Asking passengers to sign a waiver?

G-Man said:
Are you sure you can stack limits?
Don't most policies declare themselves excess, with any other policies primary?
Definitely don't think a carrier will issue multiple policies to you.
Click to expand...

Avemco will stack the club's Avemco policy with my personal Avemco non-owner policy*. I'll verify that AOPA will do that also before I sign up.

If I have to pick one, AOPA is better.

*Per Avemco, if more than five people own an airplane then the individual pilot owners are considered renters for insurance purposes, hence a personal non-owner policy.
 
Last edited:
jbarrass said:
Depends on the policy. Many do cover GA.
Click to expand...


Any chance you could list some, I have been trying to find an umbrella policy that doesn't exclude GA. I have heard they exist, but I have had no luck so far.

About 2 years ago I called every agent/company I could find, and none would write it. I do know insurance changes over time.
 
Reedster said:
Any chance you could list some, I have been trying to find an umbrella policy that doesn't exclude GA. I have heard they exist, but I have had no luck so far.

About 2 years ago I called every agent/company I could find, and none would write it. I do know insurance changes over time.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, I know USAA goes in and out of the aviation coverage on their umbrella policies. I believe they are currently out, but I know they go back and forth.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you find one that does, please post that information, as a lot of us have searched unsuccessfully for such a policy.
Click to expand...

When the subject came up within the last year, someone here had one through USAA. Currently, they don't offer it however, but if changes.
 
I have heard that about USAA, however I have no ties to the military. I guess it is worth the phone call to see if there are any options. Thanks.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've been with USAA for 42 years, but never seen this offered. I'll have to look into it.
Click to expand...


A GA umbrella policy is as easy to find as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. Plenty say they've seen them, but.....
 
Having seen a tort liability suit all the way through trial and just generally having WAY too much experience with lawyers, I will offer the following 1000 cents.

Flying with a friend leads to potential tort liability. Allegations of tort liability generally revolve around the following concepts:
- duty of care (your general duties to minimize the threat or occurrence of harm to another)
- negligence (your failure to perform duty of care leading to damages)
- Case law and other common law concepts that generally demonstrate how your actions or inactions deviated from that of a "reasonable" person, allowing points one and two to occur

If you fail to perform obvious duties of care (basically, you're a dumb*****) no release of liability in the world is going to protect you.

If you generally act like a reasonable person while flying, you're mostly covered. But what is a reasonable person, exactly? It's the actions of an average pilot of similar training and experience to yourself. That's it. However, there's a big hole here: your passenger might not be aware of the risks associated with flying with an average responsible pilot of your skill level and training.

That's what your waiver does. It explains to the passenger that there are clear risks involved, and that they could die from this activity. It lays out your very basic training credentials, flight hours of experience, approximate engine hours, etc; indisputable, easily discovered facts. It points out general accident stats associated with pilots of your skill level. It points out a few of the statistically most probable worst case scenarios for same. It does NOT contain subjective self assessments or observations about the specific airplane you are flying. It explains that you have explained all of the same to the passenger, verbally. You want a waiver so that if something bad goes down, there is no way anyone can say "It's his fault, he didn't tell me the risks!"

Get that waiver, don't be an idiot, and have at least $50,000 available for a really good attorney because they still sue anyway and they need to be shown how they have no case; that's about as good as you're gonna get.

Disclaimer: I'm a brand new member, I have no pilots license, and this is not legal advice because I'm not a lawyer. :lol:
 
You guys keep carrying on like this and you are going to drive up the prices of single seat airplanes.
 
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
 
Ryanb said:
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
Click to expand...
I only take up non pilots with the exception of my dad. I tell them the risks that are involved and most, if not all are okay with it,
 
Ryanb said:
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
Click to expand...

As a low-time pilot who is not married and has no one depending on me, I do feel more hesitant about taking a passenger who is the sole breadwinner for a family. Call me pessimistic, but if in the rare event that an off-airport landing results in the fatality of my passenger and not me, I would rather not have to face his/her family and feel like a widow(er)-maker... :sad:

The non-pilots who I feel most non-hesitant taking with me are family members or individuals who don't have young children and are Christians.
 
jordane93 said:
I only take up non pilots with the exception of my dad. I tell them the risks that are involved and most, if not all are okay with it,
Click to expand...

What happens when their family member calls you a liar? Afterall, they know the deceased much better than you do, they're family. And they know and explain that he would never have been ok with that kind of risk, that one time he went to the ER over a papercut (because that's just how paranoid and risk averse he was) and if it had been explained properly, he NEVER would've boarded that airplane.

I know that is cynical sounding, but I'd expect that many people here have something to lose, a lot more to lose than most of the general public. There are people out there who will take advantage of that, and your passenger's dirtbag relative might be just that person.
 
talkingbob said:
As a low-time pilot who is not married and has no one depending on me, I do feel more hesitant about taking a passenger who is the sole breadwinner for a family. Call me pessimistic, but if in the rare event that an off-airport landing results in the fatality of my passenger and not me, I would rather not have to face his/her family and feel like a widow(er)-maker... :sad:

The non-pilots who I feel most non-hesitant taking with me are family members or individuals who don't have young children and are Christians.
Click to expand...

Wait, I'm supposed to find out my passenger's religious affiliations before they fly with me? I'm doing it wrong, I guess...
 
I don't think this would have been asked thirty years ago. Law suits are so prevalent now that anything is possible and a waiver would not stop it. In the last 15 years I've only flown my wife. Good insurance? You bet!
 
I believe that someone signing a release does so with their own
understanding of how well you, the pilot, will perform. That's how they
will evaluate the risk. If you do something that falls short of their
understanding of your abilities then the "release" is probably not
valid since they did not fully understand the risk. If you do something
negligent then you are responsible regardless of what they sign.

I say you go all-in and just take them up and do your best to be safe.
No amount of legal-ese will save you.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You guys keep carrying on like this and you are going to drive up the prices of single seat airplanes.
Click to expand...

You remind me of something I read once...

PASSENGER LIABILITY IN A SINGLE SEAT GLIDER?
Every agent who has mentioned passenger liability to the owner of a single seat glider has heard the speedy retort, "I can't carry passengers. It has but one seat!" Usually, the customer is nice enough to leave the "you fool" off the end of that statement.
Click to expand...

The punch line being a pilot other than the insured owner is considered a passenger under the policy.

http://gliderinsurance.com/Article7.htm
 
talkingbob said:
The non-pilots who I feel most non-hesitant taking with me are family members or individuals who don't have young children and are Christians.
Click to expand...

Well Christians and Muslims are always going on about how sweet their afterlife is sposed to be :dunno:
 
In addition to the above...

Actually, the estate can sue. There's even a chance they can win. You typically can't waive gross negligence. You might get defense on inherent risks and contributory acts. There are a six states where such waivers are almost certainly void out of the gate in court and a few more where they're severely crippled.

An assumption of risk for inherently dangerous activities typically holds up. This is for things where the nature is likely to cause injury even without negligence. This is like skydiving where you can get injured even if nobody is negligent or things like sporting events where you could get struck with a ball or puck or injured in a play etc.... Here's where carefully constructed waivers can help.

Of course, a waiver is pointless if you don't have it backed up with insurance or other legal resources for when someone attempts to poke holes in it. You can't just go to court and hold of the waiver and get the suit dismissed immediately.
 
mrtyler said:
Serious question: how do you propose to assess whether a potential passenger -- or her family -- "can't accept the risks involved"?

Not picking on you Jordan, as a few other posts said basically the same thing.

(sixpacker I have often wondered this myself and look forward to some deeper answers ITT.)
Click to expand...

If such clairvoyance was possible then we wouldn't need civil courts...
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I don't think this would have been asked thirty years ago. Law suits are so prevalent now that anything is possible and a waiver would not stop it. In the last 15 years I've only flown my wife. Good insurance? You bet!
Click to expand...
Dude, 30 years ago most GA manufactures significantly curtailed if not completely stopped producing new airplanes because of lawsuits. This is not a recent development!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Dude, 30 years ago most GA manufactures significantly curtailed if not completely stopped producing new airplanes because of lawsuits. This is not a recent development!
Click to expand...

Nope, they stopped making them because nobody wanted to pay enough for them to be profitable. Mostly, it was Cessna and they stopped because they were sold to General Dynamics who shutdown that operation. When they were sold again to Textron, it got fired up. Yes, the Textron lawyers were real happy that GARA passed, but there was more economic issues than just liability (and GARA wasn't going to help for 18 years on the new airframes anyhow).
 
Ryanb said:
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
Click to expand...
Not me, at least, not on this basis. However, there are plenty of other reasons why I would choose not to let some particular person fly with me.
 
Ryanb said:
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
Click to expand...

No, but I will ask everyone that wishes to use my restroom to sign a waiver....



A lot of people slip and fall in pee pee on the restroom floor...... just ask Lucky about his settlement.
 
Ryanb said:
Does anyone feel hesitant taking non pilots for rides? A general question but a legitimate one.
Click to expand...
Not generally.

If you are that worried about liability, I would suggest you sell your car right now. There is a reason that a lawyer has the phone number 855-car-hit-me.
 
flyingron said:
Nope, they stopped making them because nobody wanted to pay enough for them to be profitable. Mostly, it was Cessna and they stopped because they were sold to General Dynamics who shutdown that operation. When they were sold again to Textron, it got fired up. Yes, the Textron lawyers were real happy that GARA passed, but there was more economic issues than just liability (and GARA wasn't going to help for 18 years on the new airframes anyhow).
Click to expand...

Well, that's funny because I distinctly remember a rash of aviation related lawsuits prior to prices skyrocketing.

But my point is that aviation related lawsuits are hardly a new phenomenon.
 
talkingbob said:
The non-pilots who I feel most non-hesitant taking with me are family members or individuals who don't have young children and are Christians.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a goodly number of lawsuits are initiated by Christians, so I wouldn't count on that as a "get out of jail free" card.
 
LoneAspen said:
I'm sure a goodly number of lawsuits are initiated by Christians, so I wouldn't count on that as a "get out of jail free" card.
Click to expand...

I agree 110%!
What I meant by the Christian comment was that if they are Christians that "walk the walk", I find they are calmer than others. I attribute this to the fact that they may have said to themselves, "If I die, at least I will get to meet Jesus".

My level of hesitance with passengers is more based on how distracted I will be with them in the cockpit and potential liability is only one of the factors that impacts my level of PAX distraction.
As with any guideline, there are exceptions - e.g. a beautiful, college-aged, Christian woman I had with me in a 2-seater was QUITE the distraction... :yes:

For what it's worth, I don't have many "solo" hours in my logbook and every passenger I have flown with has had a good experience and wanted to go again.
 
Reedster said:
Any chance you could list some, I have been trying to find an umbrella policy that doesn't exclude GA. I have heard they exist, but I have had no luck so far.

About 2 years ago I called every agent/company I could find, and none would write it. I do know insurance changes over time.
Click to expand...
My personal policy is through USAA, though as fearless says, they go in and out. I got mine about 15 years ago.

My company's is through Hartford. I had to push to remove the exclusions (I also needed war and terrorism exclusions removed) but they did without too much drama.
 
Why do insurance companies have a specific "Aviation" exclusion? Some say "Dangerous Activity" but why are there not not "Automobile" exclusions? Obviously everyone has to drive but you dont see any exceptions such as, if the insurance holder dies in an auto accident or motorcycle accident the insurance will not pay out? But Aviation has a specific exclusion??
 
Ryanb said:
Why do insurance companies have a specific "Aviation" exclusion? Some say "Dangerous Activity" but why are there not not "Automobile" exclusions? Obviously everyone has to drive but you dont see any exceptions such as, if the insurance holder dies in an auto accident or motorcycle accident the insurance will not pay out? But Aviation has a specific exclusion??
Click to expand...
Money. Laws. Bigger automobile pool to spread the payout costs over. Lots of insurance coverage is dictated by law, either aviation never lobbied to be a mandatory offering or insurance lobbied to exclude aviation.
 
Do people agonize over this before giving someone a ride in their car?
 
Ryanb said:
Why do insurance companies have a specific "Aviation" exclusion? Some say "Dangerous Activity" but why are there not not "Automobile" exclusions? Obviously everyone has to drive but you dont see any exceptions such as, if the insurance holder dies in an auto accident or motorcycle accident the insurance will not pay out? But Aviation has a specific exclusion??
Click to expand...

Automobile does essentially have an exclusion... that's why one needs car insurance. Same with boats, motorcycles, anything else that is perceived to represent a distinct and potentially liability. Normal liability insurance would exclude anything that happened while you're operating a car and if they do cover anything it's only as a 'secondary' policy that's oftentimes worthless if you don't have a primary policy on the activity in question. If one had an umbrella policy and homeowners liability but no car liability insurance good luck getting anyone to pay out anything if the incident involved a car.

There are tons of examples of this in the insurance industry. Your house flooded and you have homeowners insurance... sorry that doesn't cover floods. Your house got damaged by a nuke, sorry we don't cover damage from nuclear explosions either... if you want that covered you need a different policy (seriously, read the fine print of your policy).

Not saying this is right or wrong, but I don't think aviation is getting a worse wrap than any other potentially risky area that one needs to buy special insurance for.

With the whole waiver thing it's sad that this is even a thing but yes there are idiots out there that mean one does have to think about it. However, the truth is that if something serious actually happened any "waiver" is likely worthless.

To help put ones mind at ease a bit just look at the cost of liability insurance for a plane vs equivalent coverage for a car. The car is likely at least 10x more... so (at least according to the insurance company actuaries) we should all be more far far worried about keeping a binder full of "waivers" in our car for all those rides we give vs. rides in our planes.
 
If someone pulls out a release for me to fly in their plane. I'm not going, but not for any legal reason. I'm not going because the odds strongly favor this guy being a crap pilot focused on perfect fuel balance while we speed toward a mountain side. Same kind of guy that pulls out a scale before you board, spends 45 minutes moving bags around, calculates fuel weight to the fourth decimal, etc.

Releases are a ticket to the next Darwin awards ceremony.
 
Everskyward said:
Do people agonize over this before giving someone a ride in their car?
Click to expand...


No, but they don't have a doofus Chief Counsel writing letters like Mangiemele and they don't worry about who's paying for the tank of gas, either.

Government regulators of automotive activity don't go out of their way to make driving a car an onerous ridiculous exercise in memorizing minutiae about which idiot on board can legally buy lunch.

FAA on the other hand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top