Prop strike and an AD question

[Michael Henning]

My rates had been going down, but I just renewed, and had a $100 increase. It was a named pilot on my policy. I have taken pilot off the policy. Lesson- don't let anyone fly plane.

[9GT]

Originally Posted by Plummit

Seems like they should be covered. IRAN= Inspect and repair as necessary.
Would they not pay for gaskets because they were fine until they were removed and can't be used again? What about the other items that can't be reused?

You paid for insurance to cover your whole plane and engine. Did the policy have an exception for certain parts? Can the engine be reassembled sans rods?
More importantly, will insurance rates increase b/c of the prop strike?

You may need to get more adamant with the adjuster...
-Marc

Yeah right. How about they pay for the replacement of the crankshaft also if it has an AD. Give me a break.

[Plummit]

Originally Posted by 9GT

Yeah right. How about they pay for the replacement of the crankshaft also if it has an AD. Give me a break.

You darn tootin! ;-) They have to make the insured whole. Right up to the total amount of the coverage.

True story: I had my 2005 /C-172S parked on a ramp at LGB. I came out to fly and there's a big dent in my left wing. Right by the damage are tire tracks that match the fuel truck. The damage lined up with a part on the back of the fuel truck. It was almost $15K to repair. You would think that the insurance would go after the FBO but they didn't - it wasn't worth it.

Now they don't have to give him NEW rods, but whatever is installed has to be serviceable and at least as good as what was there.

-Marc

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Michael Henning

The rods are fine, until they came off of the engine, as a direct result of prop strike.

They are simply not damaged from the prop strike, therefore not covered under your claim. YOU bought an engine with substandard parts. They are just asking you to inspect it. The fact that YOUR relationship with the engine supplier requires YOU to replace them at any teardown is just not their fault. They provide coverage for damage and this simply isn't damage or damage related, anyway you cut it.

This is like saying that the prop strike caused me to lose work pay for a week. An understandable issue and you can ask for reimbursement. However, the fact is that your policy documents don't provide for that. If you look closely at the policy documents, I suspect you will find language like "...labor and replacment parts required to repair damage..." "Damage" will be a defined term that relates to the covered event. The policies are typically pretty clear to eliminate this type of grey area.

A similar example is prop strike requires inspection. Mechanic finds four bad cylinders, unrelated to prop strike, and won't sign off without replacement. Should that be covered under the prop strike event; They demanded the inspection, right? That isn't really fair to the insurance company. The engine clearly had an issue unrelated to the prop strike. Your situation is pretty much the same.
Larry

[lr172]

Originally Posted by Plummit

Seems like they should be covered. IRAN= Inspect and repair as necessary.

They require an IRAN inspection to ensure airworthiness, just as they require type training, to reduce their liability. It doesn't mean they will pay for all repairs necessary. Insurance is designed to provide coverage for accidents and their damage. It is not a general warranty. Their obligation ends at work and replacement parts directly due to covered event. In the case of the rods, the tear down simply triggered your AD, which is not really covered. I understand your argument, and I certainly would try to sell it to the adjuster. I am just letting you know that it is not likely to fly.

Larry

[Plummit]

Originally Posted by lr172

A similar example is prop strike requires inspection. Mechanic finds four bad cylinders, unrelated to prop strike, and won't sign off without replacement. Should that be covered under the prop strike event; They demanded the inspection, right? That isn't really fair to the insurance company. Your situation is pretty much the same.
Larry

I don't think so and here's why: If you had 4 bad cylinders I agree; they need to be repaired and are not the responsibility of the insurance company. But! in this case he had serviceable rods that had a lot of time left. The prop strike inspection triggered the replacement just the same as it triggered the replacement of the engine gaskets and other parts that were "serviceable" but couldn't be reused. It's not a matter of being "fair" to the insurance company, it's a matter of doing the right thing for the insured.

That's how I see it anyway. I hope it works out for the OP.
-Marc

[Michael Henning]

There was a little corrosion on the cam shaft, that needs to be reground. That cost is rightfully coming out of my pocket.

[elev666]

Mike,
Hope this doesn't fall into the dumm question category but ,The project I'm building has the same power plant, a 70's era angle valve, what makes certain parts of what used to be a certified engine have time limited life span ?
My motor has just come back from a propstrike inspection at quite a large sum of $

[13brv3]

Are experimental engines subject to ADs? I didn't think so. While it may be wise to comply, I don't know that it's mandatory.

Rusty (I could be wrong)

[bigwheel]

Originally Posted by 13brv3

Are experimental engines subject to ADs? I didn't think so. While it may be wise to comply, I don't know that it's mandatory.

Rusty (I could be wrong)

I was wondering the same thing. If you were comfortable running till 1500hrs then stick the rods back in and keep going; unless your insurance company requires AD compliance. So do, some don't.