liabilities of the airport owner

[Tom-D]

if you operate at a privately owned public used airport such as OKH, or if you are an A&P working for a renter of a hangar space there what are the airport owners liability?

 

[Tom-D]

If I come to your hangar which you rent from the airport owner, and work on your aircraft, does the airport owner have any liabilities with that action?

 

[denverpilot]

If I come to your hangar which you rent from the airport owner, and work on your aircraft, does the airport owner have any liabilities with that action?

I've come to the realization that everyone who even sneezes in the general direction of a GA aircraft has liability until the lawyers figure out who's got the deepest pockets.

 

[Tom-D]

I've come to the realization that everyone who even sneezes in the general direction of a GA aircraft has liability until the lawyers figure out who's got the deepest pockets.

That's pretty much what I thought.

The owner of OKH requires that all mechanics working there have a liability insurance policy with him as named insured, and a business license.

I told him I wasn't going to do that. so he 86ed me from the airport.


there was a pizzing contest involved, I laughed at a millionaire, and he doesn't like me any more

 

[flyer]

Yes because the airport owner provided the space for the plane to be repaired. Thats my guess.

 

[John221us]

Rio Linda, by me, doesn't allow any outside mechanics, since the owner is one. It is his airport, though, he gets to make the rules. Liability is a real issue, especially in California. A million dollars won't last long in a serious injury or death law suit. I don't blame him.

 

[Tom-D]

Yes because the airport owner provided the space for the plane to be repaired. Thats my guess.

If you rented a house, the owner could tell you he only wanted his plumber to work on the house. But if that house had a garage, he could not tell you who could repair your car in it.

Or require that mechanic the provide him with insurance.

 

[Tom-D]

Rio Linda, by me, doesn't allow any outside mechanics, since the owner is one. It is his airport, though, he gets to make the rules. Liability is a real issue, especially in California. A million dollars won't last long in a serious injury or death law suit. I don't blame him.

his airport, his rules, try laughing at him see how he reacts.

 

[denverpilot]

If you rented a house, the owner could tell you he only wanted his plumber to work on the house. But if that house had a garage, he could not tell you who could repair your car in it.

Or require that mechanic the provide him with insurance.

Sure he could. It could be in the rental contract. It's not commonly done but there's no law against it.

 

[timwinters]

This is probably one of those things that varies by state.

The law In Missouri is that any private owner who allows the public to use the airport is exempt from lawsuits. Same goes for a private landowner who allows others to hunt on his land.

The hunting law only applies if the landowner allows hunting for free. Not sure exactly how the airport law is written or if it would apply to hangar rental or other ancillary activities.

 

[Anthony]

I bet the lawyers on the board always crack up at these threads.

It all depends.

It depends on the lease agreement which is a binding contract.

It depends on the state where the hangar is located.

It depends on who owns the airport, individual, corp, etc.

It depends on the laws of agency in your state.

Several more, but that's the best answer you are going to get until you show an attorney the lease agreement, etc and run scenarios by him/her.

 

[Tom-D]

I bet the lawyers on the board always crack up at these threads.

It all depends.

It depends on the lease agreement which is a binding contract.

It depends on the state where the hangar is located.

It depends on who owns the airport, individual, corp, etc.

It depends on the laws of agency in your state.

Several more, but that's the best answer you are going to get until you show an attorney the lease agreement, etc and run scenarios by him/her.

No, No, No, it solely depends upon how big an anus the owner is.

 

[John221us]

Adding him as a named insured generally doesn't cost anything. It is requested all the time in my business. The problem would be if you had no insurance. In my state, California, any lawyer filing a lawsuit would automatically add the airport owner (deepest pockets) and he would be forced to defend himself at his expense. In CA we do not have a loser pays rule. This is just business and you seem to be taking it personally.

 

[Tom-D]

Adding him as a named insured generally doesn't cost anything. It is requested all the time in my business. The problem would be if you had no insurance. In my state, California, any lawyer filing a lawsuit would automatically add the airport owner (deepest pockets) and he would be forced to defend himself at his expense. In CA we do not have a loser pays rule. This is just business and you seem to be taking it personally.

This isn't California.

But I don't like people telling me where I can and can not work.

OKH isn't a big deal to me, I no longer have any customers there.

How would you like to break down there and be unable to find any one to repair your aircraft, all because of the owners believe he could be liable.

None of the A&Ps here can or will meet his requirements.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

A bit off topic, but, IMO, the named insured stuff has just gone to far and may have a dilutive affect on your coverage. A named insured has policy rights; rights to the policy for which you pay. If there's a dispute where you and that named party are both involved, your policy may be paying for their defense and your coverage diluted.

To show you have coverage is one thing, to give others rights to your policy isn't kosher IMO. If I have higher coverage limits than another insured, why should they benefit? I should show the required amount; if I have more, that's my benefit.

Still, you may win the battle and lose the war asserting these rights.

I haven't attended a pilot proficiency course because of this and a waiver and indemnification they require. I'll make their folks a named pilot, but not a named insured. Their waiver and indemnification would require me to defend any lawsuit in Colorado, even thought it's a Texas aircraft and instruction is here or another state. Just too one sided for me.
Sometimes, it's best to walk.

Unfortunately, little folks don't have much clout here. The larger folks can negotiate more at times, but sometimes not.

Best,

Dave

 

[Clark1961]

Agree with Dave. Had a chance to move into a hangar at BJC. Owner wanted to be named insured. I asked to be named on his policy. He wouldn't do that so I wouldn't reciprocate. End of story.

 

[flyer]

Or you could just get the insurance and raise your hourly labor rates to cover the additnal cost.

 

[Tom-D]

Or you could just get the insurance and raise your hourly labor rates to cover the additnal cost.

I have ZERO customers there.. do the math.