I got my new insurance policy yesterday and it contains a clause that I missed in previous years (it's there) that seems like a very broad exclusion. Would others please comment on their policies? If this type clause is common, then I guess I will have to accept it. If it is uncommon, then I can look for a different underwriter next year. BTW, this is a USAIG "All-Clear" Aircraft Policy.
The clause is under what is not covered, and it reads:
Wear and tear. We won't cover loss or damage to your aircraft caused by and confined to wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure. Damage caused by breakdown, failure or malfunction of any engine component, accessory or part will be considered mechanical breakdown of the entire engine, and is not covered.
The bolded section is my emphasis, and it is the sentence of concern. I understand (I think) the concept of betterment....meaning that the insurance company will not compensate me for a new engine when mine has, for example, 1200 hrs on a 2000 hr TBO. And I understand that an insurance company will not pay for a part that breaks. But as I read that clause, it seems to be saying that if any part of the engine fails leading to massive engine damage, then the insurance company will not pay for any of the repair.
For example, if I experience a valve failure and the pieces rattle around in the cylinder for a while until they break through the piston and fall into the case, I can understand that insurance would not pay for the valve repair, but would have expected it to pay for a teardown of the rest of the engine and any necessary repairs to damage caused by the valve pieces. But as I read this clause, the engine becomes an uncovered write off if it is lost due to breakdown of any part.
In a broad reading, failure of an engine driven fuel pump that leads to a forced landing and a prop strike also seems to fit this exclusion. The prop strike damage would have been caused by the failure of an engine accessory (the fuel pump). Is that what others have experienced from their insurance company? Am I reading this too broadly?
The clause is under what is not covered, and it reads:
Wear and tear. We won't cover loss or damage to your aircraft caused by and confined to wear and tear, deterioration, mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure. Damage caused by breakdown, failure or malfunction of any engine component, accessory or part will be considered mechanical breakdown of the entire engine, and is not covered.
The bolded section is my emphasis, and it is the sentence of concern. I understand (I think) the concept of betterment....meaning that the insurance company will not compensate me for a new engine when mine has, for example, 1200 hrs on a 2000 hr TBO. And I understand that an insurance company will not pay for a part that breaks. But as I read that clause, it seems to be saying that if any part of the engine fails leading to massive engine damage, then the insurance company will not pay for any of the repair.
For example, if I experience a valve failure and the pieces rattle around in the cylinder for a while until they break through the piston and fall into the case, I can understand that insurance would not pay for the valve repair, but would have expected it to pay for a teardown of the rest of the engine and any necessary repairs to damage caused by the valve pieces. But as I read this clause, the engine becomes an uncovered write off if it is lost due to breakdown of any part.
In a broad reading, failure of an engine driven fuel pump that leads to a forced landing and a prop strike also seems to fit this exclusion. The prop strike damage would have been caused by the failure of an engine accessory (the fuel pump). Is that what others have experienced from their insurance company? Am I reading this too broadly?
