What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Did you know about the exclusions on your insurance policy?

LRingeisen

Well Known Member
While your insurance policy covers you for a number of things, that doesn’t mean everything is covered. There are various situations that are not covered. If you are unsure or have any questions on whether or not something is covered, it’s better to ask your broker prior to making the flight. The last thing you want is to have an accident and find out later that you didn’t have any coverage at the time.

Of course, you must always follow the FAA guidelines. If you are doing something against the FAA, you can be sure that you won’t have coverage. Something we get questions on a lot involves making a profit. Since these are not commercial policies, anything that makes a profit is usually prohibited. This can include anything from formation flying to aerial photography. Even if you are only making $100, this could result in a denied claim and fines from the FAA depending on if it falls under the experimental use guidelines.

Below is a list of other common exclusions on a Pleasure and Business policy. Keep in mind that this is not all inclusive.

• aerial advertising, towing, photography, or application of any substance;
• hunting, herding or spotting of animals of any kind, including birds and fish;
• patrol or surveillance of any kind, including powerlines, pipelines, traffic or fires;
• flight instruction to anyone other than the pilots listed by name in the policy;
• skydiving or parachuting;
• closed course racing;
• flights off-shore in support of an off-shore business or operation;
• external transportation of persons or property, including wire stringing, or construction

Just remember if you are questioning the use please check with your broker prior to doing it.
 
To be clear, casual / uncompensated formation flying is not excluded.

You're going to get a lot of folks spun up if you infer that all formation flying is excluded.
 
To be clear, casual / uncompensated formation flying is not excluded.

You're going to get a lot of folks spun up if you infer that all formation flying is excluded.

Formation flying for hire is typically prohibited. If it is not for hire, we would recommend getting it approved by the underwriter because there are some companies that are not as welcoming to it as others.
 
A caveat

If you are doing something against the FAA, you can be sure that you won’t have coverage.

I get what you're saying, and your list of examples is definitely useful -- but that statement probably covers too much ground.

Due to the incredibly broad nature of some regulations (I'm looking at you, 14 CFR § 91.103....) a large number of accidents *arguably* involve *some* potential violation of a federal aviation reg. But in many such cases, even though one could argue the pilot was doing "something against the FAA," coverage isn't affected.

Put another way, when I read of a case where coverage actually gets denied, I'm rarely surprised or scandalized.
 
To all, and Leah:
As noted, using your EAB airplane to give flight instruction, for hire, to others (not owners/named insured) is not covered nor is it allowed by the FAA. However the FAA will waive this rule ("LODA") specifically for transition training, in type. Unfortunately this operation is NOT covered by standard insurance. Insurance is available but is very expensive for owners/cfi's who only need it for a few hours a year. Leah, it seems to me that insurance companies are shooting themselves in the foot here. They want pilots to get the training, but they themselves make it very expensive to do so. Can anything be done? Most casual (one or two times a year) LODA holders that I know have 'dropped out'; it costs more than they make.
 
I'm sure I could read my policy for this answer :) but in general what about charitable flying e.g. pilots 'n paws which would fall under "transportation of persons & property" or aerial photography for a charitable org.? A lot of this is done with the charitable org. as named insured.
 
My advice is to treat buying aviation insurance like going to your doctor for an annual physical exam (not the FAA exam). You go to the doctor, you get undressed and put on a gown, usually nothing else, you answer a lot of questions for the nurse and/or doctor, and then the doctor proceeds to examine your body including very private parts of your body. The doctor is looking for any sign of illness and there is some embarrassment involved for the exam to be complete. You have to provide blood and urine samples. All of this is to achieve the goal of a comprehensive exam.

Whey you buy aviation insurance you need to do an "aviation insurance" undressing. Tell the broker everything you are going to do with the airplane. Don't leave anything out. Even things like landing on grass runways, attending Sun 'N Fun and Oshkosh, do you fly in the flyby's during the airshow, do you do aerobatics, participate in aerobatic contests, charge people for flights, give flight instruction in the airplane, name all of the people who fly the airplane, /Do you fly to the Bahamas, Mexico, Canada,etc. Have you had any FAA disciplinary actions? Suspensions, had to take a 601 ride, etc. Then your broker can get you quotes that cover all the exposures your have that are insurable. The last thing you want is to have a claim and there is a question about coverage. Even if the insurance company pays the claim after its investigation, you will go through weeks or months of uncertainty. Total candor with your broker is the only way to go! And even after doing a very complete job, there are some hazzards in aviation that are just not insurable. So that is my advice for getting the best coverage.

And one last thing, the first step is choosing an aviation broker who has the experience and who represents all the major companies who insure your type of aircraft.

If you follow this plan, you only need to contact one broker, who should get your multiple quotes and then contact Avemco because they do write insurance through brokers. You have to deal personally with Avemco.

If you follow this process you should wind up with the best policy for you. That may not always be the lowest cost policy.
 
Compensation vs Profit

Is there a way to distinguish between receiving compensation vs making a profit? For example, somebody wants to go for an airplane ride, so pays for gas. The owner isn't making a profit, but they are receiving financial compensation for the flight with the intent of reducing the cost to the owner.

Assuming receiving compensation is permitted where do they draw the line? The "somebody" pays for fuel, maintenance reserve, pro-rated fixed costs, value of the pilot/owner's time?
 
Assuming receiving compensation is permitted where do they draw the line? The "somebody" pays for fuel, maintenance reserve, pro-rated fixed costs, value of the pilot/owner's time?
It's well established that sharing incidental flight costs is perfectly legal for a private pilot and in an amateur-built aircraft as well.

You can't total up your hangar costs, insurance costs, annual costs, and divide by the number of hours you fly and then charge your passenger accordingly... But you can split the fuel/oil cost on a flight.

My usual rule is that the passenger buys lunch. That way the cost is (usually) about covered, and the payment is well removed from the aircraft itself.
 
It's well established that sharing incidental flight costs is perfectly legal for a private pilot and in an amateur-built aircraft as well.
.

The FAA is coming out with yet another a/c on this subject. It is not simple. To legally accept compensation of any kind (this includes free lunch) the owner: must not ‘hold out to the public’ in any way. No advertising on the internet, not even post-it notes on a bulletin board. There must be a ‘common purpose’ for the flight, other than flying itself. e.g., lunch, football game, etc.
 
I get what you're saying, and your list of examples is definitely useful -- but that statement probably covers too much ground.

Due to the incredibly broad nature of some regulations (I'm looking at you, 14 CFR § 91.103....) a large number of accidents *arguably* involve *some* potential violation of a federal aviation reg. But in many such cases, even though one could argue the pilot was doing "something against the FAA," coverage isn't affected.

Put another way, when I read of a case where coverage actually gets denied, I'm rarely surprised or scandalized.

Came to the comments to say the same thing. Insurance companies have almost always paid. Same with vehicles. Just because somebody turned right on red and hit someone doesn't mean you're not covered.
 
I had an insurance agent tell me once - "We will always pay for stupid. And we'll even pay for negligent - once."
 
The insurance landscape, especially for airplanes, appears to be rapidly changing these days. I guess I'd be more inclined to get my broker's take on my current policy and what an underwriter or claims adjuster might or might not be inclined to cover.
 
Was aviation insurance ever separated by cheaper and fewer seats risk-exposure or private vs. commercial, ownership and operating as we do in light, single, piston, NON-commercial GA?

Could "our" segment sustain without the big $ segment? What would it cost?

We cover everyones' mistakes and bad fortunes, can we do better without their part in covering "ours" ?

I'll go liabillity only if I see last year's increase repeat without firmer logic.
 
Last edited:
Gross weight question

Speaking of insurance, I'm considering buying a new-to-me RV-4. The problem is with me (200 lbs, but not proud of it...lol), full gas (32 gal), no baggage, based on the plane's Weight&Balance data, I'm 20 lbs under Van's published 1500 lb Max G/W number for an RV-4. Put an adult passenger back there, and now we're a hundred pounds or more over-gross.

Sure, the plane will likely fly ok - just ok - if overweight, and within CG limits, which this plane would be, up to a 225 lb pax back there...I ran some sample CG calculations to find out. (Heck, with only me and full fuel, so close to max G/W it would probably only fly "just ok")

Anyway, my question is insurance coverage. Say it's a bad day, have a pax back there, full gas, 100 lbs over Van's max gross, and for what ever reason the airplane gets banged up. Would insurance coverage be in jeopardy, or denied?
 
Speaking of insurance, I'm considering buying a new-to-me RV-4. The problem is with me (200 lbs, but not proud of it...lol), full gas (32 gal), no baggage, based on the plane's Weight&Balance data, I'm 20 lbs under Van's published 1500 lb Max G/W number for an RV-4. Put an adult passenger back there, and now we're a hundred pounds or more over-gross.

Sure, the plane will likely fly ok - just ok - if overweight, and within CG limits, which this plane would be, up to a 225 lb pax back there...I ran some sample CG calculations to find out. (Heck, with only me and full fuel, so close to max G/W it would probably only fly "just ok")

Anyway, my question is insurance coverage. Say it's a bad day, have a pax back there, full gas, 100 lbs over Van's max gross, and for what ever reason the airplane gets banged up. Would insurance coverage be in jeopardy, or denied?

I can’t speak to the insurance aspect but 1,088 pounds empty is downright obese for an RV-4.
 
I second Bob Turners comment about transition training. Insurance companies should think real hard about what they really want out of newly insured homebuilts. Do they want actual safety, or the extra premiums for covering for providing training. I have a LODA for both the RV-10 and RV-14, but I won't use it, because the insurance cost is just too prohibitive. For someone who has a day job, and can't do that as a sole source of income (as if that would provide anyone with enough sole-source), it just isn't feasible. Yet I definitely think that even a couple hours of transition training would do anyone some good before moving into an RV from other types of aircraft. It's amazing to me that the insurance companies don't see this exception as valuable to their bottom line.
 
Back
Top