PPL Training and Deer Strike - Read your Insurance Policy

[sblackb]

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...

We had two factors on our side. A full moon, and the GPS / OBS button. Three if you count the Jack Henry hanger with the door wide open flooding the front of the runway with light. That did more harm to night vision in my opinion than helping with approach.

Good news is I got the night work in and don't plan on flying at night. Risk of not seeing emergency landing spots is just not worth it to me. Maybe I will change that opinion with experience, but I have little of that right now.

 

[Fearless Tower]

IOW, if you aren't "responsible" for the damage, your non-owner policy won't over it.

But you are still operating the aircraft when it is damaged.

If you want to get into strict definitions, based on what you are saying, if the owner fails to install the oil filter correctly and it falls off in flight and the engine fails resulting in a crash, the pilot's non-owned policy is going to refuse to pay.

I kind if doubt that it works that way. The non-owned policy is going to cover that. They may later go after the owner to recover their loss, but that is another story. Here, they are refusing to pay at all.

 

[Lindberg]

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

Your owner's policy should cover most of that. It's unclear why a renter would want or need insurance that covers any of it, since--unless it's a hole or engine failure caused by negligence--the renter wouldn't be liable for any of it.

 

[Fearless Tower]

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

What is sad is that they are charging you about as much as they would for an owned policy.

Starting to sound like another crap product being provided to 'benefit' AOPA members.

 

[asechrest]

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.

That clause is in many insurance policies, and is designed to keep the insurance company from being at risk of loss for liability you assume but would not otherwise be liable for (which is often assumed under contract by way of a hold harmless or indemnification clause, et al).

Edit - Beaten.

 

[sblackb]

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:

And it specifically excludes contractual liability:

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.

That is the exact language in my policy, I just had a different interpretation of "for which you are legally liable." Who gives AIG the ability to determine liability without even an investigation (never even contacted the CFI, the owner, etc.) and if all assumed liability is excluded, how would it cover anything in a rental agreement of any kind?

 

[Lindberg]

But you are still operating the aircraft when it is damaged.

What if you're renting a plane for an overnight trip and it get's hailed on sitting on the ramp?

If you want to get into strict definitions, based on what you are saying, if the owner fails to install the oil filter correctly and it falls off in flight and the engine fails resulting in a crash, the pilot's non-owned policy is going to refuse to pay.

Exactly right. Why would the renter's liability insurance pay out for the owner's negligence? That's what the owner's policy is for.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Exactly right. Why would the renter's liability insurance pay out for the owner's negligence? That's what the owner's policy is for.

Those kinds of details don't usually come out until much later after the accident. Most insurance claims get settled initially before that.

 

[sblackb]

But you are still operating the aircraft when it is damaged.

If you want to get into strict definitions, based on what you are saying, if the owner fails to install the oil filter correctly and it falls off in flight and the engine fails resulting in a crash, the pilot's non-owned policy is going to refuse to pay.

I kind if doubt that it works that way. The non-owned policy is going to cover that. They may later go after the owner to recover their loss, but that is another story. Here, they are refusing to pay at all.

I specifically covered an engine failure situation with AOPA and they said it would not be covered by my policy nor would any other damaged caused by mechanical failure.

 

[Pbtx0]

I would just have a lawyer send them a letter before anything else. I have no experience with aviation insurance companies but if they work anything like medical insurance companies they may be just kicking out a denial hoping you'll just forget about it and they'll be off the hook. In the medical world I've had to call about denied claims to only have them covered just by making the phone call. If 1 out of 100 of these denials goes forgotten or taken for face value they save money. Probably part of their strategy to keep profits up.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I specifically covered an engine failure situation with AOPA and they said it would not be covered by my policy nor would any other damaged caused by mechanical failure.

You should ask them if they will legally defend you against a claim by the owner since it was not your fault. I don't know about AIG, but Avemco will in that situation.

 

[Lindberg]

That is the exact language in my policy, I just had a different interpretation of "for which you are legally liable." Who gives AIG the ability to determine liability without even an investigation (never even contacted the CFI, the owner, etc.) and if all assumed liability is excluded, how would it cover anything in a rental agreement of any kind?

If you were negligent, you'd be legally liable and the insurance would cover the damage. Your insurance isn't going to cover additional perils just because you agree with a third party to be liable. That would be suicide for the insurance company.

So you have any least two questions that you need answered:

1. What are you really liable for under the rental agreement, and is it enforceable?

2. Were you negligent?

Some might argue that deliberately landing at night without lights in an area known to have wildlife on the runway is negligent...

 

[Lindberg]

Those kinds of details don't usually come out until much later after the accident. Most insurance claims get settled initially before that.

I was just responding to your hypothetical. If you meant to ask what happens if there's an engine failure because of unknown causes, that's a different question.

 

[asechrest]

That is the exact language in my policy, I just had a different interpretation of "for which you are legally liable." Who gives AIG the ability to determine liability without even an investigation (never even contacted the CFI, the owner, etc.) and if all assumed liability is excluded, how would it cover anything in a rental agreement of any kind?

Well, it wouldn't cover anything in a rental agreement if you're assuming liability for which you are not usually subject. If the rental agreement contained a line item that said "renter will pay for bird strikes while the owner is flying the plane", you wouldn't expect your insurance to cover it. The concept is the same in this case. The rental agreement stipulates that you will pay for "all" damage while you're using the plane, yet the non-owner policy stipulates that it will pay only if you are legally liable. These two things are in conflict.

The exception seems to be the Deductible Insurance endorsement. See attached. It offers coverage to cover the owner's policy deductible, and removes the assumed liability exclusion with respect to the endorsed coverage.

--

With all that said, I'd demand that the claim be properly handled, including assignment of a claims adjuster and an official denial letter if denial is their decision. You want it in writing.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Rental airplanes need 100 hour inspections (annual counts if within 100 hours).

 

[Matthew]

I think AOPA is saying that the renter's policy covers your screw ups, and you didn't screw up. The owner is putting all his liability on you. I think that policy would also pay for the deductible, but he isn't filing with his insurance company. He's trying to get away without having his own insurance company know he's using his plane as a rental.

edit:

The owner is substituting you for having proper insurance and AOPA isn't going to play that game.

 

[sblackb]

Well, it wouldn't cover anything in a rental agreement if you're assuming liability for which you are not usually subject. If the rental agreement contained a line item that said "renter will pay for bird strikes while the owner is flying the plane", you wouldn't expect your insurance to cover it. The concept is the same in this case. The rental agreement stipulates that you will pay for "all" damage while you're using the plane, yet the non-owner policy stipulates that it will pay only if you are legally liable. These two things are in conflict.

The exception seems to be the Deductible Insurance endorsement. See attached. It offers coverage to cover the owner's policy deductible, and removes the assumed liability exclusion with respect to the endorsed coverage.



With all that said, I'd demand that the claim be properly handled, including assignment of a claims adjuster and an official denial letter if denial is their decision. You want it in writing.

To be clear, they have an adjuster, and they officially denied.

 

[asechrest]

To be clear, they have an adjuster, and they officially denied.

Ok. Did you get a denial letter?

 

[sblackb]

Ok. Did you get a denial letter?

yes. Certified Mail even.

 

[sblackb]

From AOPA.com...

You don't take unnecessary risks in the air.
Why take them on the ground?

When you rent or borrow an aircraft you could be personally liable for tens of thousands of dollars in repair costs and legal defense fees should damage occur, because FBO policies rarely provide adequate coverage for pilots.

But a renter's policy with AOPA Insurance Services provides comprehensive coverage. Starting at just $81/year for liability coverage, you can get basic protection. For just $175/year, you can get compre*hensive coverage that includes bodily injury to passengers, property damage as a result of an incident and claims for damage to a rented aircraft, and you can bind online or by phone in just minutes.

Why renter's insurance is crucial

Protects you and your family
Covers you when the owner's primary policy does not
Provides liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage when you borrow or rent airplanes
Provides legal defense coverage

 

[coloradobluesky]

Renter's policy covers the RENTER'S loss caused by the renter's mistakes. It doesn't cover the owner of the airplane's loss at all. That is supposed to be covered by the owner's policy. However, the owner didn't have insurance that covers when the plane is rented. The renter isn't screwed, the owner of the airplane is. Now if the accident had been caused by the renter running off the runway, he might not have been covered either because the instructor is PIC, do does the instructor have insurace. ETC.

Moral of the story. You can't rent your airplane out for instruction, or even give instruction in it yourself and think you can get away without renter's/instruction coverage by having the renter get renters insurance. It won't work.

 

[acrophile]

If you were negligent, you'd be legally liable and the insurance would cover the damage.

Why couldn't the insurance company appeal to the same exclusion clause and argue that you "assumed" (in the sense of "took on") your liability by flying negligently (or by renting the plane in the first place)?

The policy says "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", but then says it excludes "any liability you assume".

I don't see anything in that exclusion language that focuses on damage-liability taken on ("assumed") via a rental agreement, as opposed to damage-liability taken on just by flying someone's plane (or by flying it negligently). How would any reasonable reader of that language have any inkling of what the insurance company claims to mean by it?

 

[acrophile]

YOU aren't screwed, the owner of the airplane is.

Why? The renter signed a rental contract agreeing to be liable for any damage incurred during the rental. The enforceability of that contract has nothing to do with who does or does not have insurance.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Why? The renter signed a rental contract agreeing to be liable for any damage incurred during the rental. The enforceability of that contract has nothing to do with who does or does not have insurance.

Well that is an interesting issue. If that's the case, and it is enforceable, the renter may be on the hook. I dunno. The insurance company might ignore such an agreement but in this case they aren't paying anyway. The insurance company MIGHT defend him if the owner sues him to collect. That is part of the renters insurance coverage. Hmmm, that contract may be one for a judge to make a ruling on. Is it enforceable, was it written right? Beyond my knowlege. I guess its best not to make such agreements. Just get the insurance, make sure the owner has insurance (how do you do that?) and hope for the best.

Avemco has a page on renters insurance.
https://avemco.com/aircraft-renters-insurance/faq.aspx#one

 

[N801BH]

Couple of things to think about.

1. You were flying with your CFI as a student, correct? I believe the CFI is acting as PIC in that case and is responsible for the airplane. The CFI should have his own policy for instructing. A deer strike shouldn't hurt his record or chances of getting a job if he is time building.

2. 36k is a lot of money. You were renting a plane that you signed a rental agreement for, and you went out and got your own renter's insurance that would cover the hull value. You did everything you were supposed to do. If the owner did not have his insurance right, and this is the reason the repair is not covered, its his fault, not yours. He was the one trying to cheat on not paying for the right insurance. If he led you to believe otherwise (rental agreement, etc...) I would burn a bridge over this.

3. Work this as much as you can while using lawyers to a minimum. I had a very expensive warranty issue recently with a new vehicle, they denied the repair. Took me 3 weeks of gathering info, making calls, writing letters and it was finally covered. I thought I was going to have to go to court, but I remained patient and eventually everything worked out.

I don't know if you have consulted with an aviation attorney yet, or just an insurance attorney. I would find an aviation specific attorney and let them review this for you.

Yup...

Not your problem...

 

[Vaflier]

I would think this whole thing hinges on the exact wording in the rental agreement. Does it state one of the following and if so which ??.

The renter assumes all liability for damage to the aircraft while in his care.

Or something such as the following

The renter assumes all liabilty for damage caused by him while the aircraft is in his care.

If it says something to the effect of damage you caused then you are not liable since you did not cause the damage the deer did. Tell the owner to stuff it.

 

[coloradobluesky]

It looks to me like no insurance will pay in this case. The owner of the airplane can then go after the instructor and the renter and the three lawyers will settle it during a golf game and the last 10k goes to the lawyer that wins the last hole.

Moral of the story. If you hire a lawyer, get one that is good at golf.

 

[Tj1376]

From a guy who has twelve years in the insurance business...

The key problem here is that AIG is saying you are not liable for the damages (you are not negligent.) As such, there is no coverage from your renters policy (this is where the owners policy gets engaged.)

It is super simple, trust me. Think of it like this... When you hit a deer with your car, do your rates go up? The legal answer is NO because in zero states can insurance companies surcharge your policy for an accident that was not your fault. Deer strikes are not your fault. Comprehensive coverage comes in and fixes deer strike damage.

A renters policy would never have comprehensive coverage. It only cares about liability coverage for your negligence (and read again, you are not negligent.)

TJ

Another good analogy. Let's say you landed, missed the deer and parked. While hanging out at the FBO the plane is stolen. Whose coverage? Again, you are not negligent for the stolen plane (assuming you didn't leave the keys in it) and your renters policy doesn't cover.

Here is a twist. Let's say you landed, saw the deer and swerved (missing the deer) and put the plane into a ground loop. Whose coverage pays now? Guess what... It's YOUR renters coverage. You negligently lost control of the plane and now we have a covered loss (assuming you do have hull coverage on your renters policy.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[asechrest]

Why couldn't the insurance company appeal to the same exclusion clause and argue that you "assumed" (in the sense of "took on") your liability by flying negligently (or by renting the plane in the first place)?

The policy says "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", but then says it excludes "any liability you assume".

I don't see anything in that exclusion language that focuses on damage-liability taken on ("assumed") via a rental agreement, as opposed to damage-liability taken on just by flying someone's plane (or by flying it negligently). How would any reasonable reader of that language have any inkling of what the insurance company claims to mean by it?

IANAL, but it's common language in insurance policies, though a bit less specific than is typical. Usually the wording is "...liability assumed under contract...". It would never hold up in court if they attempted to use a layman's definition of assume. Though if the stated reason for denial is this exclusionary language, it could perhaps be argued in favor of the insured that it is ambiguous and thus not enforceable.

But I think we don't even get to the exclusionary language in this case. The insurance company is asserting that the insured is not legally liable for the damage and thus, no coverage effects.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Here's the alternate take.

You were negligent. You landed at night without the landing light on. Training or not, that can construed as negligent. God knows if you hit a kid on a bike on that runway a civil jury would find you negligent. If the light was on, the deer may well have run, or you would have seen it in time to avoid the collision.

If that was all it takes to avoid a $36K bill, hell yeah, you were negligent...

 

[Tflhndn]

Regardless of what you may feel right now, this is not your monkey and this is not your circus.

This mess belongs to the owner of the plane who tried to cheap out on insurance and is trying to pass the buck onto you.

 

[acrophile]

IANAL, but it's common language in insurance policies, though a bit less specific than is typical. Usually the wording is "...liability assumed under contract...". It would never hold up in court if they attempted to use a layman's definition of assume.

If it specifies "liability assumed under contract", then that's perfectly clear and perfectly compatible with the lay meaning of "assume" (in the sense of "take on"). It's the absence of any mention of "under contract" that's at issue here.

But I think we don't even get to the exclusionary language in this case. The insurance company is asserting that the insured is not legally liable for the damage and thus, no coverage effects.

No, they're asserting that the insured is not legally liable for the damage except for the legal liability taken on under the rental contract. So the exclusionary language is the crux of the matter.

 

[acrophile]

This mess belongs to the owner of the plane who tried to cheap out on insurance and is trying to pass the buck onto you.

The owner already succeeded in passing the buck onto the renter, by virtue of the contract the renter signed. The renter's contractual obligation to the owner is not affected by whether either of them had chosen to purchase insurance for the situation (unless the contract has language that's explicitly contingent on insurance, but that does not appear to be the case).

 

[ifly4fun]

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.

Of course no one wants to assume liability but it seems this may be an avenue to investigate. Claim liability for inadequately illuminating the runway or lack of doing a low approach to make sure the runway was clear prior to landing. Of course neither are requirements, but if they get you the 1% liable maybe your insurance will kick in?

Or you could just say you aimed for the deer because it was a nice buck and hunting season had just ended.

 

[acrophile]

if they get you the 1% liable maybe your insurance will kick in?

If it did, it would cover 1% of the damages, or $360.

But it would be easy to refute a claim of negligence by establishing that it is a common and respected instruction technique to have pilots practice lights-off landings.

And besides, if there were a finding of negligence, it would apply primarily to the CFI, and may harm that person's aviation career or insurability.

 

[Tj1376]

Here's the alternate take.



You were negligent. You landed at night without the landing light on. Training or not, that can construed as negligent. God knows if you hit a kid on a bike on that runway a civil jury would find you negligent. If the light was on, the deer may well have run, or you would have seen it in time to avoid the collision.



If that was all it takes to avoid a $36K bill, hell yeah, you were negligent...

I believe this is not true.

In this case, the instructions given by a certified and acting instructor led to the "negligent act" (hitting a deer is not negligent, so you'd have to prove that no landing light was gross negligence and led to the deer strike. That's tough as many people have hit deer with lights on) and subsequent loss. You may have a claim against the instructors insurance but as this is a conceivable method of instruction (many here have indicated they have done this type of training with their instructors,) I believe this won't hold up.

The owners insurance is designed to include this loss as primary cause of loss. All other insurance is secondary. It's just a bummer that the guy wanted to cheap out of an extra grand or two per year on a policy designed to protect his asset from a renter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rocketflyer84]

This is the whole reason why one needs special insurance to rent out a plane vs owning a plane for yourself. The owner acted in violation of his own policy and frankly it's his problem now. Rental contract is a sticking point as is the fact that the insurance situation wasn't checked beforehand.

It's very important to always ask for a copy of the insurance certificate from the place you rent from and see what it says re the renter. Good ones will state that anyone operating the plane in accordance with the rental agreement is a "named insured" which essentially limits liability on the aircraft to the deductible (unless there is intentional damage, terrorism or the usual exclusions). Most renter's policies are for the deductible and general liability. "Hull" coverage should usually be taken care of by the owner (minus their deductible).

If the place you rent from isn't completely transparent about the above, run away as fast as you can.

Friend had a prop strike with a bird. Was "act of God" so owner's insurance paid and renter's insurance paid the $5k deductible. Was all very straight forward and renter's insurance (which was AOPA/AIG I believe) didn't go up at all the next time around since a bird through the prop is a risk equally shared by all pilots.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The owner already succeeded in passing the buck onto the renter, by virtue of the contract the renter signed. The renter's contractual obligation to the owner is not affected by whether either of them had chosen to purchase insurance for the situation (unless the contract has language that's explicitly contingent on insurance, but that does not appear to be the case).

Not necessarily.

Like I posted earlier, the OP's non-owned policy MAY provide for legal defense against claims by the owner. They may be able to contest the rental agreement. I know Avemco provides that service as part of their non-owned policies for cases just like this, but the OP would need to talk to AIG to find out what they provide.

 

[rocketflyer84]

My read on AIg's denial is that:

1) In being an act of God it's the owners responsibility and he should file a claim

2) Normally your deductible insurance (aka traditional renter's insurance) would kick in and cover your out of pocket risk from the incident (assuming you aligned your deductible insurance amount to the owner's hull insurance deductible amount

AIG is basically saying there is nothing they can do unless the owner files a claim and then dings you for the deductible.

Of course if the owner was acting shady and can't file a claim because he was acting in violation of his policy and the renter signed an agreement taking on hull liability then this is indeed a sticky situation. Hull insurance for a renter is usually not the same as hull insurance for an owner coverage wise.

AIG is acting as expected though given the facts provided. Agree that its debatible if hitting a deer at night with no lights is an act of God. Best bet is likely for the renter to be determined to have been negligent here, oddly enough.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Here's the alternate take.

You were negligent. You landed at night without the landing light on. Training or not, that can construed as negligent. God knows if you hit a kid on a bike on that runway a civil jury would find you negligent. If the light was on, the deer may well have run, or you would have seen it in time to avoid the collision.

If that was all it takes to avoid a $36K bill, hell yeah, you were negligent...

I think that is a good point. A lot of folks confuse 'negligence' with intentionally doing something bad, but here it simply means that the bad happened because of something you were doing.

I agree that practicing night landings is a good thing to do, but had you had the light on, you may very well would have seen the deer in time to avoid it. You could very easily argue that the deer strike was related to your action of landing without a landing light.