Flying for Work - Liability

[somorris]

There is a simple way to address this and that is to have your employer as a named insured.

That is what my company's insurer wanted.

 

[gismo]

I am IFR rated, but from the sounds of things I'm either going to have to get them to accept the risk or just take take a large metal tube halfway across the country and back. It's really too bad that things like this can't be easily mitigated to allow for easier business usage of GA aircraft...

I had to deal with this several times at the company I used to work for. Initially they were fine with me flying myself and anyone else who wanted to go along. After several years of that (and a new CEO who was afraid of flying on airlines) the policy changed to "no way". After 9/11 I made a convincing argument that by making me fly commercially they were exposing me to the chance of a hijacking that didn't exist when I flew myself and as a result I "won" the right to go solo but couldn't take anyone else along.

During the original fight about this it was determined that their workers comp policy covered such flights unconditionally and that their general liability would be in effect as long as the pilot was commercially rated which I was (I suspected that the insurer's real intent was to require a professional pilot but I didn't point that out).

The company I work for now is owned by the other partner in my multi-stall hangar (also a pilot) and he encourages the use of GA even when it costs more than driving or the airlines.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Yes, under current tort laws, he could be liable, perhaps for millions. Yes, it sucks. No, I don't see it getting fixed any time soon.

Yes, I wish it were otherwise, it would be one of the greatest boosts GA could get.

Hmmmmmm

PBOR3 anyone?

 

[kenjr]

...one thing to take note of. I work for a big software corp and the life insurance that I get through the company does not pay out if I die as a pilot or passenger in a non-commercial flight. The AD&D pays out - but the additional life insurance (which for me as a mid-40's with 3 small kids) is a big chunk. So, be sure to CYA there if you need to.

I haven't flown any *yet* for work - I've tried to a couple times but the weather sucked so I took a car or rode the big iron. But, I wouldn't hesitate to book the mileage in lieu and fly if it was more economical than flying commercial. Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

The liability risk for the company is real. The liability risk for yourself is minimal assuming you would have taken a similar recreational flight anyways.

The fact you're not carrying and PAX might be the only mitigating issue, but it's not home free.

You DO realize how rare it is for a GA crash to kill or injure someone on the ground, right? Might as well be statistical noise.

OK.........maybe I can understand some companies reluctance to allow this flight with pax, especially other employees, but solo?? He is infinity more likely to hurt or kill someone else in his car than flying solo, even though GA is more dangerous than driving

 

[Shawn]

He is infinity more likely to hurt or kill someone else in his car than flying solo, even though GA is more dangerous than driving

Why let facts get in the way of perception. Car crashes and deaths have become an acceptable risk of our current society. Acceptable losses for the perceived benefits. A GA crash is just flat out negligence to the increased potential of risk!

...plus in our litigious climate...if you drive a Honda you are probably broke. If you fly a plane you MUST be loaded...again...perception.

 

[NoHeat]

There is a simple way to address this and that is to have your employer as a named insured.

That's what my employer requires. My liability policy, a $1 million liability, and the employer listed as a 'named insured'.

It would also be smart for the employer to also forbid carrying a passenger, so that only the pilot can crash.

 

[weilke]

Why let facts get in the way of perception. Car crashes and deaths have become an acceptable risk of our current society. Acceptable losses for the perceived benefits. A GA crash is just flat out negligence to the increased potential of risk!

The difference between slip&fall and automotive risk on one hand and aviation risk on the other is the price of insurance. If a company is the defendant, the claims and plaintiff aggression are infinitely higher than in claims against a broke private pilot. The same with contracts and product liability law. If Bobs sandwich shop forgets to put alfalfa sproits on a sandwich he maybe gets a bad review on yelp. If JimmieJohns forgets the sprouts they get a multi-million tort claim. Aviation is unique in that insurance at the level carried by companies is expensive. If the risk of claims exceeding the customary 1mil was so small, insurers would offer higher limits at a low upcharge. Try to price 2mil smooth or a excess policy for 5 or 10. It flattens out at the higher limits above 2mil (10 is not twice as much as 5) but the fact that prices do go up above 1 shows that the actuaries see higher claim payouts to base their premiums on.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmmmmmm

PBOR3 anyone?

To override a legal principle that has existed for 4 centuries in the English-speaking world so it applies to everyone and everything people exercising private pilot privileges? I could be way off but it strikes me and not terribly likely.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You DO realize how rare it is for a GA crash to kill or injure someone on the ground, right? Might as well be statistical noise.

OK.........maybe I can understand some companies reluctance to allow this flight with pax, especially other employees, but solo?? He is infinity more likely to hurt or kill someone else in his car than flying solo, even though GA is more dangerous than driving

Personally, I've found employers to be far more concerned with workers compensation risk than liability risk in the situation of the private pilot who flies himself on company business.

 

[paflyer]

Yes, under current tort laws, he could be liable, perhaps for millions. Yes, it sucks. No, I don't see it getting fixed any time soon.

Yes, I wish it were otherwise, it would be one of the greatest boosts GA could get.

The government (aided and abetted by certain stakeholders) doesn't want GA to be boosted. The evidence is clear.

 

[deyoung]

The government (aided and abetted by certain stakeholders) doesn't want GA to be boosted. The evidence is clear.

Why do you say that? Keeping in mind of course that it probably doesn't make sense to ascribe something to nefarious intent if it can just as easily be explained by ignorance.

 

[poadeleted20]

Joking aside, How much do you care about the job? Are you in an industry where you could replace it in 5 days for equivalent pay?

Seriously, not the tongue in cheek response... but realize some of the advice here might get you sacked if caught. On the other hand, you might not care if you're a RN or a pharmacist or something and can just go work across the street starting tomorrow...

Unless you can figure out how to prevent a prospective future employer from finding out why you were fired from your last job, that may not be a viable option. Companies don't like to hire employees with a track record of violating company rules in a way which puts the company at serious financial risk.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, under current tort laws, he could be liable, perhaps for millions. Yes, it sucks. No, I don't see it getting fixed any time soon.

Yes, I wish it were otherwise, it would be one of the greatest boosts GA could get.

Hmmmmmm

PBOR3 anyone?

You think the trial lawyers (an astonishingly powerful lobby) would stand for that? Note that the first PBOR's actually encouraged more work for lawyers, and what you suggest would cut their income.

 

[txflyer]

Doesn't work that way. And you'd be nuts to do so because if you got hurt (flying or otherwise), the company's on-the-job insurance wouldn't cover you. And you couldn't get paid by the company for your travel or deduct the cost on your taxes.

The plaintiff's attorneys would rip through that in less time than it takes me to type this sentence.

Well, it's pretty apparent OP is either going to have to get full approval and insured up with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, or he's going to have to lie in some way about something ....

I was merely suggesting a small fib that might work if things turn ugly ...

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, it's pretty apparent OP is either going to have to get full approval and insured up with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, or he's going to have to lie in some way about something ....

Agreed.

I was merely suggesting a small fib that might work if things turn ugly ...

I can't see any way that "small fib...might work if things turn ugly" -- not for a second once the lawyers get involved.

 

[txflyer]

O.k. don't call in sick OP

You're fvcked ...

Better?

 

[beestforwardspeed]

You think the trial lawyers (an astonishingly powerful lobby) would stand for that? Note that the first PBOR's actually encouraged more work for lawyers, and what you suggest would cut their income.

What makes you think they are more powerful than the GA lobby? They also have roughly the same numbers as we do (455,000 if I recall).

Either way, each are only about 0.2% of the US population.

Don't forget that 20 years ago we successfully go the GA revitilazation act passed, much to the dismay of many trial lawyers.

 

[paflyer]

What makes you think they are more powerful than the GA lobby? They also have roughly the same numbers as we do (455,000 if I recall).

Either way, each are only about 0.2% of the US population.

Is the Congress and FAA run by owner/pilots or lawyers?

 

[paflyer]

Why do you say that? Keeping in mind of course that it probably doesn't make sense to ascribe something to nefarious intent if it can just as easily be explained by ignorance.

I don't think our regulators are "ignorant" of the impact their of their rules.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Is the Congress and FAA run by owner/pilots or lawyers?

Yea, I know what you are saying, but the attorneys that ambulance chase on personal injury suits are a small percentage of all attorneys.

Even among my attorney friends (one who practices copyright law), the ones who do this are really looked upon as parariahs, since they give the legit ones a very bad rap.

 

[poadeleted20]

What makes you think they are more powerful than the GA lobby?

History. Also, compare the number of attorneys in Congress to the number of pilots.

Don't forget that 20 years ago we successfully go the GA revitilazation act passed, much to the dismay of many trial lawyers.

...who managed to insert the clause which restarts the clock every time someone works on the item so there's still always someone to sue.

 

[denverpilot]

Yea, I know what you are saying, but the attorneys that ambulance chase on personal injury suits are a small percentage of all attorneys.



Even among my attorney friends (one who practices copyright law), the ones who do this are really looked upon as parariahs, since they give the legit ones a very bad rap.

So no insurance companies, product manufacturers, or service providers retain attorneys on staff and the only ones that are a net loss on the GA business books are the ambulance chasers... LOL. Got it.

I bet Jeppesen doesn't have any Copyright attorneys. Sure. And their fees aren't part of the price of their charts. LOL.

 

[pj500]

You DO realize how rare it is for a GA crash to kill or injure someone on the ground, right? Might as well be statistical noise.

OK.........maybe I can understand some companies reluctance to allow this flight with pax, especially other employees, but solo?? He is infinity more likely to hurt or kill someone else in his car than flying solo, even though GA is more dangerous than driving

tell that to his wife when the estate sues the company for his death.

the risk is still there in a car don't get me wrong but it's less

nonetheless I did mention that because passengers are often a mitigating factor for employers that do approve such flights

 

[pj500]

Unless you can figure out how to prevent a prospective future employer from finding out why you were fired from your last job, that may not be a viable option. Companies don't like to hire employees with a track record of violating company rules in a way which puts the company at serious financial risk.

I've heard many folks and nowadays it's almost impossible to find the exact reason for their dismissal so if there's no criminal or civil history behind it its almost impossible. confirming dates of employment and salary history and not much more has become the norm.

 

[dans2992]

I've heard many folks and nowadays it's almost impossible to find the exact reason for their dismissal so if there's no criminal or civil history behind it its almost impossible. confirming dates of employment and salary history and not much more has become the norm.

The reason is always "downsizing" or "restructuring"....always.

In the upper ranks, it's usually "he decided to pursue other opportunities" or something like that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beestforwardspeed]

I've heard many folks and nowadays it's almost impossible to find the exact reason for their dismissal so if there's no criminal or civil history behind it its almost impossible. confirming dates of employment and salary history and not much more has become the norm.

The reason is always "downsizing" or "restructuring"....always.

In the upper ranks, it's usually "he decided to pursue other opportunities" or something like that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As it should be!!

That would be like your new date (potential future husband or wife) talking with your ex to see why you broke up with him/her.

Talk about a lot of room for error and misinformation, or worse yet, slander.