Corvette kills Cessna in Spanish Fork...

Is that even covered on insurance? I heard sometime at one time about illegal activity and insurance in some cases not honoring coverage. Any truth to that?
 
TheTraveler said:
Is that even covered on insurance? I heard sometime at one time about illegal activity and insurance in some cases not honoring coverage. Any truth to that?
Click to expand...

They will not in most situations.
 
Jeff Cutler said:
They will not in most situations.
Click to expand...
Is that for most illegal activities? Like if you're involved in a bank robbery and crash your getaway car, or hauling drugs and get in a wreck even if you're not UI? Or is it only moving type violations such as drag-racing, etc?
 
TheTraveler said:
Is that even covered on insurance? I heard sometime at one time about illegal activity and insurance in some cases not honoring coverage. Any truth to that?
Click to expand...
If that were true, there wouldn't be much point in buying insurance because (at least) half the time you will get your claim denied for breaking laws like "failure to stop in an assured clear distance", exceeding the speed limit, being stinking drunk, etc.
 
weird, the CFI/student got out of the plane because they 'noticed something wrong with a light' but they didn't notice CARS DRAG RACING on the freakin runway? just sounds odd. also, I guess it could have been worse for them if they were still in the plane.
 
TheTraveler said:
Is that even covered on insurance? I heard sometime at one time about illegal activity and insurance in some cases not honoring coverage. Any truth to that?
Click to expand...

Ain't even close to being true. Wouldn't be real cool if a drunk driver hit you and then his insurance wouldn't pay because he was drunk. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Porsche won then. Betcha the Vette driver is trying to weasel out of paying up.
 
Tj1376 said:
Ain't even close to being true. Wouldn't be real cool if a drunk driver hit you and then his insurance wouldn't pay because he was drunk. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, I have had that exact situation come up, where DD hit my HOME and the auto owner 'claimed' that his car was stolen (as the story went by the local PD, the driver took the keys of the car at a party w/o getting owner's permission). My home repair was only covered by my homeowners insurance after I paid $1K deductable. We were out of town at the time, and the only witness was the driver who didn't survive. It was the word of the car owner that turned the Insurance table around.
 
It's impossible to say without reading the actual policy, but the typical exclusion is for racing, legal or illegal. Other performance driving activities are often excluded, as well, so even if you are not competitively racing you won't be covered for wrecks that occur while on the race track for high performance driver education and similar things. Insurance, particularly with enough coverage to fix broken airplanes, is also not popular amongst the people who illegally drag race at airports. Let's hope the airplane's insurance carrier is aggressive with its subrogation and drains the driver's bank accounts so he can't afford to buy enough gas for a repeat performance.
 
Jeff Cutler said:
Well, I have had that exact situation come up, where DD hit my HOME and the auto owner 'claimed' that his car was stolen (as the story went by the local PD, the driver took the keys of the car at a party w/o getting owner's permission). My home repair was only covered by my homeowners insurance after I paid $1K deductable. We were out of town at the time, and the only witness was the driver who didn't survive. It was the word of the car owner that turned the Insurance table around.
Click to expand...
I assume the Drunk was uninsured?
 
Jeff Cutler said:
They will not in most situations.
Click to expand...
The might not cover the cost for repairs of the insured car but they can't "decline" to pay for any liabilities to other parties (e.g. the airplane owner).
 
gismo said:
The might not cover the cost for repairs of the insured car but they can't "decline" to pay for any liabilities to other parties (e.g. the airplane owner).
Click to expand...
And in fairness to my other post above, I haven't read the racing exclusion in my own policy so I don't know if it applies to the liability portion of the policy or only the first-party portions (collision and comprehensive). But if I were an insurance company, I would write it to exclude liability coverage as well.
 
I'll bet the friend with the hangar is going to get a talking to, or might not have a hangar at that field for much longer.

Jackholes.
 
Jeff Cutler said:
Well, I have had that exact situation come up, where DD hit my HOME and the auto owner 'claimed' that his car was stolen (as the story went by the local PD, the driver took the keys of the car at a party w/o getting owner's permission). My home repair was only covered by my homeowners insurance after I paid $1K deductable. We were out of town at the time, and the only witness was the driver who didn't survive. It was the word of the car owner that turned the Insurance table around.
Click to expand...
Car owner wasn't as worried about your house as he was about getting sued by the dead drunk's family.
 
iamtheari said:
It's impossible to say without reading the actual policy, but the typical exclusion is for racing, legal or illegal. Other performance driving activities are often excluded, as well, so even if you are not competitively racing you won't be covered for wrecks that occur while on the race track for high performance driver education and similar things. Insurance, particularly with enough coverage to fix broken airplanes, is also not popular amongst the people who illegally drag race at airports. Let's hope the airplane's insurance carrier is aggressive with its subrogation and drains the driver's bank accounts so he can't afford to buy enough gas for a repeat performance.
Click to expand...

This is only for comprehensive and collision. Liability follows the vehicle, not the driver (which is why your insurance will pay if a friend borrows your vehicle.)

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jeff Cutler said:
Well, I have had that exact situation come up, where DD hit my HOME and the auto owner 'claimed' that his car was stolen (as the story went by the local PD, the driver took the keys of the car at a party w/o getting owner's permission). My home repair was only covered by my homeowners insurance after I paid $1K deductable. We were out of town at the time, and the only witness was the driver who didn't survive. It was the word of the car owner that turned the Insurance table around.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you had such an experience. It doesn't sound like we have the full story which makes it tough. What did you lawyer say?

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
iamtheari said:
And in fairness to my other post above, I haven't read the racing exclusion in my own policy so I don't know if it applies to the liability portion of the policy or only the first-party portions (collision and comprehensive). But if I were an insurance company, I would write it to exclude liability coverage as well.
Click to expand...
If insurance companies could exclude liability (protection for the public) there would be gaping holes in every low bit insurance contract. I believe most states have laws regarding what must be covered by a car owner's liability insurance policy and I seriously doubt that those laws allow a policy to exclude coverage just because the owner or driver was acting illegally.
 
I was taking off from KVUO one night some years ago, and some idiot in a car on the parallel taxiway was trying to race me. I guess he got his jollies by outaccelerating a Grumman Cheetah with a four-cylinder 160 hp engine for a few hundred feet; but I beat him past the perimeter fence, the adjoining interstate highway and the Columbia River ...
 
gismo said:
If insurance companies could exclude liability (protection for the public) there would be gaping holes in every low bit insurance contract. I believe most states have laws regarding what must be covered by a car owner's liability insurance policy and I seriously doubt that those laws allow a policy to exclude coverage just because the owner or driver was acting illegally.
Click to expand...
Acting illegally isn't the exclusion I'm talking about. It's racing and in particular doing so off of the public roads. We as a society require liability insurance for driving cars on public roads because we believe that the risk of having cars on the road is outweighed by the benefit to society and we want to do our best to mitigate that risk since the people who are at risk have little control over the risk other than staying off the roads to begin with.

Drag racing at an airport and hitting a plane may or may not fit into that calculus and, as a result, each state probably has its own laws determining whether to allow this activity as an exclusion to liability insurance otherwise required to drive on the public roads.

There is no doubt that there is liability to the plane owner. The question is whether the applicable liability insurance policy has coverage for crashing into an airplane while drag racing at an airport. I don't know much about Utah law so I won't speculate what the answer is. But I do know from a quick Google search that there is evidently no 100% correct general rule that applies all across the United States.
 
Agreed the insurance wouldn't be able to not pay out to whoever was on the receiving end. But they sure should be able to walk away from whoever did the damage.

Example...bank robber slams into a car, totals it, hurts some people. I wonder if the insurance could take care of the injured and their property, but deny the claims for the bank robber. Plausible?

As TJ pointed out, the reverse wouldn't work so well for...anyone. I just wonder if they could walk away from your claim because of illegal activity, even though they'd have to take care of others.
 
... moral of the story, read your policy and state laws, YRMV.
 
Can someone explain why the cfi decided to shutdown the airplane where he did rather than going back to the ramp?
 
DutchRoller said:
Can someone explain why the cfi decided to shutdown the airplane where he did rather than going back to the ramp?
Click to expand...
He can and I'm sure he is going to get the opportunity. If he was really out on the taxiway like the article says he's gonna have some 'splainin to do. That doesn't take the Dale Earnhardt wannabes off the hook but some F Lee Bailey wannabe is going to run with it.
 
So if I run my airplane into someone parked on the side of the road, the car owner would have some liability?
I think we need to establish some right of way basics - such as airplanes get the airports, cars get the highways and roads, no?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So if I run my airplane into someone parked on the side of the road, the car owner would have some liability?
I think we need to establish some right of way basics - such as airplanes get the airports, cars get the highways and roads, no?
Click to expand...
If some lawyer can find a way to convince a jury, then yes, he would.
 
luvflyin said:
He can and I'm sure he is going to get the opportunity. If he was really out on the taxiway like the article says he's gonna have some 'splainin to do. That doesn't take the Dale Earnhardt wannabes off the hook but some F Lee Bailey wannabe is going to run with it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am not saying that the CFI's poor judgment is the main cause of the accident or that it alleves the car drivers of their culpability. But it was the final hole in the cheese stack. To me, parking on the taxiway and shutting down was the wrong thing to do even without the car racing going on. Take the plane back to the ramp or hangar and troubleshoot/repair there. The movement area is not the place to do that.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
So if I run my airplane into someone parked on the side of the road, the car owner would have some liability?
I think we need to establish some right of way basics - such as airplanes get the airports, cars get the highways and roads, no?
Click to expand...
We have those. That ain't gonna stop some shyster from saying "If the plane ain't lit, you must acquit."
 
Who says the plane wasn't "lit" just because the engine was shut down and the pilots out to inspect a problem?
 
The beacon and taxi lights were on. . .or, I was afraid of an electrical fire, killed the Master, and evacuated. Then a Corvette appeared out of the darkness, moving at high speed, and we scrambled for our lives. . .Or, all the lights were on, and I killed the master after the collision, to avoid a fire. . .

Anyway, two pinheads, racing on an airport taxiway, in the dark - - I'm not even a lawyer, and I think I could articulate a pretty good case for both those primates having 100% culpability.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Wow, two jackwagons with more money than sense race their high powered cars illegally at the airport, and you guys want to blame the instructor for being in their way?
Click to expand...
I don't think that is what he is saying. The idiocy and guilt of the hot rodders is undeniable but since this is supposedly an aviation site, the pilot's actions and possible role in the accident is something to discuss. It is certainly more interesting a topic than the auto insurance consequences. But I guess we could discuss donuts, cole slaw and stupid toy monkeys instead.
 
Donuts are good. But point taken. . .

I don't know the airport - assuming it's an uncontrolled field, it doesn't seem that far out of bounds to get out and check on something, if there's no other traffic (at least with wings) around. I guess I see the CFI's role as being a witness, not much else.
 
Sundancer said:
Donuts are good. But point taken. . .

I don't know the airport - assuming it's an uncontrolled field, it doesn't seem that far out of bounds to get out and check on something, if there's no other traffic (at least with wings) around. I guess I see the CFI's role as being a witness, not much else.
Click to expand...

Not saying this is what happened, but what if they shut down the airplane on the taxiway to "Give those drag racers something to think about so maybe they will take it elsewhere."? I could absolutely see that happening.
 
Sundancer said:
Donuts are good. But point taken. . .

I don't know the airport - assuming it's an uncontrolled field, it doesn't seem that far out of bounds to get out and check on something, if there's no other traffic (at least with wings) around. I guess I see the CFI's role as being a witness, not much else.
Click to expand...

The only place on a taxiway that I think it might be ok is in the run up area. At least there you have some extra room to provide an extra margin of safety. But I do see how it might be tempting to do it in other areas if you believe there is no other traffic of any variety. Still I personally wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top