Sad Story

[Tankerpilot75]

The reason I have my own airplane today (RV7A) is because I damaged a friend’s Bonanza pulling it out of his hanger. I turned the nose wheel too tight, it popped the seals and the strut collapsed. I was a named pilot on his policy but also had my own “renters” policy through AOPA (AIG). I filed the claim through “my coverage” and it covered most of the repair cost. By the way, his policy was also through AIG and I never asked whether the claim on my policy affected his renewal but I was removed as a covered pilot.

But here was the problem, he was without access to his plane while it was being repaired. He used it in his business! The incident didn’t do our friendship any favors for a while but it has since recovered (good friendships usually do). When I bought insurance for my RV I had to list any “claims” within the previous five years. My policy renewal period just went past the five year mark.

“Claim history” follows the pilot (pilots) on the policy. Selling the plane won’t change the fact that your policy has had a claim against it. Selling the plane, buying new will still require claim disclosure within the last five years - which this storyline will involve two claims.

My friend won’t entertain any future aircraft partnership or “named pilot.” I won’t either for the same reasons and this “sad story” just reminds me shared costs also includes shared liabilities and responsibilities. Just like when your teenager starts driving, the idea seems good - the reality of an accident has unforeseen costly consequences.

Side note: I was a military heavy driver, retired and didn’t fly again for over twenty years. Getting into GA seemed like a great idea and my military flying was useful experience. However, flying single pilot piston aircraft is a whole different skill set from crew based heavy jet aircraft. Yea, that first year I was shaking off a bunch of rust, but I was also learning a complete set of new skills. In fact it took several years and over 100 hours to feel like I kind of knew what I was doing and doing it safely. If I had also added tail wheel to the equation I’m not sure a flying incident of my own wouldn’t have occurred during that first year.

Let’s face it, thousands of hours flying experience is great when it comes to handling things your use to doing and even the unexpected event, but it can hide to others the need to gain the information and experience you need to fly a single pilot, piston powered tail dragger safely and not damage the piston engine by poor fuel/power management. Just like I don’t want a 10,000 hour GA piston pilot trying to be checked out as PIC of a B737 in under a couple of hundred hours much less the 6-8 hours of training insurance typically requires for a highly experienced jet pilot flying an RV. My own experience says respect both types of skill sets but don’t assume too much transferability. Assuming to much usually makes an: *** U ME!

[lr172]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

In fact I asked Gallagher that very question some time ago. The answer was ‘no’, the open-pilot pilot had no coverage, while the owner did. But as a practical manner, the owner was also named in a lawsuit virtually 100% of the time (plantiff’s attorneys always follow the money), so the insurance company would pay out, up to its limit, any judgement. So the question is, would the insurance company turn around and sue the pilot flying, to recover its losses? The answer was, “In most cases, no. The cost of bringing legal action, or the limited assets of the pilot flying, generally made ‘no’ the best business decision. However, the insurance company did have the right to sue, if they chose to do so.”

Thanks for sharing the details of that. It now makes me question if named pilots are treated as policy owners or are they also not covered for liability. Did this come up in your conversation? It would certainly appear on it's face to be that way, but you never know.

Larry

[Pilot135pd]

The policy owner is the named pilot and even if he's not flying when the accident occurred he's still covered for liability and hull as per his policy.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd

The policy owner is the named pilot and even if he's not flying when the accident occurred he's still covered for liability and hull as per his policy.

I was asking if a named pilot, who is not also a policy owner, is afforded full coverage. My policy allows for "Named pilots" and they are not also policyholders or owners. The policy implies they are afforded the same coverage. However, that same policy does not specifically indicate that pilots flying under the open pilot provisions are not provided any liability coverage. If I follow the learnings from this event, I have to assume that only policyholders are afforded liability coverage and as I think about it more it makes sense. The policyholder is afforded coverage for both his, and only his, actions (i.e. liabiility) as well as any damage to his plane from either himself or others operating as named pilots or those utilizing the open pilot provision. This then does raise the issue of subrogation from named pilots, just like pilots using the Open pilot provision. I can only assume they are fair game for subrogation as well.

Those flying around as a named pilot and not a policy holder, should takes steps to confirm whether or not they have liability protection, whether it be protection directly from the injured party or from the policyholders insurance company.

Larry

[Johnnybgoode]

Buy him out and self-insure for a year, perhaps?

[sirlegin]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

"...The morale of this story is airline pilots are not very good at stick and rudder..."

Really?

What an arrogant comment. I am hoping you have the skills to back it up...

Just remember, accidents CAN and DO happen to everyone.

As far as the insurance racket goes, it doesn't apply to just airplanes. Several years ago, I had a lightning strike on my house. It was irrefutable as it struck the air conditioning compressor and followed the line wiring into the house. It fried the dishwasher and one laptop, as well as the air conditioning compressor. Total claim ~$4000. One year later, a tornado touched down on the neighbors property. It was close enough to knock 4 trees over in my back yard. My policy had a "$1000 for storm damage tree removal" feature, so I used it.

The insurance company paid the two claims...then dropped me as "high risk". Realize that I had been with them for more than a decade with no claims. That "high risk" tag must be communicated across the companies, because I had to get insurance from Lloyds, and it was expensive.

I guess I should have known where the lightning would strike and the tornado would touch down before I built the house...what a racket...

These losses are considered "acts of God" and should NOT count against you. Seems to me you have a good case for a lawyer.

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by lr172

I was asking if a named pilot, who is not also a policy owner, is afforded full coverage. My policy allows for "Named pilots" and they are not also policyholders or owners. The policy implies they are afforded the same coverage. However, that same policy does not specifically indicate that pilots flying under the open pilot provisions are not provided any liability coverage. If I follow the learnings from this event, I have to assume that only policyholders are afforded liability coverage and as I think about it more it makes sense. The policyholder is afforded coverage for both his, and only his, actions (i.e. liabiility) as well as any damage to his plane from either himself or others operating as named pilots or those utilizing the open pilot provision. This then does raise the issue of subrogation from named pilots, just like pilots using the Open pilot provision. I can only assume they are fair game for subrogation as well.

Those flying around as a named pilot and not a policy holder, should takes steps to confirm whether or not they have liability protection, whether it be protection directly from the injured party or from the policyholders insurance company.

Larry

The ?named pilots? are who the insurance covers. They are ?policy holders?, no difference. This is common with partnerships.

[Danny King]

Originally Posted by Tommy123

The morale of this story is airline pilots are not very good at stick and rudder. No offense but it’s true. Managing a B-777 is not the same as hand flying a airplane.
I have a neighbor that drives the B-777 and he agrees with me.

What and arrogant remark! The last airliner I flew.... "Ops"....Managed was a 777. I'll gladly put my stick and rudder skills up against yours any day.

[odens_14]

Originally Posted by Danny King

What and arrogant remark! The last airliner I flew.... "Ops"....Managed was a 777. I'll gladly put my stick and rudder skills up against yours any day.

Giving Tommy the benefit of the doubt (although it certainly could have been worded more carefully)...I'm thinking the point he was trying to make is having 10,000 hours in a crewed airliner doesn't guarantee the necessary skill to handle a small single engine taildragger; they are after all very different beasts.

If that's what he meant I would agree, if I'm choosing a partner for my -7 between a 500 hour private pilot who's been flying a taildragger regularly and a 10,000 airliner captain who hasn't flown a GA plane in decades, I'm choosing the private pilot.

The same as I wouldn't put my family on an 737 with a 10,000 hour Private pilot who's never flown anything bigger than a 172 as the only pilot. Speaking for myself as a lowly 500 hour private pilot I probably couldn't even figure out how to start the engines, much less fly the thing

The point is every pilot is an individual with their own skills, and they need to be evaluated on their personal experience not solely total hours. Anyway, enough of a thread drift.

[lr172]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

The ?named pilots? are who the insurance covers. They are ?policy holders?, no difference. This is common with partnerships.

Thanks!

more chars