PPL Training and Deer Strike - Read your Insurance Policy

[Fearless Tower]

Exactly, sounds like BS. He hit an unavoidable hazard, i.e., wildlife where it wasn't supposed to be. A few hundred bucks for his attorney to write a nasty- gram to AIG should resolve it in his favor.

I agree. I think if the airplane was sitting on a ramp and a deer (or other animal) came by and ran into it or otherwise molested it, then I can see that as being considered an 'act of god'.....but in this case the airplane was being actively piloted and collided with a deer.

This doesn't sound right.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This is interesting - I'm a renter and also have the AOPA AIG policy. A few dynamics at play:
1 - You rented a plane from someone who was not supposed to be renting it

Minor detail, but the issue isn't so much that the owner was not supposed to be renting out his airplane as his insurance policy won't cover any damage associated with renting out the airplane.

He may have been perfectly legal to rent the airplane....just not covered.

 

[petrolero]

I can't remember ever landing without landing lights during training - is that really a normal thing to do???

I did it during training. Did another one with runway lights but no airplane lights (or flaps) to somewhat simulate alternator failure.

 

[tb813]

Landing without runway lights seems to be normal for training, I had to do it.

Runway lights or landing light???

I landed without the landing light many times - during and after PPL training, but I would not attempt an approach and landing into a black hole with only a beacon to indicate the approximate location of a runway...

 

[jaymark6655]

Runway lights or landing light???

I landed without the landing light many times - during and after PPL training, but I would not attempt an approach and landing into a black hole with only a beacon to indicate the approximate location of a runway...

No runway lighting, just the beacon and the landing light on the aircraft. Without a landing light is a piece of cake as long as the runway is light.

 

[James331]

Not covering a deer strike is BS, frankly it's one of the largest risks to flying IMHO.

Now if they didn't want to cover the damage because you were landing without runway lights etc, I could understand that.

 

[Tflhndn]

The issue here isn't that it was a deer strike. The issue is that a deer strike by a renter is something covered by the owner's policy. Renters coverage only insures damage caused by the fault of the renter.

Since we all agree hitting a deer on landing was not the renter/pilot's fault, it would not be covered by the renter's insurance. It would fall to the owner's insurance to cover it

It seems clear to me that the owner didn't understand how renters insurance works, didn't want to pay for the proper coverage himself and now wants the renter to pay for the owner's ignorance and mistake.

If the renter had run off the side of the runway and hit a taxi light, then AIG would be on the hook since the runway excursion would be the fault of the renter/pilot

 

[RotorDude]

Not covering a deer strike is BS, frankly it's one of the largest risks to flying IMHO.

Now if they didn't want to cover the damage because you were landing without runway lights etc, I could understand that.

Fully agree with the deer strike point.
My understanding is that most insurance policies are "no fault", meaning that except for the very specifically listed exclusions, the carrier is liable.
The exclusions (which must be in the policy) are typically no medical, no rating/qualification for the operation, aircraft out of annual or airworthiness, operation outside a specified region, etc. Some may exclude unimproved short runways, but I haven't seen those (nor am I an expert). I think some may exclude hurricane or tornado damage, hangar fire or flood, acts of war, or similar.
I have never heard of any insurance company in the US refusing to cover damages due to "no lights", esp. when it's part of normal training.

 

[cowman]

[devil's advocate]
If the rental agreement says the renter pays if he damages the airplane, then that's what the renter agreed to if something happens not "owner's insurance should pay". It isn't the owner's fault the renter's insurance isn't covering this.
[/devil's advocate]

If I were in this situation, I'd try to push for a better interpretation than that one but if I was the owner this is probably what I'd be thinking.... if you're friends maybe you can convince him just to turn it in to his insurance but I'd just be aware of this.

 

[Skip Miller]

I can't remember ever landing without landing lights during training - is that really a normal thing to do???

Yes, I did it during training, but there was a fairly bright moon....

 

[steingar]

What in the name of Odin does rental insurance cover if not damage to an airplane you don't own? What exactly are they supposed to cover?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

What does your broker (AOPA) say about this? I call BS on AIG. This is the definition of bad-faith insurance denial. Hitting a deer or having a bird strike is exactly why we buy insurance, and based on what you paid, you paid a "real" amount for legitimate hull coverage. If this "exclusion" is real, I'd be posting about it on the AOPA forum and calling out AOPA for selling a POS renter's policy. I'd also check if the CFI has coverage.

Frankly, I'd call in all the insurance companies involved and tell them to "go subrogate themselves".

 

[Jeff Oslick]

What in the name of Odin does rental insurance cover if not damage to an airplane you don't own? What exactly are they supposed to cover?

Exactly.

 

[Warlock]

Seems to be a non-owner claim vs a renters...big difference... then again I always assumed these were all written as non owner type policies. Who sold you the paper? If you discussed the situation there may be some E and O issues with the coverage gap which is really beyond the pale anyway.

 

[acrophile]

The issue here isn't that it was a deer strike. The issue is that a deer strike by a renter is something covered by the owner's policy.

Not so. As OP clearly stated, the owner's policy in this case does not cover damage during rentals.

Renters coverage only insures damage caused by the fault of the renter.

That's certainly not true of my own AIG renter's policy, and I would not waste money on a policy that had such a restriction.

 

[SoonerAviator]

What does your broker (AOPA) say about this? I call BS on AIG. This is the definition of bad-faith insurance denial. Hitting a deer or having a bird strike is exactly why we buy insurance, and based on what you paid, you paid a "real" amount for legitimate hull coverage. If this "exclusion" is real, I'd be posting about it on the AOPA forum and calling out AOPA for selling a POS renter's policy. I'd also check if the CFI has coverage.

Frankly, I'd call in all the insurance companies involved and tell them to "go subrogate themselves".

I can't imagine it matters much for insurance. As far as the FAA is concerned, the CFI is PIC, but for insurance purposes, I don't think that matters.

I can't imagine this not being covered by the student's rental coverage. Hitting a deer is not normally considered an "act of God", and the damage was done to a rented (non-owned) aircraft. The owner should not be liable for any of the damage done, regardless of whether he had appropriate insurance coverage for his personal aircraft. The owner could attempt to sue the student in this situation in order to recoup his loss, but I think the rental insurance policy would come back into play with the duty to defend against subrogation lawsuit. Personally, I'd be calling up AIG and have them re-open the claim. I certainly wouldn't be paying the owner (regardless of personal relationship) $36K.

 

[acrophile]

I can't imagine this not being covered by the student's rental coverage. Hitting a deer is not normally considered an "act of God", and the damage was done to a rented (non-owned) aircraft.

"Act of God" is a legal expression that just means an external event that wasn't reasonably foreseeable or avoidable. A deer suddenly running in front of you meets the definition. What's odd isn't that it's classified as an "act of God", but rather that the insurance policy would exclude coverage for such "acts". If it does, it's not an adequate policy.

 

[asechrest]

I am in insurance, but not aviation insurance. I would love to read this policy.

 

[SoonerAviator]

"Act of God" is a legal expression that just means an external event that wasn't reasonably foreseeable or avoidable. A deer suddenly running in front of you meets the definition. What's odd isn't that it's classified as an "act of God", but rather that the insurance policy would exclude coverage for such "acts". If it does, it's not an adequate policy.

Sorry, that's what I was trying to convey. It is odd that it would be considered an exclusion of the policy. I would actually think, that unless it specifically lists "deer (or animal) strikes" as an exclusion, it would be covered. Generally with insurance, everything is included unless it's specifically listed as an exclusion. I suppose they can say "act of God" are excluded, but that's vague language which might not hold up in court when regarding a deer strike. Then of course, you get into whether a reasonable person would assume that a collision with an animal would be covered by the insurance.

 

[acrophile]

I suppose they can say "act of God" are excluded, but that's vague language which might not hold up in court when regarding a deer strike.

If that language is indeed in the policy, it's not vague at all; it's a well-defined legal term. And a deer strike clearly qualifies. (But I'm skeptical that the policy would say that. Mine certainly doesn't.)

Then of course, you get into whether a reasonable person would assume that a collision with an animal would be covered by the insurance.

It's irrelevant what anyone would assume if they hadn't read the insurance policy carefully.

 

[Lachlan]

It's irrelevant what anyone would assume if they hadn't read the insurance policy carefully.

Read up on the United States legal system, both at the state level and federal level. "What a reasonable person would believe" comes into action in civil and criminal cases more often than you might think.

 

[acrophile]

Read up on the United States legal system, both at the state level and federal level. "What a reasonable person would believe" comes into action in civil and criminal cases more often than you might think.

How a reasonable person would interpret the wording of a contract is obviously relevant. But what a reasonable person would "assume" (which is what the post I addressed was talking about) without reading the contract has little legal bearing.

 

[Matthew]

I couldn't find a copy of the actual AOPA renter's insurance policy, but this FAQ might be relevant:

>>>
Will a non-owned policy provide coverage for a borrowed aircraft that doesn’t have insurance?

APR 15, 2014
If you purchase liability and physical damage coverage for your use of non-owned aircraft, your policy will provide coverage for your negligent operation of that non-owned aircraft. However, your non-owned coverage is not a substitute for the aircraft owner buying primary coverage to protect their interests and to insure for acts of nature types of losses that may occur during your flight, but not be caused by your negligence. Your non-owned policy can also include no-fault deductible coverage as an optional coverage; this coverage would only trigger if the owner has a primary aircraft insurance policy in force including hull coverage. Without primary hull coverage on the aircraft, there would be no deductible for your coverage to apply to and thus no insurance protection under your non-owned policy.
<<<

 

[Clip4]

I would not do anything. If the owner sues you for the damage, the insurance will get involved and defend you in the suit.

 

[eetrojan]

I couldn't find a copy of the actual AOPA renter's insurance policy, but this FAQ might be relevant:

>>>
Will a non-owned policy provide coverage for a borrowed aircraft that doesn’t have insurance?

APR 15, 2014
If you purchase liability and physical damage coverage for your use of non-owned aircraft, your policy will provide coverage for your negligent operation of that non-owned aircraft. However, your non-owned coverage is not a substitute for the aircraft owner buying primary coverage to protect their interests and to insure for acts of nature types of losses that may occur during your flight, but not be caused by your negligence. Your non-owned policy can also include no-fault deductible coverage as an optional coverage; this coverage would only trigger if the owner has a primary aircraft insurance policy in force including hull coverage. Without primary hull coverage on the aircraft, there would be no deductible for your coverage to apply to and thus no insurance protection under your non-owned policy.
<<<

AOPA's sample non-owners policy is on the bottom left of this link:

http://insurance.aopa.org/Aviation/renters-insurance

I don't find the phrase "act of nature" or "act of god" in the "exclusions" or elsewhere.

 

[JimVT]

I would not do anything. If the owner sues you for the damage, the insurance will get involved and defend you in the suit.

Does his renter's policy cover legal defense for this? We still haven't seen the policy, and most of us are surprised by what it doesn't cover. That's a very large assumption.

 

[James331]

Any aircraft insurance that doesn't cover stuff like a deer strike, heck I'd just save my money and not have insurance of that was the case.

For someone with a few hours the only reason for insurance.

Deer strike
Bird strike
Someone hitting my plane on the ground
Hail storm while overnighting
Hole in a float from submerged crap.
Engine failure over inhospitable earth


Deer/coyote and ground damage is probably #1

 

[Cooter]

Any aircraft insurance that doesn't cover stuff like a deer strike, heck I'd just save my money and not have insurance of that was the case.

For someone with a few hours the only reason for insurance.

Deer strike
Bird strike
Someone hitting my plane on the ground
Hail storm while overnighting
Hole in a float from submerged crap.
Engine failure over inhospitable earth


Deer/coyote and ground damage is probably #1

I just called AOPA and asked about renters insurance, they don't cover any of those things. I think I'll pass.

 

[eetrojan]

I just called AOPA and asked about renters insurance, they don't cover any of those things. I think I'll pass.

Really? I wonder if Avemco is any different.

 

[sblackb]

I'm pretty sure that means they drove home. Much slower mode of transportation.

Ren, you are correct. That plane sat in a hanger at the Monett airport for the next month waiting on AIG to inspect. They never bothered. We went back to 3dw at 0 ft agl in a sedan.

 

[asechrest]

AOPA's sample non-owners policy is on the bottom left of this link:

http://insurance.aopa.org/Aviation/renters-insurance

I don't find the phrase "act of nature" or "act of god" in the "exclusions" or elsewhere.

Hmm. I read the whole thing. I think AIG is asserting that the OP is not "legally liable" for the damage. It looks like the physical damage coverage described in the policy is a liability coverage, rather than an open perils physical damage coverage. I think that means legal liability must be established before coverage responds.

LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO YOUR NON-OWNED AIRCRAFT
COVERAGE B - Non-Owned Aircraft Physical Damage
We w ill pay for physical damage to your non-owned aircraft for w hich you are legally liable, caused by an
occurrence arising f rom your use of a non-owned aircraft.

I'm not familiar with aviation policies so this is just my guess based on first read. I certainly don't see any specifically-stated exclusions that are the smoking gun.

 

[brcase]

I agree. I think if the airplane was sitting on a ramp and a deer (or other animal) came by and ran into it or otherwise molested it, then I can see that as being considered an 'act of god'.....but in this case the airplane was being actively piloted and collided with a deer.

This doesn't sound right.

That is actually a pretty good analogy for the insurance company. Renter insurance is not Hull insurance, it is liability insurance, it protects the renter from liability. The insurance company is basically saying the pilot was no more at fault in this accident than if the deer had attacked the parked airplane. They are essentially challenging the owner or owners insurance to prove that the pilot is liable for this accident.

Brian

 

[Fearless Tower]

That is actually a pretty good analogy for the insurance company. Renter insurance is not Hull insurance, it is liability insurance, it protects the renter from liability.

That is actually not true.

Renters or non-owned insurance is like an owned policy. There can be liability coverage and hull. Just like with an owned policy, you specify how much hull value you want to cover. Or you can 'self-insure' for hull and just take the liability coverage.

The OP said he had hull coverage with his non-owned policy.

 

[Islandhopper]

The whole situation seems fishy, especially the part about landing on a runway with perfectly good functioning lights in the OFF position.

Good luck

 

[Lindberg]

That is actually a pretty good analogy for the insurance company. Renter insurance is not Hull insurance, it is liability insurance, it protects the renter from liability. The insurance company is basically saying the pilot was no more at fault in this accident than if the deer had attacked the parked airplane. They are essentially challenging the owner or owners insurance to prove that the pilot is liable for this accident.

We don't know exactly what AIG said to the OP, but this seems to be correct.

 

[Seanaldinho]

The whole situation seems fishy, especially the part about landing on a runway with perfectly good functioning lights in the OFF position.

Good luck

Its not fishy when its a training scenario.

 

[sblackb]

All, I'm overwhelmed by all the great input to my dilemma. Sure is great to have a group like this to bounce aviation issues off and appreciate all the time you have spent considering all the angles on this.

After reviewing all the input this afternoon after work, I clearly wasn't detailed enough in my description. The following is an attempt to answer all the questions posed without spamming the group with an individual reply to each.

Owner and Rental Contract: Let's start with the plane owner and the rental agreement. The agreement very clearly details out his insurance doesn't cover damage caused to the plane and stipulates the need for the renter to have a policy to cover. I got connected to this airplane via a CFI that I used for a bit until our schedules wouldn't jive. I've never met the owner, and at this point feel like he's screwing me by not approaching his insurance company, even to go after mine, but the fact is I agree to the terms of his rental contract, knowing I would have to cover damage if the plane got bent. I assumed I purchased insurance to cover against this. What I didn't realize is the BS out clause AIG has in the policy and clearly had a different understanding of the term "...legally liable."

In the back section of the policy, there is a generic clause nestled in with statements like, can't intentionally cause the damage, use the plane for terrorism, etc. that states the policy doesn't cover "Liability I assume." My read is that when I rent the plane, I assume a certain level of liability. In my mind, this clause negates the whole damn policy and would not even cover legal defence, or owner deductible coverage, but they say they would cover that.

The policy was purchased through AOPA and their service level is terrible. They were the ones that first said Act of God was was not covered and when asked to show me in the policy where that is stated, then said they would have to call me back. This happened on multiple calls until I quite trying. They are in bed with the insurance companies and clearly not the pilot advocates they pretend to be.

Burning bridges - Like I said above, I don't even know the owner of the plane. While I have opinions about this guy and his business tactics that I will keep to myself, I am more concerned about the very small aviation community that I'm just becoming apart of in a small town, and at the end of the day, It's about personal integrity and the commitment I made when renting the plane. Not sure I would trade that for $36k.

I wasn't mislead on the terms of renting, I was just naive to gap in coverage that appears to exist if AIG can legitimately deny coverage based on their determination of "at fault." My beef is that the policy I bought that was advertised and sold as total coverage for renters, but then has a provision that can get them out of just about anything.

What does the Policy Cover - Quite a few comments on what does the policy cover then, and that seems to be a pretty slippery question for AOPA and AIG to answer. Best I can determine, it only covers damaged caused due to my negligence. So no wildlife strikes, damage on the ramp, and damage caused from a mechanical. The scenario gets really blurry if you imagine how you might be covered in an engine out, not due to fuel, that causes an off airport or crash landing. The only description to any of this in my policy is the term "...damage for which you are legally liable." No act of God, mother nature, mechanical, etc.

Attorney Review - So far, I have had two reviews and both think it's insurance bad faith, but neither do insurance work, but rather aviation. Got a referral to a plaintiffs lawyer that I still need to call now that the holidays are over to press the issue with AIG further.

As for lights out in training - I wasn't a fan, but needed those skills on the next night training flight, so see their benefit. Looks like it's 50/50 on those of you who did this in training - right or wrong. Almost wish that would be considered negligent on my part so they would pay, but then what do you bet they say I wasn't PIC. Heck of a web they have.

No doubt I'm missing some of the questions, but hope that colors in a couple more gaps in the description. Thanks again for all the good thoughts.

 

[sblackb]

Any aircraft insurance that doesn't cover stuff like a deer strike, heck I'd just save my money and not have insurance of that was the case.

For someone with a few hours the only reason for insurance.

Deer strike
Bird strike
Someone hitting my plane on the ground
Hail storm while overnighting
Hole in a float from submerged crap.
Engine failure over inhospitable earth


Deer/coyote and ground damage is probably #1

Yeah, would appear none of that is covered, at least through AOPA / AIG.

 

[sblackb]

That is actually a pretty good analogy for the insurance company. Renter insurance is not Hull insurance, it is liability insurance, it protects the renter from liability. The insurance company is basically saying the pilot was no more at fault in this accident than if the deer had attacked the parked airplane. They are essentially challenging the owner or owners insurance to prove that the pilot is liable for this accident.

Brian

I bought $1mm liability and $80k hull, so if they don't cover hull, I'm not sure what they sold me.

 

[Lindberg]

That is actually not true.

Renters or non-owned insurance is like an owned policy. There can be liability coverage and hull. Just like with an owned policy, you specify how much hull value you want to cover. Or you can 'self-insure' for hull and just take the liability coverage.

The OP said he had hull coverage with his non-owned policy.

The non-owned policy has no pure hull coverage. And why would it? As a renter, why would you want to insure the owner's plane against perils not caused by you that you're not liable? That's fishy behavior as far as the insurance company is concerned, and exactly why contractual liability is excluded from coverage.

Sample AOPA non-owned insurance policy: http://insurance.aopa.org/-/media/Files/Insurance/nonowned/NonOwnedAircraftInsurancePolicySample.pdf

Relevant coverage:

We will pay for physical damage to your non-owned aircraft for which you are legally liable, caused by an occurrence arising from your use of a non-owned aircraft.

And it specifically excludes contractual liability:

This insurance does not apply:
1. under any coverage
a) to an occurrence which you intend or expect;
b) to any liability you assume; . . .

That exclusion is there specifically for situations like this and to prevent the parties from doing an end run and not having proper owner's insurance and contractually obligating the renter to be liable for more perils and dumping the liability on the renter's insurance.

IOW, if you aren't "responsible" for the damage, your non-owner policy won't over it. However, if the owner has proper insurance, a deer strike would be covered. And it might or might not matter who was flying the plane.