Pilots' Liability Insurance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Eastern Canada
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots' Liability Insurance
A question for commercial operators. Is liability insurance for pilots available to protect a commercial pilot who is involved in an accident. I.E. to cover the pilot (or his estate) from litigation from the family of a survivor.
A successful suit could be life destroying for one, or their surviving family. If this kind of insurance exists, is it:
I have searched far and wide in PPRUNE and not found much. If you know the thread address, please post.
A successful suit could be life destroying for one, or their surviving family. If this kind of insurance exists, is it:
- Afforadable?
- Normally funded by an employer?
- Normally funded by the pilot?
- Available to cover $$ Millions $$ in liability?
- Easy to get (I.E. are there qualifying tests) based on pilot experience or accident records for example?
I have searched far and wide in PPRUNE and not found much. If you know the thread address, please post.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
124,
I explored this issue a while ago: I am talking UK here. It is a particular problem for self-employed pilots. They are more likely to be sued than employees. It is almost always easier to sue the employer for vicarious liability than the employee and the employer's wallet is likely to be larger(?), people think . The same is not true for freelancers' acts: vicarious liability does not apply to what they do, apparently.
I discussed it with the BHA. They are aware and consider it a major issue.
As far as I have been able to find out general pilots' liability insurance is difficult to find and would be very costly, because of the potential size of the liability. The only exception is for instructors. At my last instructor seminar there was some blurb about a policy which had what seemed like reasonable rates. However, the limitations on cover were also fairly low.
One Pint is right that the best route is to get you added to the aircraft policy. However, it DOES NOT happen automatically. This is particularly true if you get your work short term, which is typical of freelancers. It is also often difficult to insist on checking such things, prior to being taken on.
It is your estate and family that are more likely to be affected in a serious incident, as you say.
There have been one or two high-profile cases where widow's houses have been threatened: the details of the outcomes are difficult to establish. Lots of our pax are rich and their families are likely to have good (expensive) lawyers. After the event everyone tends to get vindictive sadly.
Apparently setting up a limited company and working through that has very limited benefit re: this problem. The aggrieved always has the option of going around the limited company and suing the individual for his negligence, so I was told.
I am afraid that I have stuck my head in the sand, together with most other freelancers, I suspect. It might be sensible to play games like putting any big assets into trusts or similar, but that:
a) assumes you have anything worth suing for, and
b) Probably ought to be the subject of legal advice (more money!)
I explored this issue a while ago: I am talking UK here. It is a particular problem for self-employed pilots. They are more likely to be sued than employees. It is almost always easier to sue the employer for vicarious liability than the employee and the employer's wallet is likely to be larger(?), people think . The same is not true for freelancers' acts: vicarious liability does not apply to what they do, apparently.
I discussed it with the BHA. They are aware and consider it a major issue.
As far as I have been able to find out general pilots' liability insurance is difficult to find and would be very costly, because of the potential size of the liability. The only exception is for instructors. At my last instructor seminar there was some blurb about a policy which had what seemed like reasonable rates. However, the limitations on cover were also fairly low.
One Pint is right that the best route is to get you added to the aircraft policy. However, it DOES NOT happen automatically. This is particularly true if you get your work short term, which is typical of freelancers. It is also often difficult to insist on checking such things, prior to being taken on.
It is your estate and family that are more likely to be affected in a serious incident, as you say.
There have been one or two high-profile cases where widow's houses have been threatened: the details of the outcomes are difficult to establish. Lots of our pax are rich and their families are likely to have good (expensive) lawyers. After the event everyone tends to get vindictive sadly.
Apparently setting up a limited company and working through that has very limited benefit re: this problem. The aggrieved always has the option of going around the limited company and suing the individual for his negligence, so I was told.
I am afraid that I have stuck my head in the sand, together with most other freelancers, I suspect. It might be sensible to play games like putting any big assets into trusts or similar, but that:
a) assumes you have anything worth suing for, and
b) Probably ought to be the subject of legal advice (more money!)
Last edited by Helinut; 15th Feb 2011 at 11:26. Reason: To add comment about Ltd Companies
It is your estate and family that are more likely to be affected in a serious incident, as you say.
There have been one or two high-profile cases where widow's houses have been threatened:
There have been one or two high-profile cases where widow's houses have been threatened:
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a freelancer, this is something I have looked at long and hard....
Balpa were utterly and totally useless (as they seem to be with anything one actualy needs help with) and when I did find a broker who thought he might be able to help......the sort of premiums were north of £20 000 per annum!!!!!
I do operate through a limited company and have made it clear to those for whom I provide my services that as between them and me the veil of incorporation exists and all they will ever get is £100 being the value of my company.
In reality, as others have said, this is scarce comfort because in the event of a proven negligent act on my part, its open season on my family assets for anyone who has suffered forseeable loss.
So it is very simple..........keep your fingers crossed or put your assets beyond reach by giving them to wife etc.. (in which case youd better draw up some declaration that these were not a gift intended for her benefit in order to rebut any presumption of gift in case you end up in a divorce court)
Did I mention how annoyed I am with Balpa and their pathetic advice???
Balpa were utterly and totally useless (as they seem to be with anything one actualy needs help with) and when I did find a broker who thought he might be able to help......the sort of premiums were north of £20 000 per annum!!!!!
I do operate through a limited company and have made it clear to those for whom I provide my services that as between them and me the veil of incorporation exists and all they will ever get is £100 being the value of my company.
In reality, as others have said, this is scarce comfort because in the event of a proven negligent act on my part, its open season on my family assets for anyone who has suffered forseeable loss.
So it is very simple..........keep your fingers crossed or put your assets beyond reach by giving them to wife etc.. (in which case youd better draw up some declaration that these were not a gift intended for her benefit in order to rebut any presumption of gift in case you end up in a divorce court)
Did I mention how annoyed I am with Balpa and their pathetic advice???
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pursuing an action directly against a pilot is problematic if it is public transport work.
Any pilot flying an aircraft for public transport use is flying under approvals from an Operator, it would therefore be easier to pursue a claim against the Operator who issued that approval, for three reasons:
-they have a duty of care towards any passengers,
-they issued the Pilots approval, so he/she must obviously have been competent to hold said approval, and
-lastly they will have a bigger liability insurance pot which to can sue against.
To get to the pilot you would need to prove negligence against the pilot, which is not an easy matter!
As a rule of thumb, a pilot would need to carry out an act of gross negligence to have a claim made against him, I do say as a rule of thumb!
Claims against Pilots use to be threatened often because there use to be a limitation of liability against aircraft accidents, a good example of this was the Harding accident with the AS355 that crashed.
Due to the limitation of liability under the Warsaw convention the payout to Mr. Hardings widow was a modest few tens of thousand of pounds against a primary earner who made millions, the family tried to argue the section 22 exception in the Warsaw convention that the Pilot acted negligently thus opting out from the limitation of liability, this failed.
Secondly they tried to argue that the flight was not governed by the limitations of the Warsaw convention as Mr. Harding was flying for the purposes of work, and not under his own agreement as a passenger, again this failed.
The limitation to liability does not exist anymore since the MAP5 agreement was ratified, however the Warsaw section 17 de facto assumption that an Operator is responsible for any bodily harm that occurs to a passenger on a flight, or through a quirk in the original French version of the convention, is sitting in the boarding lounge with the intention of going flying, is still very much a current piece of legislation.
Additionally, the Warsaw convention was ratified in 1929, and is superior to European Union law, the Treaty of Rome that established the EEC clearly states in article 301 that any international treaty signed before 1st January 1958 is superior to European law.
In summary, it's a pig and expensive to sue a pilot unless he's been a real pillock!
Miles
Any pilot flying an aircraft for public transport use is flying under approvals from an Operator, it would therefore be easier to pursue a claim against the Operator who issued that approval, for three reasons:
-they have a duty of care towards any passengers,
-they issued the Pilots approval, so he/she must obviously have been competent to hold said approval, and
-lastly they will have a bigger liability insurance pot which to can sue against.
To get to the pilot you would need to prove negligence against the pilot, which is not an easy matter!
As a rule of thumb, a pilot would need to carry out an act of gross negligence to have a claim made against him, I do say as a rule of thumb!
Claims against Pilots use to be threatened often because there use to be a limitation of liability against aircraft accidents, a good example of this was the Harding accident with the AS355 that crashed.
Due to the limitation of liability under the Warsaw convention the payout to Mr. Hardings widow was a modest few tens of thousand of pounds against a primary earner who made millions, the family tried to argue the section 22 exception in the Warsaw convention that the Pilot acted negligently thus opting out from the limitation of liability, this failed.
Secondly they tried to argue that the flight was not governed by the limitations of the Warsaw convention as Mr. Harding was flying for the purposes of work, and not under his own agreement as a passenger, again this failed.
The limitation to liability does not exist anymore since the MAP5 agreement was ratified, however the Warsaw section 17 de facto assumption that an Operator is responsible for any bodily harm that occurs to a passenger on a flight, or through a quirk in the original French version of the convention, is sitting in the boarding lounge with the intention of going flying, is still very much a current piece of legislation.
Additionally, the Warsaw convention was ratified in 1929, and is superior to European Union law, the Treaty of Rome that established the EEC clearly states in article 301 that any international treaty signed before 1st January 1958 is superior to European law.
In summary, it's a pig and expensive to sue a pilot unless he's been a real pillock!
Miles
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will find that to obtain an Aircraft Operators Certificate an entity must have the appropriate level of insurance. Therefore the Operator of the aircraft is liable.
Operators judge the competence of pilots by requiring them to have Operators Proficiency Checks.
Pilots engaged as freelancers or contractors are treated as employees albeit temporarily.
Operators judge the competence of pilots by requiring them to have Operators Proficiency Checks.
Pilots engaged as freelancers or contractors are treated as employees albeit temporarily.
