HELP! Insurance Claim Denial

Saraq

Saraq

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
12
Display Name
Display name:
Sara
Hey all,

First time airplane owner here and within the first week of owning my Cessna 172 I hit a ground loop and did some damage to both the plane as well as some PAPI lights at the airport. When trying to work with insurance regarding covering the property damage at the airport as well as the plane they asked for my flight time which I assumed was normal. After sending over all of the pictures of the damage, etc. They said they may not be able to cover the damage because they were unaware that the plane was a Tail Dragger. When they asked for the make and model I was not aware that they needed the tail dragger info when applying to for the insurance? Once again this is the first airplane I have ever owned and I do have the experience required for the Cessna 172 as well as a Cessna 172 with conventional gear, but because I did not disclose it was a tail dragger they might refuse coverage. Which if that happens there is no way I will be able to pay for the damage to the PAPI lights.

Does anyone have any advice or experience with a similar type of situation? Any help is greatly appreciated.
 
Saraq said:
....because they were unaware that the plane was a Tail Dragger.
Click to expand...

What insurer?

Seems to me that it could matter why they were unaware. If you answered all their questions, provided all requested info, gave them the N# when getting the quote, etc., I don’t see how they can now refuse coverage.

Are you an AOPA member? A call to their legal services might be in order. Otherwise get an attorney to write a letter to the insurance company. That might be enough to persuade them.
 
time to engage an an atty comcentrating in aviation matters.
 
Half Fast said:
What insurer?

Seems to me that it could matter why they were unaware. If you answered all their questions, provided all requested info, gave them the N# when getting the quote, etc., I don’t see how they can now refuse coverage.

Are you an AOPA member? A call to their legal services might be in order. Otherwise get an attorney to write a letter to the insurance company. That might be enough to persuade them.
Click to expand...

Insurance is though Global Aerospace, Inc. I am a member of AOPA and I am calling in the morning when they open. Figured I would hop on here and see if anyone else had the some advice. I looked back at the application and I filled out every line and there was no place to determine if it was a taildragger or not.
 
Is there another official designation for a C172 converted to a tailwheel?? I can understand if you said you had a C172 and it was actually a C172RG but if there is no official FAA designation for a C172 tailwheel and they neglected to ask if it was or what modifications were made to the plane, assuming you answered their queries truthfully, then it sounds to me like it's on them and they need to pay up.

However, if you withheld information or deliberately misrepresented the nature of the aircraft to get lower premiums, then it sucks to be you.
 
If the policy was written assuming it was a nosedragger (and they would certainly assume a 172 has a nosewheel), I can well see them denying the claim; premiums for taildraggers are considerably higher.

C-150s, yes, but C-172 taildragger are a lot less common. Many insurance applications ask about any modifications to the aircraft, did yours? If they didn't ask you might have a case.
 
Half Fast said:
If the insurer didn’t ask, it’s on them. They had the N# and could have requested data. Likely they assumed it was a trike, but it’s their risk if they make an invalid assumption and fail to confirm it.
Click to expand...
But read your policy carefully as well, to ensure that it doesn’t specify an unmodified airplane or something to that effect.
 
After looking through emails, they specifically asked for my tailwheel time. There is no official FAA designation otherwise I would have included that. The modification to a tailwheel is not new....the plane is a 1956 and the modification happened in 1997 (not that it really matters WHEN it happened). So the plane was insured under the previous owner for almost 25 years as a tail wheel. A simple google search of the N-number shows literally 30 pictures of the plane with the tailwheel....not that they are required to Google anything, just thought that was a little funny despite not a funny situation.

The only thing it says about modifications is as follows:
"the Insured Value of the aircraft shall automatically increase to reflect the additional cost to the Named
Insured, if any, of such modification and/or installation, provided the Named Insured notifies the Company of such increase in the
Insured Value within thirty (30) days following the completion of such modification and/or installation. The increased value of the
aircraft shall not exceed 110% of the Insured Value described in Item 4 of the Declarations unless otherwise approved by the Company.
The Named Insured agrees to pay pro-rata additional premium for any such increased value."
 
I strongly suspect the insurance company made a quick assumption on their end that it was a regular 172.

If so, I suspect it will end up being on them to cover, but OP will likely need a lawyer to ‘remind’ then of their responsibility.
 
The email about tailwheel time should be your savior then, IMO. The rest can be blamed on an input error by a clerk. The adjuster likely only has the info someone else put into the system. I was thinking of dumping on you because they would want some TW time and extra premium to cover you but if they asked then you must have mentioned it somewhere along the way.
Saraq said:
After looking through emails, they specifically asked for my tailwheel time. There is no official FAA designation otherwise I would have included that. The modification to a tailwheel is not new....the plane is a 1956 and the modification happened in 1997 (not that it really matters WHEN it happened). So the plane was insured under the previous owner for almost 25 years as a tail wheel. A simple google search of the N-number shows literally 30 pictures of the plane with the tailwheel....not that they are required to Google anything, just thought that was a little funny despite not a funny situation.

The only thing it says about modifications is as follows:
"the Insured Value of the aircraft shall automatically increase to reflect the additional cost to the Named
Insured, if any, of such modification and/or installation, provided the Named Insured notifies the Company of such increase in the
Insured Value within thirty (30) days following the completion of such modification and/or installation. The increased value of the
aircraft shall not exceed 110% of the Insured Value described in Item 4 of the Declarations unless otherwise approved by the Company.
The Named Insured agrees to pay pro-rata additional premium for any such increased value."
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
I strongly suspect the insurance company made a quick assumption on their end that it was a regular 172.

If so, I suspect it will end up being on them to cover, but OP will likely need a lawyer to ‘remind’ then of their responsibility.
Click to expand...

What a wacky assumption for them to make. Correct 40,000-odd times, but wrong.. well this time and potentially a dozen or so others? :)

I think this would be the very first answer to the STC/Modifications question. I've never NOT been asked that question when filling out the aircraft questionnaire.
 
I wouldn't worry until you get a letter for a refused claim by the insurer. I believe they will settle the claim because no deaths or injuries and it doesn't sound like there is substantial damage to the plane.

Is the NTSB investigating? If not it is an incident. (Hopefully papi lights don't cost $25K)
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I wouldn't worry until you get a letter for a refused claim by the insurer. I believe they will settle the claim because no deaths or injuries and it doesn't sound like there is substantial damage to the plane.

Is the NTSB investigating? If not it is an incident. (Hopefully papi lights don't cost $25K)
Click to expand...

NTSB is not investigating. The plane just has some sheet metal damage in a few spots wings, engine, prop are all unharmed (pretty lucky). PAPI lights are probably the most expensive part of the claim.
 
hard for me to believe that the insurance co would write a policy without seeing the aircraft...documenting current condition, etc...
 
Brad W said:
hard for me to believe that the insurance co would write a policy without seeing the aircraft...documenting current condition, etc...
Click to expand...
I've had four different insurers over the 15 years that I've had my plane. Nobody ever saw my airplane. It was all done over the phone/online. About the most detail they have ever asked is when I had to justify why I was asking for $140,000 in hull value, but I sent them the list of upgrades (mostly avionics) that made it worth more than what their Navion blue book (or whatever) value was. I regularly get asked about all sorts of random time numbers that don't have anything to do with the Navion (like my 40 or so hours of tailwheel time).

Still, unless there is something in the policy documents that specifically provides for not covering it, they must. They'll have to come up with a better reason than "we didn't know it was a taildragger." That's not a legal principle.
 
It all depends on what their insurance application looks like, and how it was completed. For example I don't think our insurance asked anything about STCs, because I'm pretty certain they never asked about engine modifications (which we have).
 
Our insurance did ask about how the plane was equipped; I think that most do. Do you say "tailwheel added"? I would have, that's a really big deal.
Definitely post something after your lawyer checks over the policy, and hopefully, you've kept a copy of the actual application, because that's where you would have been asked, if at all.
 
It's been a long time since I started a new policy. I don't recall them asking for specifics on the Cessna 150 which was my most recent new policy. I could see how not telling them it was a tailwheel conversion could be in the same category of fudging log book numbers. If I were asking for a new policy I would certainly be up front about such a configuration change knowing good and well that it would change how they insure it. Whether there is something legally binding in the contract will have to be decided amongst lawyers. I suspect they will settle, maybe cover the papi lights but not the plane and likely will drop you from coverage.
 
Brad W said:
hard for me to believe that the insurance co would write a policy without seeing the aircraft...documenting current condition, etc...
Click to expand...

You've clearly never actually insured an aircraft then. Does your car insurance company inspect your car or ask for pictures?
 
bradg33 said:
You've clearly never actually insured an aircraft then. Does your car insurance company inspect your car or ask for pictures?
Click to expand...
I've never had an aircraft or car inspected before acquiring insurance.. I've had my house inspected but that's it.
 
bradg33 said:
You've clearly never actually insured an aircraft then. Does your car insurance company inspect your car or ask for pictures?
Click to expand...
Mine did, I had to take the car in to a shop on their approved list, and they took photos. That was for initial insurance with a company known to be picky. Once in their system, I didn’t have to do it for subsequent cars.
 
Check all the documents you signed and initialed. My application has always asked "Any STC's, yes/no." I always say YES, but then state: "Just normal STCs for this age of aircraft." One time the insurances asked if any HP increase STC or major air-frame STC's.
BTW, since they asked you about tail-wheel time, I would guess it was known when it was insured. Maybe just the adjuster side of the businesses did not know it.
Tony T
 
GaryM said:
Mine did, I had to take the car in to a shop on their approved list, and they took photos. That was for initial insurance with a company known to be picky. Once in their system, I didn’t have to do it for subsequent cars.
Click to expand...

Was this a specialty or collector car through a stated value company like Hagerty? That's not quite the same as insuring a normal car through Geico or State Farm...
 
My airplane insurance application asked, "Has aircraft been equipped with any major modifications not provided by manufacturer?"

Some auto insurance policies do require photos... like classic car policies where (like aircraft hull coverage) they insure to a stated value, not a "book" value.

Tailwheel time is one of the boxes on the standard application form.
 
Well, actually Hagerty's stated value policies are more akin to the average aviation policy. Hagerty hasn't seem my classic boat, but it's valuation was in line with what they think its worth from the description.

But again, the "we didn't know it was a taildragger" is a legal basis for not paying unless there's something specific in the policy that says that such a representation matters. People talk about onerous policies all the time, but I've never had one that went on for more than a few pages. The bigger issues are not complying with the stated terms (notably keeping the plane in annual or uncovered commercial uses or use by people not authorized bo the policies).
 
Dana said:
Tailwheel time is one of the boxes on the standard application form.
Click to expand...

Agree, I own a Piper Cherokee and I get asked T/W time every year during renewal. Same with M/E time (neither of which apply to a single engine Cherokee).
 
ok...fair point about car insurance....and no I've never owned an aircraft. Just seemed to me that it would be more like a house, or even a large boat where they'll have inspections or surveys done....
 
I have a hard time believing someone would get an insurance policy and think the underwriter wouldn't care that it was a tail dragger.
Any policy I've obtained asked if there were modifications. Surely this is one that can't fall in the "oops, forgot that detail" column.
 
aftCG said:
I have a hard time believing someone would get an insurance policy and think the underwriter wouldn't care that it was a tail dragger.
Any policy I've obtained asked if there were modifications. Surely this is one that can't fall in the "oops, forgot that detail" column.
Click to expand...
My thoughts too. This definitely falls into the lying by omission category unless he did tell them and they missed that detail. I'm no fan of insurance companies but unfortunately in this world it's the policy holder's responsibility to ensure they know it's a tailwheel, not theirs to find out.
 
The form you filled out when you bought insurance was likely the agent’s form, not the insurance company. The agent was responsible for knowing the plane they were insuring when they took it to underwriters. If the model number was correct and the policy covers it on its face (eg references the airplane and its STCs), I find it hard to believe they won’t cover it. You may have had someone on the phone this time who thought there is no such thing as a tail dragging 172 and thought the model number was wrong. I almost had a similar issue with my R182 that the first agent quoted as a 182R. One is a retract and the other is not. Luckily, I caught it before I paid for the policy.

Read your policy.
 
bradg33 said:
Was this a specialty or collector car through a stated value company like Hagerty? That's not quite the same as insuring a normal car through Geico or State Farm...
Click to expand...
No, a plain vanilla Acura Integra, but it was a smaller insurance company known for great rates and service if you jumped through a few hoops to be accepted as a client
 
aggie06 said:
The form you filled out when you bought insurance was likely the agent’s form, not the insurance company. The agent was responsible for knowing the plane they were insuring when they took it to underwriters. If the model number was correct and the policy covers it on its face (eg references the airplane and its STCs), I find it hard to believe they won’t cover it. You may have had someone on the phone this time who thought there is no such thing as a tail dragging 172 and thought the model number was wrong. I almost had a similar issue with my R182 that the first agent quoted as a 182R. One is a retract and the other is not. Luckily, I caught it before I paid for the policy.

Read your policy.
Click to expand...

In this scenario, it would probably fall under the broker's E&O insurance. You'll need to ask them nicely, once, to cover it, listen to their explanation about why they're not responsible, and if you are not convinced, the lawyering route is probably the only way forward.

This is tough, I want to victim-blame here since "a taildragger 172" is a really unusual thing that should have been called out high and clear and in plain language up front when quoting, but I can see where a new owner might not know this was unusual OR important for insurance to know about.
 
UPDATE:

After speaking with the broker, turns out I did designate that it was a tailwheel on the application (so im not an idiot after all) but there was an error in reporting to the insurance company. Spoke to a lawyer as well and he reassured me that it is between the broker and insurance company to resolve and it will likely be covered. I really appreciate everyone's input and advice! Big sigh of relief for me...pretty sure my blood pressure has been through the roof for the past 3 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top