Named pilot insurance question

[DFH65]

So I have a friend who is in the process of buying a new plane and may actually buy a second trainer type plane as well. He is talking about letting me fly them possibly whenever the spirit moves me so here are the questions:

I assume that if he puts me as a named pilot on his policy I should still carry non-owned insurance. My thinking is that if I wreck it and they think it is my fault they will still come after me as I am not the insured but he is covered because I am a named pilot? This also leaves open the possibility for me to fly other stuff too so I am not against keeping the non-owned.

Also as far as legality goes. I assume there is no issue with me paying the difference in insurance between having me on the policy or not? The FAA doesn't regulate insurance. What about paying my share of using the airplane when I fly. Is there a point (to avoid) where it becomes a rental and not just a friend using your airplane whenever he feels like it? I assume I would pay gas plus maybe an engine reserve fee.

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

It seems to me that if you're named, you're covered in that plane unless you (or the owner) do something to disqualify yourself.

 

[dans2992]

Make sure you're a "named insured" just as your friend is and you should be good.

 

[Shawn]

If you are named on his policy you should be covered but a non owners policy is relatively cheap.

I look at it this way. His policy will be looking out for HIS best interests, you should have a non owners policy to cover YOUR best interests.

You are friends now but that could easily no longer be the case if metal gets bent and money gets involved.

 

[ronnieh]

I think the term is "additionally insured" for the purpose of liability. You have no financial stake in the aircraft thus you will not be named insured. You might want to get a waiver of subrogation also to protect them going after you for hull damage.

 

[timwinters]

As Ronnie said...If I let you fly my plane and I name you as "additional insured" then that covered me not you.. If you crash my plane then my insurance company will pay for the repairs (or complete hull amount if totaled) but then may go after you to recover their damages.

What you need is a waiver of subrogation from my insurance company or your own independent policy.

I'm on both sides of this coin right now. There are three people named on my policy who allowed to fly my plane and I'm also named as additional insurered on a friend's DA40...with a waiver of subrogation.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Conflating two different ideas here.

A named insured, also called additional insured, is the coverage equivalent of the policy holder. A named insured even gets copies of premium invoices, changes by endorsement etc. so they can be sure coverage stays in force. Just like the bank is a named insured on your home if you have a mortgage.
You don't pay the premium, they'll know about it.

A named pilot is a pilot named on the policy that can fly the airplane with coverage in force for the policy holder, but not for the pilot himself. Or, the pilot may meet the requirements of an open pilot warrentee that covers the owner for any pilot who meets certain experience levels. In these cases, a non-owned poiicy is a good idea.

Waivers of subrogation mean an insurance company won't sue to recover their losses, but those are generally only available to commercial operations not wanting their insurors to sue customers. A named insured doesn't need one, a named pilot or pilot under an OPW won't get one. A non-owned policy is the answer to that.
As always, read the policy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Conflating two different ideas here.

A named insured, also called additional insured, is the coverage equivalent of the policy holder. A named insured even gets copies of premium invoices, changes by endorsement etc. so they can be sure coverage stays in force. Just like the bank is a named insured on your home if you have a mortgage.
You don't pay the premium, they'll know about it.

A named pilot is a pilot named on the policy that can fly the airplane with coverage in force for the policy holder, but not for the pilot himself. Or, the pilot may meet the requirements of an open pilot warrentee that covers the owner for any pilot who meets certain experience levels. In these cases, a non-owned poiicy is a good idea.

Waivers of subrogation mean an insurance company won't sue to recover their losses, but those are generally only available to commercial operations not wanting their insurors to sue customers. A named insured doesn't need one, a named pilot or pilot under an OPW won't get one. A non-owned policy is the answer to that.
As always, read the policy.

Good explanation of the basic concepts (with the warning that these things are really what the insurance contract says they are), but waivers of subrogation are a bit more widespread than that in aviation insurance, depending on how broadly you are using the term, "commercial operation".

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I have read threads about how to be sure you are covered when flying someone else's plane for years. The one time I tried to get an insurance company to make me a named insured or provide a waiver it was like moving mountains; never got done. Maybe someone else has had better success with this? It feels to me, after this experience, that it is a very unusual request which is rarely taken to completion.

 

[MD11Pilot]

I am the named pilot on a friends policy. We asked the agent several times as to what was the extent of my coverage and since he had never dealt with this question, he kicked up to the underwriters. They came back and said that "we consider the named pilot as a client also and we will not sue for damages". This just wasn't enough to make me feel great so I asked for and paid for a Waiver of Subrogation ($25) per year.
I have a copy of the policy and although I do not get notices per se, I do get updates because the owner and the agent send them to me. I did upgrade my personal umbrella liability. My concern is not the hull of the aircraft but damages from someone on the ground.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I have read threads about how to be sure you are covered when flying someone else's plane for years. The one time I tried to get an insurance company to make me a named insured or provide a waiver it was like moving mountains; never got done. Maybe someone else has had better success with this? It feels to me, after this experience, that it is a very unusual request which is rarely taken to completion.

I've been named as an approved pilot and/or as a named insured (as well as receiving subrogation waivers) on a number of aircraft for both instructional and personal purposes. The process was pretty straightforward.

Might be the agency you are using?

But in terms of "how to be sure," unless you know how to read policies, your own insurance is the safest bet.

 

[PPC1052]

You always have to read the policy to answer these questions, but generally, a named pilot falls under the definition of "an insured." The term "insured" is going to be defined in the policy.

In general, by law, the carrier cannot subrogate against an insured. Bottom line, I can't fathom a policy being written that would allow the carrier to subrogate against a named pilot, and even if the language said so, I would expect it to be unenforceable as illusory coverage.

 

[PPC1052]

I am the named pilot on a friends policy. We asked the agent several times as to what was the extent of my coverage and since he had never dealt with this question, he kicked up to the underwriters.

Insurance contracts are written by lawyers, re-written by judges, and re-written again by lawyers to get around what the judges say. Agents sell policies. They are usually not lawyers. So, it's not surprising that an agent doesn't know how to answer anything beyond basic questions.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You always have to read the policy to answer these questions, but generally, a named pilot falls under the definition of "an insured." The term "insured" is going to be defined in the policy.

In general, by law, the carrier cannot subrogate against an insured. Bottom line, I can't fathom a policy being written that would allow the carrier to subrogate against a named pilot, and even if the language said so, I would expect it to be unenforceable as illusory coverage.

Not illusory as against a named pilot in most coverages. In general, owners promise the insurer that they will not allow unapproved pilots to fly the aircraft. A "named pilot" like a pilot who meets the "open pilot" warranty the owner makes to the insurer, is just a type of approved pilot. By definition in most policies, a named pilot is just one whose activities will not void the owner's coverage.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Insurance contracts are written by lawyers, re-written by judges, and re-written again by lawyers to get around what the judges say. Agents sell policies. They are usually not lawyers. So, it's not surprising that an agent doesn't know how to answer anything beyond basic questions.

Same is true for some claim reps.

 

[ronnieh]

Conflating two different ideas here.

A named insured, also called additional insured, is the coverage equivalent of the policy holder. A named insured even gets copies of premium invoices, changes by endorsement etc. so they can be sure coverage stays in force. Just like the bank is a named insured on your home if you have a mortgage.
You don't pay the premium, they'll know about it.

A named pilot is a pilot named on the policy that can fly the airplane with coverage in force for the policy holder, but not for the pilot himself. Or, the pilot may meet the requirements of an open pilot warrentee that covers the owner for any pilot who meets certain experience levels. In these cases, a non-owned poiicy is a good idea.

Waivers of subrogation mean an insurance company won't sue to recover their losses, but those are generally only available to commercial operations not wanting their insurors to sue customers. A named insured doesn't need one, a named pilot or pilot under an OPW won't get one. A non-owned policy is the answer to that.
As always, read the policy.

Um, actually um trying to be polite here, in short you are mistaken. Named insured gives you the same coverage as an owner. This is both hull and liability. Not likely an insurance company nor an owner will approve named insured for a party that has no stake in the plane. This is generally for multiple owners.
Additional insured is for liability only. You will be covered to policy limits if anyone is hurt or property damaged. You will also need a waiver of Subrogation to hold you harmless for hull damage.
Named pilot does nothing but guarantees the policy is valid for a particular pilot but offers no protection for the pilot.

http://www.csac-eia.org/pdfs/NamedInsured_vs_AdditionalInsured.pdf

Hope this helps.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Um, actually um trying to be polite here, in short you are mistaken. Named insured gives you the same coverage as an owner. This is both hull and liability. Not likely an insurance company nor an owner will approve named insured for a party that has no stake in the plane. This is generally for multiple owners.
Additional insured is for liability only. You will be covered to policy limits if anyone is hurt or property damaged. You will also need a waiver of Subrogation to hold you harmless for hull damage.
Named pilot does nothing but guarantees the policy is valid for a particular pilot but offers no protection for the pilot.

http://www.csac-eia.org/pdfs/NamedInsured_vs_AdditionalInsured.pdf

Hope this helps.

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.

 

[ronnieh]

Actually Mark I am correct. The terms do not mean the same thing. Named insured and additionally insured are two distinct and different coverages. You can go to any aviation underwriter and it will be explained. A non owner pilot needs additionally insured and a waiver of subrogation, period.

I would never fly another's plane as a paid pilot or otherwise without either the two above provisions being in place or my personal non owners insurance with adequate hull coverage to cover the aircraft in question and suitable liability limits. The latter is expensive and hard to purchase.

For me any insurance company that will not provide this is a red flag for me. Any agent who tells you they won't go after a third party to recover what they paid out is either a fool or a liar. The insurance company has a fiduciary responsibility to the company share holders to do so and they will if there is anything to go after. Without the above fly at your own peril.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would never fly another's plane as a paid pilot or otherwise without either the two above provisions being in place

You mean the provisions that are excluded when the use is commercial, as in when you are flying it for a fee?

I won't argue about the correctness of your opinion of the meaning of terms defined in insurance policies. If indeed they appear in the policies at all. Check out the Avemco sample policy online and let us know where you see the terms "named insured" or "additional insured."

 

[ronnieh]

The terms are addendums that are added. For example if XYZ corporation buys a policy for a certain airplane many times the owners of the corporation may want their names added as "named insured". In case of loss the "named insured" is made whole less deductible. If you have no financial stake in the aircraft there is no reason for named insured since you suffer no loss.

If you fly another person's airplane paid or not and property or people sustain damage or injury said pilot will be sued. Unless said pilot is "additionally insured" the named insured's insurance will not defend the pilot. This coverage additionally insures the pilot for the purposes of liability.

In some states, if the pilot is a regular employee of the insured, the pilot can not be held liable singularly except in certain cases (an example would be premeditated acts to cause harm).

Named pilot simply gives assurance in writing that a particular pilot is approved and that the owner's insurance is valid for the owner. Most of the time this is for a particular pilot that does not meet open pilot qualifications exceptions can be made by named pilot clauses.

With Avemco that you mentioned there is no need for mentioning the phrase unless it is needed then it is added as an addendum. The last company I worked for this was furnished free by the underwriter. The cost if any varies by company.

Guys, this is not complicated. Most of my flying has been corporate and most of the corporate has been part time contract flying. I have always been covered by the owner's insurance by being additionally insured and given a waiver of subrogation for any contract work. This is very common. This is the best I can explain it. I was just trying to help the OP so he would understand how to get coverage if he desires. If you don't agree or don't care please just ignore it and carry on..

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Um, actually um trying to be polite here, in short you are mistaken. Named insured gives you the same coverage as an owner. This is both hull and liability. Not likely an insurance company nor an owner will approve named insured for a party that has no stake in the plane. This is generally for multiple owners.
Additional insured is for liability only. You will be covered to policy limits if anyone is hurt or property damaged. You will also need a waiver of Subrogation to hold you harmless for hull damage.
Named pilot does nothing but guarantees the policy is valid for a particular pilot but offers no protection for the pilot.

http://www.csac-eia.org/pdfs/NamedInsured_vs_AdditionalInsured.pdf

Hope this helps.

To paraphrase :

'Regardless of whether you call it named insured or additional named insured, the key is that the entity is seeking the same rights and defenses under the contract as the policy holder. The terms, conditions, and definitions are included in the policy form, and the specific language may vary by underwriter.'

I believe that's stated in the final paragraph of the link you provided, and I believe that's what I said in my post.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In some states, if the pilot is a regular employee of the insured, the pilot can not be held liable singularly except in certain cases (an example would be premeditated acts to cause harm).

Just as a point of information, I'm not aware of any state in which this statement is true. "Respondeat superior" is a doctrine that makes the employer liable for the acts of the employee (with certain exceptions). But I am unaware of any state in which the principle is applied to remove one's liability for one's own actions some workers compensation situations excepted).

That doesn't mean they don't exist; I haven't been exposed to the tort laws of every state. But I would be very surprised if you were correct, since it would a person injured by the wealthy employee of an uninsured, bankrupt employer would have no possibility of recovery. Do you have a reference for at least one of them?

 

[ronnieh]

Whew! one last time. The link I posted was talking about "additionally insured" only "additional named insured" is the same thing. It is the word "additionally" that makes the difference. This discussion is about "additionally insured" or "additionally named insured" (Those are the same term and deal with liability only) verses "named insured"
"Named insured" deals with ALL of the coverage afforded to the owners specifically. For an example an owner's insurance might allow for a replacement plane while the insured plane is being repaired or replaced. A disinterested party will not need that coverage.

named insured
Any person, firm, or organization, or any of its members specifically designated by name as an insured(s) in an insurance policy, as distinguished from others that, although unnamed, fall within the policy definition of an "insured. Notice it says Specifically designated by name IN AN INSURANCE POLICY.

"Additionally insured" is just an official letter given to the additionally insured confirming they will be covered by the liability insurance.

Honestly, I give up. Call it what ever you please. Never let the facts get in the way of a disagreement.

 

[G-Man]

.... I did upgrade my personal umbrella liability.

I'm very interested in knowing more. I have been unable to find a personal liability umbrella that will respond to aviation.

I want more than the low liability limits offered by my non-owned and hired policy, especially for the passenger sub-limit.

Please feel welcome to PM or email me. I'd love to find personal liability umbrellas that include aviation. Thanks.

 

[dans2992]

I'm very interested in knowing more. I have been unable to find a personal liability umbrella that will respond to aviation.

I want more than the low liability limits offered by my non-owned and hired policy, especially for the passenger sub-limit.

Please feel welcome to PM or email me. I'd love to find personal liability umbrellas that include aviation. Thanks.

We've been over this a few times. I am pretty sure such a policy does not exist.

I'd love to be proven wrong though!

 

[ronnieh]

Just as a point of information, I'm not aware of any state in which this statement is true. "Respondeat superior" is a doctrine that makes the employer liable for the acts of the employee (with certain exceptions). But I am unaware of any state in which the principle is applied to remove one's liability for one's own actions some workers compensation situations excepted).

That doesn't mean they don't exist; I haven't been exposed to the tort laws of every state. But I would be very surprised if you were correct, since it would a person injured by the wealthy employee of an uninsured, bankrupt employer would have no possibility of recovery. Do you have a reference for at least one of them?

Well I am not a lawyer but Respondeat superior is exactly what I was referring to. We may be splitting hairs but this principle normally relieves the employee of liability except in certain cases. Wilful negligence, doing something while employed that is specifically forbidden by the employer and leads to injury or loss. I am posting a link that explains it much better than I can.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/li...employer-s-liability-for-employee-s-acts.html

The link above is the best I can do on short notice. I was an electrical contractor for many years and it was explained this way by my liability underwriter.

But, this does not change the definition of named insured, additional insured and named pilot which was in response to the OP.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well I am not a lawyer but Respondeat superior is exactly what I was referring to. We may be splitting hairs but this principle normally relieves the employee of liability except in certain cases. Wilful negligence, doing something while employed that is specifically forbidden by the employer and leads to injury or loss. I am posting a link that explains it much better than I can.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/li...employer-s-liability-for-employee-s-acts.html

The link above is the best I can do on short notice. I was an electrical contractor for many years and it was explained this way by my liability underwriter.

But, this does not change the definition of named insured, additional insured and named pilot which was in response to the OP.

That article is correct. Note that it deals with the employee's,other's liability, not the employee's. It does not say what you are saying. Are you making the common mistake of thinking that only one person can be liable for something? Employer liability does not equal no employee liability.

"Not often held liable" is a practicality. The electric company has more ability to pay a settlement or judgment than the employee who hits some guy with a shovel at a dig site (real case from a Business Law college text some 40 years ago). But it does not remove the employee's own liability.

I assume most are probably bored with this side discussion by now.

 

[ronnieh]

No I am not. Generally everybody gets sued and the court figures out who has standing and what defendants are in play. Actually what I said is not really what I meant to say. If you are an employee and are performing work as directed using accepted practices the company liability insurance usually will provide a defense for the employee in conjunction with the insured. I misspoke on the employee. I should have stayed specific on a corporate pilot. I have been both a regular employee and a contract pilot. My experience is that the waiver of subrogation and additionally insured are not generally needed for a pilot that is a regular employee as opposed to a contract pilot.

I should not have said the regularly employed pilot escapes liability. Only should have said that in many or most cases the employee will enjoy the benefits of a defense provided by employer's insurance. One more caveat is that even if defense is provided does not necessarily mean any damage awards against said employee will be paid by insurance. I strayed a little too far trying to illustrate when coverage is needed. My bad and I do appreciate you pointing out the error. Also apologies to the OP for hi jacking a thread and boring most of the readers close to tears.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No I am not. Generally everybody gets sued and the court figures out who has standing and what defendants are in play. Actually what I said is not really what I meant to say. If you are an employee and are performing work as directed using accepted practices the company liability insurance usually will provide a defense for the employee in conjunction with the insured. I misspoke on the employee. I should have stayed specific on a corporate pilot. I have been both a regular employee and a contract pilot. My experience is that the waiver of subrogation and additionally insured are not generally needed for a pilot that is a regular employee as opposed to a contract pilot.

I should not have said the regularly employed pilot escapes liability. Only should have said that in many or most cases the employee will enjoy the benefits of a defense provided by employer's insurance. One more caveat is that even if defense is provided does not necessarily mean any damage awards against said employee will be paid by insurance. I strayed a little too far trying to illustrate when coverage is needed. My bad and I do appreciate you pointing out the error. Also apologies to the OP for hi jacking a thread and boring most of the readers close to tears.

To cut things short, I will defer to your much greater knowledge on the subject of law and insurance.

 

[PPC1052]

Not illusory as against a named pilot in most coverages. In general, owners promise the insurer that they will not allow unapproved pilots to fly the aircraft. A "named pilot" like a pilot who meets the "open pilot" warranty the owner makes to the insurer, is just a type of approved pilot. By definition in most policies, a named pilot is just one whose activities will not void the owner's coverage.

I'm not following you here. Voiding coverage is a different issue than permitting a subrogation claim against a named pilot. Are you saying there are policies that let the carrier subrogate against a named pilot? I'd like to see that language.

 

[PPC1052]

Same is true for some claim reps.

Yep! .

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I'm not following you here. Voiding coverage is a different issue than permitting a subrogation claim against a named pilot. Are you saying there are policies that let the carrier subrogate against a named pilot? I'd like to see that language.

Subrogation isn't the only issue. Without a doubt, the named pilot PIC will be hit with a lawsuit in case of a liability loss, but he will have no defense or other rights under the owners policy. The owner will have full coverage. Don't think for a minute that will placate the plaintiff's attorney. That's why the named pilot need his own non-owner policy.

I can't recall the company I worked for ever subrogating against a named pilot, or even a renter for a hull loss if the FBO had commercial coverage with us. But that doesn't mean we didn't reserve the right.

A non-owned policy with a hull limit up to cover any deductible usually made everybody happy. For liability, the renter was on their own.

 

[PPC1052]

The terms are addendums that are added. For example if XYZ corporation buys a policy for a certain airplane many times the owners of the corporation may want their names added as "named insured". In case of loss the "named insured" is made whole less deductible. If you have no financial stake in the aircraft there is no reason for named insured since you suffer no loss.

If you fly another person's airplane paid or not and property or people sustain damage or injury said pilot will be sued. Unless said pilot is "additionally insured" the named insured's insurance will not defend the pilot. This coverage additionally insures the pilot for the purposes of liability.

In some states, if the pilot is a regular employee of the insured, the pilot can not be held liable singularly except in certain cases (an example would be premeditated acts to cause harm).

Named pilot simply gives assurance in writing that a particular pilot is approved and that the owner's insurance is valid for the owner. Most of the time this is for a particular pilot that does not meet open pilot qualifications exceptions can be made by named pilot clauses.

With Avemco that you mentioned there is no need for mentioning the phrase unless it is needed then it is added as an addendum. The last company I worked for this was furnished free by the underwriter. The cost if any varies by company.

Guys, this is not complicated. Most of my flying has been corporate and most of the corporate has been part time contract flying. I have always been covered by the owner's insurance by being additionally insured and given a waiver of subrogation for any contract work. This is very common. This is the best I can explain it. I was just trying to help the OP so he would understand how to get coverage if he desires. If you don't agree or don't care please just ignore it and carry on..

I am sorry, but this isn't universally correct. As always, a policy might be different, but as I said above, while the "named insured" is a term distinct from a "named pilot", a named pilot is typically going to be picked up in the definition of an "insured."

I am defending a pilot right now (I am hired by the aircraft insurer) who was a named pilot, but who was not the name insured (since he personally did not own the aircraft.) The relevant language from the policy states: "Insured. The unqualified word 'insured' wherever used in this Policy with respect to Coverages A, B, C, and D, includes not only the named insured but also any person while using or riding in the aircraft and any person or organization legally responsible for its use, provided the actual use is with the express permission of the named insured."

 

[PPC1052]

Subrogation isn't the only issue. Without a doubt, the named pilot PIC will be hit with a lawsuit in case of a liability loss, but he will have no defense or other rights under the owners policy. The owner will have full coverage. Don't think for a minute that will placate the plaintiff's attorney. That's why the named pilot need his own non-owner policy.

I can't recall the company I worked for ever subrogating against a named pilot, or even a renter for a hull loss if the FBO had commercial coverage with us. But that doesn't mean we didn't reserve the right.

A non-owned policy with a hull limit up to cover any deductible usually made everybody happy. For liability, the renter was on their own.

If by "company," you mean the company that owns and operates the aircraft, that would not be subrogation. Subrogation is when the carrier sues standing in the shoes of its insured. If by "company" you mean "insurance carrier," I would be surprised if the pilot isn't picked up as an insured under the definitions. If so, you probably did not reserve the right to subrogate, because you can't in most states (and probably in all states) subrogate against an insured.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I am sorry, but this isn't universally correct. As always, a policy might be different, but as I said above, while the "named insured" is a term distinct from a "named pilot", a named pilot is typically going to be picked up in the definition of an "insured."

I am defending a pilot right now (I am hired by the aircraft insurer) who was a named pilot, but who was not the name insured (since he personally did not own the aircraft.) The relevant language from the policy states: "Insured. The unqualified word 'insured' wherever used in this Policy with respect to Coverages A, B, C, and D, includes not only the named insured but also any person while using or riding in the aircraft and any person or organization legally responsible for its use, provided the actual use is with the express permission of the named insured."

If this is the case, then why on earth would there be a market for, or any company write, or any pilot purchase, non- owned aircraft insurance? I'm not disputing the language you quote is in the policy form, but it sounds more atypical than typical to me.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

If by "company," you mean the company that owns and operates the aircraft, that would not be subrogation. Subrogation is when the carrier sues standing in the shoes of its insured. If by "company" you mean "insurance carrier," I would be surprised if the pilot isn't picked up as an insured under the definitions. If so, you probably did not reserve the right to subrogate, because you can't in most states (and probably in all states) subrogate against an insured.

I mean the aviation insurance company where I was employed for several years.

 

[PPC1052]

Just as a point of information, I'm not aware of any state in which this statement is true. "Respondeat superior" is a doctrine that makes the employer liable for the acts of the employee (with certain exceptions). But I am unaware of any state in which the principle is applied to remove one's liability for one's own actions some workers compensation situations excepted).

That doesn't mean they don't exist; I haven't been exposed to the tort laws of every state. But I would be very surprised if you were correct, since it would a person injured by the wealthy employee of an uninsured, bankrupt employer would have no possibility of recovery. Do you have a reference for at least one of them?

This is true. Not only that, but most people don't realize that if the employer is held vicariously liable for the employee's acts, the employer is often (states laws may vary) permitted to seek indemnification from the employee. I have yet to ever see that happen, but it is permitted in my state. Of course, that claim is distinguished from a claim by the insurance carrier in subrogation against its insured pilot.

 

[PPC1052]

If this is the case, then why on earth would there be a market for, or any company write, or any pilot purchase, non- owned aircraft insurance? I'm not disputing the language you quote is in the policy form, but it sounds more atypical than typical to me.

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:

"Insured" means, with respect to Liability Coverages:
1. you; and
2 persons or organizations while using, riding in or legally responsible for the use of the aircraft if with your permission.

But excluded as an insured is any:
a) student pilots; unless listed by name as a pilot in Item 5 on Page One;
b) person or organization renting your aircraft;
c) person or organization other than you, or your employees or agents while at work for you who design, make, modify, repair, service, maintain, rent sell, finance, lease or charter aircraft, aircraft engines, parts or accessories, own or operate a flying sch-- blah, blah, blah, . . . . ( I am not patient enough to keep going.)

(As you have been in the insurance industry, you obviously understand the bolded words are specifically defined in the policy.)

 

[Chip Sylverne]

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:

"Insured" means, with respect to Liability Coverages:
1. you; and
2 persons or organizations while using, riding in or legally responsible for the use of the aircraft if with your permission.

But excluded as an insured is any:
a) student pilots; unless listed by name as a pilot in Item 5 on Page One;
b) person or organization renting your aircraft;
c) person or organization other than you, or your employees or agents while at work for you who design, make, modify, repair, service, maintain, rent sell, finance, lease or charter aircraft, aircraft engines, parts or accessories, own or operate a flying sch-- blah, blah, blah, . . . . ( I am not patient enough to keep going.)

(As you have been in the insurance industry, you obviously understand the bolded words are specifically defined in the policy.)

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. The point on which we violently agree is due to the loosely regulated nature of aviation insurance, a buyer has to read and understand the contract. Not all terms and definitions are standard language policy to policy.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not following you here. Voiding coverage is a different issue than permitting a subrogation claim against a named pilot. Are you saying there are policies that let the carrier subrogate against a named pilot? I'd like to see that language.

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.