Insurance Y2K Exclusion???

[Eric Pauley]

Shopping around for insurance quotes and received a sample policy with this wording:



At first, I found this kind of hilarious. Thinking about it further, though, this clause seems incredibly broad:

(1) "occasioned by" would imply that coverage is void regardless of if time failure is causal, right?
(2) any change of computer software/system could conceivably apply to database updates in response to change in time.
(3) GPS-based navigation failures would always be occasioned by processing change in time. Is any navigation failure excluded?

The clause seems so incredibly broad that it could be used to get out of paying out in virtually any circumstance. I realize the above interpretations are farfetched, but it is well-known that insurance companies specialize in weaseling out of responsibility. What are people's thoughts on the above policy verbiage?

 

[Jon Howard]

Most likely this is a requirement of the reinsurance companies. Reinsurers tend to be terrified of the idea of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of aircraft falling out of the sky at the same time as a result of something like the Y2K issue. It's not so much a ploy by an insurance company to deny your one claim, it's a way of protecting the insurance company and reinsurance companies against a huge number of correlated losses.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's amusing that this language is still in there 24 years later, given that the high tech industry was highly successful in updating their software in time.

 

[Eric Pauley]

It's amusing that this language is still in there 24 years later, given that the high tech industry was highly successful in updating their software in time.

They're either behind the times or 14 years ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

Or see GPS rollovers that affected flight systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_week_number_rollover

 

[Palmpilot]

They're either behind the times or 14 years ahead of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

Or see GPS rollovers that affected flight systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_week_number_rollover

I see that the language is general enough to cover those issues.

By the way, I discovered that I failed basic arithmetic, so I edited my post accordingly.

 

[Eric Pauley]

By the way, I discovered that I failed basic arithmetic, so I edited my post accordingly.

They've got that covered in subsection (c)

 

[Eric Pauley]

I think subsection (c) only adds to the ridiculousness of this clause. Say I mistime an LNAV VOR approach, overshoot the MAP, and run into a mountain. Is that "occasioned by" the "unavailibility for use" (of the burning wreckage) due to an act of mine relating to time?

I decided to go with a different policy.

 

[RussR]

I think subsection (c) only adds to the ridiculousness of this clause. Say I mistime an LNAV approach, overshoot the MAP, and run into a mountain. Is that "occasioned by" the "unavailibility for use" (of the burning wreckage) due to an act of mine relating to time?

I decided to go with a different policy.

You time your LNAV approaches?

 

[midlifeflyer]

You time your LNAV approaches?

Must be making up his own timing table too. That’s very proactive

 

[Eric Pauley]

Must be making up his own timing table too. That’s very proactive

You time your LNAV approaches?

Fixed. This is why I wouldn’t take a “pilot error” exclusion either…

 

[midlifeflyer]

Fixed. This is why I wouldn’t take a “pilot error” exclusion either…

None of us would.