Named pilot insurance question

[PPC1052]

One last post, and I will quit for a while. This is from the Avemco policy form available online:

"Insured person[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]" means:[/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]a. [/FONT][/FONT]you[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book];[/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]b. a person or organization using, or responsible for the use of, [/FONT][/FONT]your insured aircraft [FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]with [/FONT][/FONT]your [FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]permission. However, persons or organizations who are in an [/FONT][/FONT]aviation business [FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]are not [/FONT][/FONT]insured persons [FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]when the [/FONT][/FONT]accident [FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]arises out of, or occurs during, the conduct of such [/FONT][/FONT]aviation business[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]An aviation business is defined as:[/FONT]

"Aviation business[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book][FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]" means the business or occupation of: [/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]a. making, repairing, servicing, fueling, towing, chartering, renting or selling any aircraft; [/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]b. making, repairing, installing, servicing or selling any aircraft component; [/FONT]
[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]c. operating an airport, hangar, aircraft tiedown or parking facility, flying club or flight training facility; d. providing pilot, crew, or flight instruction services.[/FONT]

[FONT=Gotham Book,Gotham Book]So, if you are in the business of providing a pilot or crew, you are not an insured under the clause b) (the permissive use clause.) But if you are a named insured, your would be This policy doesn't have a named pilot provision, for what it's worth.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[PPC1052]

So I see that your Chartis form excludes permissive users with respect to hull coverage? Maybe, maybe not, it'll be in the policy form.

I think it probably does. After all, if you as a permissive user don't own the hull, they aren't going to pay you for the hull loss. They still can't subrogate, though. Your an insured. Besides, if they did they would owe the liability coverage. So what's the point even if they could?

But yes, I completely agree with you that you have got to read the policy, and you are correct they are not at all standard.

 

[midlifeflyer]

A) for rental aircraft, B ) specific exclusions
and C) belt and suspenders.

I also suspect that many policies are not quite as broad, and simply just pick up the named pilots under the definition of insured. Take a look at the language you see in an policies that you may have available regarding the definition of an "insured."

I just grabbed my own policy (It's a Chartis policy.) It's definition states:

Here's the other catch. You can't read the definition of insured and stop there. For example, the AVEMCO policy has language pretty similar to the one you quoted. But it also differentiates between an "insured person" and the owner of the policy in terms of some of the rights and remedies.

 

[PPC1052]

The two are related. There's no subrogation if the policy is voided since there's nothing paid by the insurer. So the issue never comes up.

You won't find "we can go after named pilots" language What you will find is language that allows the insurer to recover what it paid out from those responsible, with no exclusion for "named pilots."

There are obvious problems when the damage is caused by the person the policy actually covers (the insured; and there are actually some cases out there that allow subrogation against insureds) but there is nothing in the policy language in the ones I've seen that exclude recovery from a "named pilot" who is not an owner or an insured.

That said, from my discussions through the years with insurers, it's rarely done unless the pilot in question acted intentionally or or with gross negligence.

My thoughts on this are colored by the general common law prohibitions on subrogating against an insured-- not any specific language in the policy prohibiting such actions. Of course, common law varies by state, and I don't pretend to know that a prohibition on subrogating against an insured is universal, although it wouldn't shock me. I am curious about the cases you mention that allow subrogation against insureds. Can you expound on the circumstances? Maybe a citation so I can go read for my own curiosity?

 

[midlifeflyer]

My thoughts on this are colored by the general common law prohibitions on subrogating against an insured-- not any specific language in the policy prohibiting such actions. Of course, common law varies by state, and I don't pretend to know that a prohibition on subrogating against an insured is universal, although it wouldn't shock me. I am curious about the cases you mention that allow subrogation against insureds. Can you expound on the circumstances? Maybe a citation so I can go read for my own curiosity?

It's buried in some file where the issue came up a few years ago.

 

[PPC1052]

It's buried in some file where the issue came up a few years ago.

I guess I could see it where the specific risk is excluded from coverage. For example, where someone intentionally damages something.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My thoughts on this are colored by the general common law prohibitions on subrogating against an insured-- not any specific language in the policy prohibiting such actions. Of course, common law varies by state, and I don't pretend to know that a prohibition on subrogating against an insured is universal, although it wouldn't shock me. I am curious about the cases you mention that allow subrogation against insureds. Can you expound on the circumstances? Maybe a citation so I can go read for my own curiosity?

Correction: Start by searching for an article named "Suing Your Own Insured." It starts with the common law principle and goes into some of the exceptions. Such concepts and innocent vs guilty insured muddy the water enough for it to not be a clear cut issue.

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

I'm grateful to this thread. Just requested and got a waiver of subrogation added to my policy (I am the sole named pilot) held by the company I set up to hold the plane.

 

[denverpilot]

Actually, neither your answer nor his is completely correct or completely incorrect.



Be wary about applying terms and contractual provisions from one type of coverage (liability and property of public entities) to another (light aircraft liability and hull). There will generally be some differences in nuance and the way terms are used, even when two policies from different companies involve the same thing.



Having read a few, the only real answer is to read and understand the specific policy involved.

^^ This. And keep in mind that even if the Agent is a dummy, they're required by law in most jurisdictions to answer specific coverage questions or kick them to the underwriter who will answer them.

In other words, figure out the scenarios that bother the owner(s) and ask the agent if they're covered. They MUST answer that question and can be held liable for bad information given.

Every good agent I've had would be happy to find out anything they don't know and even the few bad agents didn't have a choice. They're making their commission. They can work for it.

No harm in reading it and understanding it yourself, too. And probably smart. But if you have questions, just make the agent go find the answer. And ... get it in writing.