insure your liability for punitive damages or fines.
I don't know anything about Canadian law, but I would imagine it's a fairly fundamental thing.
There doesn't have to be anything specific in the policy; if something about your flight is illegal (such as not being properly licenced) the insurer is entitled to walk away. For the same reason, it's fairly unusual to be able to insure your liability for punitive damages or fines.
I don't know anything about Canadian law, but I would imagine it's a fairly fundamental thing.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a number of aircraft operating under a valid airworthiness certificate that would not pass a conformity inspection by a really clued in DAR.
Every screw and washer and circlip and o-ring booked out, batch traceable, all written up in the work pack? Yeah, right.
There are limits...
But I have never heard of insurers checking that deeply. If they did, they would never pay out on anything. Take for example any aircraft which had any maintenance done where the record was kept by the MO, but the MO has gone bust.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all a matter of size - I would imagine a claims adjuster charges ~£3k just to open a file, same again for a lawyer. On a typical UK spam can it's probably better commercial sense to just pay up and move on.
In the absence of an actual report it is impossible to say why they didnt pay.
In the UK refusual to pay is invariably down to a combination of lapses, which paints a picture, rather than one single lapse.
These are countless examples and, I bet when the report is evenatually available, this will case will be no different.
In the UK refusual to pay is invariably down to a combination of lapses, which paints a picture, rather than one single lapse.
These are countless examples and, I bet when the report is evenatually available, this will case will be no different.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is important to keep separate
1. the reasons for an accident
2. practice of insurance companies
3. what is enforceable before a court
In the third scenario - which we had in this case - the court is concerned with the terms of the contract. That is the insurance contract. The finding was that the requirement in the contract to have a pilot who held a relevant license had been breached, as without a current medical there was not a relevant license. I do not see how there would be consideration of whether that led (in any way) to the accident; that is not relevant to the interpretation of the contract.
A number of posters have pointed out that a review of any aircraft could meant that they might fail a condition of (say) a CoA. However, the fact is that the aircraft does hold a valid CoA and that is the only test in the insurance contract terms. Hence I don't see that the insurer could avoid paying out by arguing that the CoA should not have been issued - not relevant, as it was issued.
1. the reasons for an accident
2. practice of insurance companies
3. what is enforceable before a court
In the third scenario - which we had in this case - the court is concerned with the terms of the contract. That is the insurance contract. The finding was that the requirement in the contract to have a pilot who held a relevant license had been breached, as without a current medical there was not a relevant license. I do not see how there would be consideration of whether that led (in any way) to the accident; that is not relevant to the interpretation of the contract.
A number of posters have pointed out that a review of any aircraft could meant that they might fail a condition of (say) a CoA. However, the fact is that the aircraft does hold a valid CoA and that is the only test in the insurance contract terms. Hence I don't see that the insurer could avoid paying out by arguing that the CoA should not have been issued - not relevant, as it was issued.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the fact is that the aircraft does hold a valid CoA
Not saying you are wrong, but would the CofA be valid in this context if it was issued despite the issuer not spotting something?
It is quite possible that it would be valid for insurance purposes (perhaps because the owner/operator did the required due diligence, and he is entitled to rely on the competence of the CofA signatory) but I can tell you for a fact that it would not be valid for airworthiness purposes. The certification authority has the power to revoke a properly issued CofA if they discover that something was overlooked. The FAA, I was told by an FAA inspector, would issue an airframe serial number specific AD, and that's you grounded for good
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
I think (my view, open to challenge) is that the answer is contained n your post. until revoked (I am sure they would do) there is a valid CofA. Once revoked, then no valid CofA.
I think (my view, open to challenge) is that the answer is contained n your post. until revoked (I am sure they would do) there is a valid CofA. Once revoked, then no valid CofA.
Moderator
until revoked (I am sure they would do) there is a valid CofA. Once revoked, then no valid CofA.
The actual C of A is a piece of paper, which indicates that it was issued to that aircraft. It will have words on it like: "This aircraft must be maintained and certified in accordance with.....".
So, if the owner or pilot fail to have it certified, or maintain it, they placed the aircraft outside the conditions of the C of A, and it might not be valid.
In the most extreme sense, if the Flight Manual says: "preflight, check the oil filler door is closed" and the pilot takes off with it opened, an argument could be made that the pilot did not maintain the aircraft as the instructions say to. Of course it is unlikely that an insurance claim would be denied because the oil door was left opened, but you can see the logic path which could be followed if the insurance was trying to get out of paying a claim.
Years ago, at the new owner's request, I approved a C185 amphibian which had the wrong floats installed. They were perfectly airworty, but with a lesser displacement, did not qualify to support the full weight of the 185. The owner accepted a gross weight reduction of 350 pounds as a new limitation, and I placarded and limited the aircraft so. It really did make it a 2 place plane.
Four flights later, it was upside down in a lake, and four people escaped safely. The insurance company did the math, and found that he had been 380 pounds overgross (or 30 pounds over for a "normal" 185). Being overweight probably had nothing to do with flipping the plane - just poor pilot technique.
I got a call, with a lot of questions, from the insurance company, as I had signed the approval. Tht pilot had not "maintained" the aircraft as required, as he had overloaded it.
I did not hear of the claim was paid...
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BackPacker
In those cases the AAIB made a note of this, but also readily admitted that that fact had no influence on the accident. So they went on to pursue other matters.
It is for the regulatory licensing authority to take action on an individual should such regs have been broken. The FAA will chase up these actions, whereas with other authorities the mileage may vary.
