Liabilities of the A/HB builders

docmirror said:
Ding-ding-ding; Me too. I asked about adding it, and was told 'there is no such animal in the ins world'.
Click to expand...

I'll go a step further: in researching supplemental international travel health insurance policies, piloting general aviation is a named exclusion... even where other sports might be included.
 
wsuffa said:
I'll go a step further: in researching supplemental international travel health insurance policies, piloting general aviation is a named exclusion... even where other sports might be included.
Click to expand...

I told my ins guy when I was shopping for an umbrella that I had a pilot license, a SCUBA card, and an annual ski pass in CO, we have a large breed dog, and a pool, along with a 28ft pleasure boat, and his eyes just rolled. :rofl:

We were not able to do business on the umbrella policy front. I just upped my homeowners liability and live with the exclusions.
 
docmirror said:
Ding-ding-ding; Me too. I asked about adding it, and was told 'there is no such animal in the ins world'.
Click to expand...

Apparently it took the general insurers a while to smart up to this. Some very old umbrella policies didn't have a GA exclusion and as long ad the policy holder kept paying his premium, there was no mechanism for the insurer to push something that is a reduction coverage on them. So you may encounter some aircraft owner here and there who could still draw on his excess liability policy on top of his aviation policy.
 
I asked three of the big aviation agencies about it a few years ago for our KA. These guys have collectively been able to routinely pull rabbits out of hats for almost every screwball coverage need I have been asked to obtain over the years. All said NFW.
 
Geico266 said:
Again, how many liability law suits have been successful in a court not law? Zero, zilch, Nada. This after tens of thousands of EAB sales, trade, crashes, and deaths. What is your pointto continually hold one case that was settled out of court? One ****ing case!!!

So with one case that was settled out of court you wennie boys are scared to death to sell an airplane?

Seriously, boys, stay on the porch is you can't run with the big dogs.
Click to expand...

I see that this is an emotional issue for you which probably accounts for your childish responses.

You have yet to point to anything authoritative that states why a builder would be immune to liability on an aircraft he built. Even the EAA document you linked directly contradicted the point you were trying to make. The fact that something hasn't been litigated to a precedent setting level does not mean that there is not an underlying question of liability. For an illustration of how far liability reaches back, just look at the Hilton Head jogger case. The lawsuit names Continental, Hartzell, Penn Yan and 'John Doe'. The engine was a take-off from a Malibu when it was converted to a Jetprop (which incidentally crashed at Hilton Head airport a couple years earlier, what are the odds) After 10 years in a crate, the builder had Penn Yan disassemble, inspect and re-seal the engine prior to hanging it on his IV-P project. John Doe is anyone who ever touched the engine in question and could be linked to the eventual failure of the crankshaft. And you honestly think that a builder would not be involved in a high-dollar case involving an EAB if poor workmanship was to blame for the failure ???

A couple of hours of paralegal time would probably turn up several cases that were filed and subsequently settled. People who have to write a check often prefer to keep it quiet and running to EAA and the press to cry about their financial loss is not going to be the first thing on their mind. A lot of liability stuff gets settled before anything is filed in court, we would never know about those (if you search my name in legal databases, you wouldn't find any court files yet I had to settle a contract dispute in the past).

Your reaction reminds me of discussions I have had about 'angel flights'. Whenever the discussion of liability came up people got really bent out of shape and accused me of wanting to let little children die with my 'bogus' liability concerns. They kept claiming that that compassion flying is exceedingly safe, that they had all kinds of waivers and that there has never been a liability case against an angel flight pilot. I sort of believed that until the day I met the guy who wrote a $823,000 check out of his dads estate to settle the aftermath of a compassionflight gone wrong.
 
Last edited:
You might want to talk to an aviation attorney before you start thinking it's that cut-and-dried.

Skylane81E said:
Reading GARA
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/s1458/text

Holding the thing for 18 years would greatly reduce your liability. It would not eliminate it as if it could be shown you mislead the FAA into issuing the AW cert, or if someone not on the plane is killed you are still open to suit.
Click to expand...
 
I've only ever known of one really rich guy to build an experimental aircraft, and only then second hand. He destroyed it rather than sell it, due to liability concerns.

Put another way, if there was some sort of magic form that gave you ironclad protection from being sued if the airplane you built crashed, why don't Cessna, Piper, Cirrus and all their pals use them? Why don't you have to sign such a form to purchase an airplane?

Keep in mind that to protect airplane manufacturers from product liability litigation Congress had to go to the extraordinary length of passing unconstitutional legislation to do so. Airframe manufacturers are the only entity so protected of which I am aware.
 
Does anyone here with an experimental have more than a million smooth policy? I don't think $1M comes close to covering it, so I wonder if more is possible in the experimental world especially as a builder, maintainer, and operator.
 
Some would counter that the bogus PL lawsuits under which the manufacturers were being extorted was criminal and that the relief was both too slow and somewhat inadequate.

steingar said:
I've only ever known of one really rich guy to build an experimental aircraft, and only then second hand. He destroyed it rather than sell it, due to liability concerns.

Put another way, if there was some sort of magic form that gave you ironclad protection from being sued if the airplane you built crashed, why don't Cessna, Piper, Cirrus and all their pals use them? Why don't you have to sign such a form to purchase an airplane?

Keep in mind that to protect airplane manufacturers from product liability litigation Congress had to go to the extraordinary length of passing unconstitutional legislation to do so. Airframe manufacturers are the only entity so protected of which I am aware.
Click to expand...
 
I was referring to actual case law as discussed at NBAA, should have said so.

Skylane81E said:
Bingo, I even pointed out some of those unaffected or how you could screw it up
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Some would counter that the bogus PL lawsuits under which the manufacturers were being extorted was criminal and that the relief was both too slow and somewhat inadequate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that if it is ever challenged in court it will prove unconstitutional. It is a product of our legislative system which is powered by compromise.
 
steingar said:
Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that if it is ever challenged in court it will prove unconstitutional. It is a product of our legislative system which is powered by compromise.
Click to expand...

How would it be unconstitutional? We're dealing with items that transact in "commerce between the states", so Congress has broad, some say plenary, authority over such matters.
 
JeffDG said:
How would it be unconstitutional? We're dealing with items that transact in "commerce between the states", so Congress has broad, some say plenary, authority over such matters.
Click to expand...

Equal treatment before the law. If airframe manufacturers get such relief, why not motorcycle manufacturers? Or boat makers? Why should we be able to sue any manufacturer?

Historically lawyers have been antithetical to limitations on the ability to sue and the SCOTUS are all lawyers. Push came to shove I think they'd dump GARA.
 
steingar said:
Equal treatment before the law. If airframe manufacturers get such relief, why not motorcycle manufacturers? Or boat makers? Why should we be able to sue any manufacturer?

Historically lawyers have been antithetical to limitations on the ability to sue and the SCOTUS are all lawyers. Push came to shove I think they'd dump GARA.
Click to expand...

Equal protection is a requirement of state law (14th Amendment), not federal law. The feds are free to discriminate as Congress deems appropriate.

Amendment XIV said:
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
Here's the deal on homeowner and personal umbrella insurance:

Long story short: you MUST read your policy forms. In detail. There's no way to know for sure if coverage exists for this scenario unless you read the form. For the homeowner policy (with attached Personal Liability, which is the coverage in question), you'll look under Section II and pay close attention to the exclusions section.

If you called up your agent and asked the question and he gave you an immediate response of "yeah it's covered," I'd consider him a liar until I read the policy myself, or he directed me to the applicable sections in the policy language.

Insurance companies sometimes use a pure ISO form, sometimes emulate the ISO form with their own changes, and sometimes create a fully proprietary policy form. And there are multiple versions of the ISO forms. I can tell you with certainty that the 2000 version of the ISO homeowner form has an unambiguous aviation exclusion:

B. In addition, certain words and phrases are defined as follows:
1. "Aircraft Liability", "Hovercraft Liability", "Motor Vehicle Liability" and "Watercraft Liability", subject to the provisions in b. below, mean the following:
a. Liability for "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the:
(1) Ownership of such vehicle or craft by an "insured";
(2) Maintenance, occupancy, operation, use, loading or unloading of such vehicle or craft by any person;
(3) Entrustment of such vehicle or craft by an "insured" to any person;
(4) Failure to supervise or negligent supervision of any person involving such vehicle or craft by an "insured"; or
(5) Vicarious liability, whether or not imposed by law, for the actions of a child or minor involving such vehicle or craft.
b. For the purpose of this definition:
(1) Aircraft means any contrivance used or designed for flight except model or hobby aircraft not used or designed to carry people or cargo;
Click to expand...

Whether or not your homeowner policy uses that language is unclear until you review the policy. Here's the older ISO 1991 language, which is more ambiguous but it could still be argued that there's no coverage:

h. Arising out of:
(1) The ownership, maintenance, use, loading
or unloading of an aircraft;
(2) The entrustment by an "insured" of an
aircraft to any person; or
(3) Vicarious liability, whether or not statutorily
imposed, for the actions of a child or minor
using an aircraft.
An aircraft means any contrivance used or
designed for flight, except model or hobby
aircraft not used or designed to carry people
or cargo;
Click to expand...

If you have a "rider" on your homeowner policy that increases the Personal Liability to $1MM, then it's a near certainty that it uses the same language as the policy.

If by "rider" you actually mean a personal umbrella policy, then it's a little more tricky. The umbrella may use be a "follow form" and use the exlusionary language of the underlying policy. Or it could be a true umbrella, in which case you'd need to read the umbrella policy language to determine whether there's coverage. The aviation exclusions on umbrella policies are nearly identical to the language in the homeowner policies. [EDIT] - Even if you managed to determine that there was coverage on a "true umbrella," if you didn't also have coverage in the underlying homeowner policy, you'd still have a large gap in coverage before the umbrella policy would respond; likely at least $300k out of pocket.

--

All that being said, it's within the realm of possibility, though improbable, that you have no aviation exclusionary language in your policies. But I'd bet you a beer that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I see that this is an emotional issue for you which probably accounts for your childish responses.

You have yet to point to anything authoritative that states why a builder would be immune to liability on an aircraft he built. Even the EAA document you linked directly contradicted the point you were trying to make. The fact that something hasn't been litigated to a precedent setting level does not mean that there is not an underlying question of liability. For an illustration of how far liability reaches back, just look at the Hilton Head jogger case. The lawsuit names Continental, Hartzell, Penn Yan and 'John Doe'. The engine was a take-off from a Malibu when it was converted to a Jetprop (which incidentally crashed at Hilton Head airport a couple years earlier, what are the odds) After 10 years in a crate, the builder had Penn Yan disassemble, inspect and re-seal the engine prior to hanging it on his IV-P project. John Doe is anyone who ever touched the engine in question and could be linked to the eventual failure of the crankshaft. And you honestly think that a builder would not be involved in a high-dollar case involving an EAB if poor workmanship was to blame for the failure ???

A couple of hours of paralegal time would probably turn up several cases that were filed and subsequently settled. People who have to write a check often prefer to keep it quiet and running to EAA and the press to cry about their financial loss is not going to be the first thing on their mind. A lot of liability stuff gets settled before anything is filed in court, we would never know about those (if you search my name in legal databases, you wouldn't find any court files yet I had to settle a contract dispute in the past).

Your reaction reminds me of discussions I have had about 'angel flights'. Whenever the discussion of liability came up people got really bent out of shape and accused me of wanting to let little children die with my 'bogus' liability concerns. They kept claiming that that compassion flying is exceedingly safe, that they had all kinds of waivers and that there has never been a liability case against an angel flight pilot. I sort of believed that until the day I met the guy who wrote a $823,000 check out of his dads estate to settle the aftermath of a compassionflight gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Yep, sums it up. :thumbsup:
 
bbchien said:
He did. that was Adrian Davis. He lost, also.
The idea that you don't have liability is full of cr_p.
Click to expand...


According to an EAA webinar on this subject, Adrian Davis was dropped from the suit.
 
docmirror said:
He was - after he wrote his check to settle, the plaintiff(s) released him.
Click to expand...

That is not how the EAA webinar portrayed it. Do have knowledge of what actually happened to Davis or just speculating/repeating rumors?
 
vintage cessna said:
That is not how the EAA webinar portrayed it. Do have knowledge of what actually happened to Davis or just speculating/repeating rumors?
Click to expand...

Rumor. I haven't heard the EAA webinar. Of course, I haven't heard the settlement either. The only thought I had is why would the plaintiff release the defendant from the suit? It's not like they were buddies or pals. Money is the answer.
 
vintage cessna said:
That is not how the EAA webinar portrayed it. Do have knowledge of what actually happened to Davis or just speculating/repeating rumors?
Click to expand...

Dear God! An organization based on people building their own planes downplaying potential liability of doing so...I'm shocked, shocked I say!:yikes:
 
docmirror said:
Rumor. I haven't heard the EAA webinar. Of course, I haven't heard the settlement either. The only thought I had is why would the plaintiff release the defendant from the suit? It's not like they were buddies or pals. Money is the answer.
Click to expand...

Because there was nothing to be gained from the amateur builder? According to the aviation attorney in the webinar, who has represented amateur builders, once the plaintiffs lawyers understand the nature of an AB EXP, they disappear and concentrate on product liability of manufacturers.
 
Once again, if there was a magic waiver allowing Ex/Ab builders to escape liability in selling their aircraft, why aren't the major manufacturers doing likewise? What, are the EAA lawyers that much better?
 
vintage cessna said:
Because there was nothing to be gained from the amateur builder? According to the aviation attorney in the webinar, who has represented amateur builders, once the plaintiffs lawyers understand the nature of an AB EXP, they disappear and concentrate on product liability of manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't wash. Even if the guy had two nickels to rub together, he would have stayed in the defendant pool. A judgment(if the plaintiff won) is enforceable for a long, long time if the guy just does a little diligence. Who knows, Davis could have won the lotto next month and be flush with cash.

Also, the NTSB report shows the amateur builder was mostly at fault. Why would the plaintiff release the one person most responsible for the result?

I don't have the answer but I'm going based on logic.
 
steingar said:
Once again, if there was a magic waiver allowing Ex/Ab builders to escape liability in selling their aircraft, why aren't the major manufacturers doing likewise? What, are the EAA lawyers that much better?
Click to expand...

No once is claiming you can escape liability. As a buyer , would you have the same expectations of a an airplane built in a factory by professionals to FAA standards as an EXP airplane assembled by an amateur?
 
vintage cessna said:
No once is claiming you can escape liability. As a buyer , would you have the same expectations of a an airplane built in a factory by professionals to FAA standards as an EXP airplane assembled by an amateur?
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
The EAA has many forms that, when used, will protect any seller / builder from being sued.
Click to expand...

This is what I was discussing.
 
steingar said:
This is what I was discussing.
Click to expand...

You can't prevent someone from suing, but you can take measures to protect yourself from losing the suit. Most of these suits are done on a contingency basis with the attorneys fronting the costs, so there is no incentive to waste money on pursuing someone where the chances of winning are low.

I think the major thing in selling any airplane is to not misrepresent anything about the plane. Buying an AB EXP means the buyer is assuming a lot of risk.
 
Or stated differently, would you have the right to the same expectations?

vintage cessna said:
No once is claiming you can escape liability. As a buyer , would you have the same expectations of a an airplane built in a factory by professionals to FAA standards as an EXP airplane assembled by an amateur?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Or stated differently, would you have the right to the same expectations?
Click to expand...

The basic gist I got from the webinar is, no. We're talking about airplanes built by amateurs, who can pretty much do what they want, and possibly maintained by an amateur. Which is why I won't fly in one no less buy a used one.
 
vintage cessna said:
No once is claiming you can escape liability. As a buyer , would you have the same expectations of a an airplane built in a factory by professionals to FAA standards as an EXP airplane assembled by an amateur?
Click to expand...

You are wasting your breath, the experts here know it all and you can't convincing them otherwise.

Notice most of the push back is from a lawer and an FAA employee? :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Which has more liability when selling? A certified or experimental? Which category has had the most successful liability law suits? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Were non-builder owners sued for PL when certified planes manufactured by others were involved?

Geico266 said:
You are wasting your breath, the experts here know it all and you can't convincing them otherwise.

Notice most of the push back is from a lawer and an FAA employee? :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Which has more liability when selling? A certified or experimental? Which category has had the most successful liability law suits? :dunno:
Click to expand...
 
Another point that hasn't been raised is when an experimental changes hands from someone other than the builder. The builder is still listed, but parties in between could have changed a thousand things, log none of it, and.... since it's an experimental they can do whatever.

If one of those changes post construction caused a problem that precipitated a lawsuit, now would the builder have to come in with comprehensive documentation showing every nut, bolt, screw, etc. that was installed when the aircraft left the shed?

Seems like a setup for a guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure the manufacturers have to do this all the time for illegal or post construction changes, but for them it's easy to document how the aircraft left the factory.
 
You might notice that once a design reaches production it often remains unchanged for the duration. Lawyers say that any change can be viewed as tacit admission that the prior design was found to be defective by the mfr and changed to a newer-better-slicker version. I don't know if that's universally true but heard many questions along those lines during a deposition after a robbery at one of our restaurants.

Alexb2000 said:
Another point that hasn't been raised is when an experimental changes hands from someone other than the builder. The builder is still listed, but parties in between could have changed a thousand things, log none of it, and.... since it's an experimental they can do whatever.

If one of those changes post construction caused a problem that precipitated a lawsuit, now would the builder have to come in with comprehensive documentation showing every nut, bolt, screw, etc. that was installed when the aircraft left the shed?

Seems like a setup for a guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure the manufacturers have to do this all the time for illegal or post construction changes, but for them it's easy to document how the aircraft left the factory.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top