PPL Training and Deer Strike - Read your Insurance Policy

Tj1376 said:
Farmers Insurance was one of the first to create a "semi-commercial" rider that covers you when you click accept and drive to pickup the passenger. Pretty cool stuff!

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They are trying to sell you unnecessary insurance.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
The short answer is no. This sort of insurance isn't a thing.

As someone else mentioned there really isn't such a thing as a "renter's hull policy." You can't insure an asset you don't have an insurable interest in. For example you can't take out insurance on your neighbors house.

So called "renter's hull insurance" is really just a form of liability insurance. The language in the policy usually says something to the effect of the policy paying out upon a liabiltiy imposed by law as the result of damage caused to an aircraft that you don't own but that you were operating legally as part of a rental agreement. Key words here being liability. If an act of God occurs the renter isn't liable, the owner is and that's for the owner (who should have insured the asset) to file with their insurance.

Exact same scenario applies if a tree on your property falls over and crushes your neighbors house. You can't buy a policy insuring your neighbors house. You can buy liability insurance (aka homeowners policy) but unless you were found to be negligent (i.e. you chopped the tree with an ax and it fell over) then a storm knocking the tree over is an act of God and you have no liability even though it was your tree. The owner of the house that got crushed would file a claim with their insurance and their insurance would pay for the damage. If your neighbor didn't have insurance then they are out of luck.

An typical umbrella policy is still also a form of liability insurance and typically includes an exemption for aviation, hence why one needs separate liability insurance for aviation.
Click to expand...

In the OP's situation, there is no insurance he could have gotten to cover him for this? Other than getting on the owner's policy?
 
dell30rb said:
We have had at least 3 threads on this. You are incorrect about the coverage provided by uber. The insurance covers the drivers when on the way to pick up passengers. There is no gap in coverage at any point if you have a run of the mill comprehensive personal insurance policy.



https://newsroom.uber.com/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/
Click to expand...


Checkout that period 1 coverage in your link. I hope when you go online with your uber app you don't expect full coverage from Uber. I also hope you don't have a loan on your vehicle and expect collision or even other than collision coverage. Once you are online, your personal policy stops providing coverage. Hence why a ride share endorsement is needed.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tj1376 said:
Once you click "accept" on your ride sharing provider and accept a job for money, your personal insurance policy no longer applies. Uber and Lyft have policies that will cover the driver/car ONLY when a passenger is in the car. So what happens if you wreck on the way to picking up the passenger? Your personal policy won't cover you and Uber/Lyft won't cover you either. Whoopsie.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that I hit accept on the uber app, and start driving to pick up the passenger. Get into a wreck on the way to pick up the passenger, and Uber won't cover me?

They will.

The only technicality is that if you are "available" as in, logged into the app but not en-route to pick someone up or actually driving the passenger around, Uber offers only basic liability coverage.

In this case you are not driving for hire and your personal insurance should cover you. You are also most likely sitting in a parking lot or at home.
 
dell30rb said:
So you are telling me that I hit accept on the uber app, and start driving to pick up the passenger. Get into a wreck on the way to pick up the passenger, and Uber won't cover me?



They will.



The only technicality is that if you are "available" as in, logged into the app but not en-route to pick someone up or actually driving the passenger around, Uber offers only basic liability coverage.



In this case you are not driving for hire and your personal insurance should cover you. You are also most likely sitting in a parking lot or at home.
Click to expand...


Yep sorry. Wrote that incorrectly in the post. I've amended it.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Exact same scenario applies if a tree on your property falls over and crushes your neighbors house. You can't buy a policy insuring your neighbors house. You can buy liability insurance (aka homeowners policy) but unless you were found to be negligent (i.e. you chopped the tree with an ax and it fell over) then a storm knocking the tree over is an act of God and you have no liability even though it was your tree. The owner of the house that got crushed would file a claim with their insurance and their insurance would pay for the damage. If your neighbor didn't have insurance then they are out of luck.
Click to expand...


Just a note in your tree scenario. Most homeowners policies have "good neighbor" clause that allow the owner of the tree to extend their liability coverage even though in this case the owner is not negligent.

Read your policy carefully here before making this blanket statement!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tj1376 said:
Hitting a dear is NOT a negligent event and your renters coverage won't pick it up.
Click to expand...
Except hitting a deer while you were landing with the landing light intentionally turned off could certainly be construed as 'negligent' and worth pointing out in an appeal of the denial. They may still deny it, but it is worth a shot.

The OP really only has a few options:

1) Suck it up and pay the $36k himself
2) Ask AIG to defend him and legally push back on the bill since it is truly the owners responsibility (but could burn bridges)
3) Appeal the denial based on his 'negligence' intentionally operating without a landing light (note, could burn bridges if AIG then chooses to go after the CFI)
4) Point out the situation to the owner and point out that the owner was wrong in renting the aircraft with a non-commercial policy and suggest they split the cost as a way of maintaining a friendly relationship.

I don't see too many other options.
 
brcase said:
Airplane Flying Handbook, Page 10-7.... During landings without the use of landing lights, the roundout may be started when the runway lights at the
far end of the runway first appear to be rising higher
than the nose of the airplane.
Click to expand...
The FAA also gives recommended techniques for off airport emergency landing. That isn't the same as recommending that you do it for real.

There are CFI's out there that will kill the engine in a single and have the student perform a real-life dead stick landing. That doesn't mean it is normal practice.

Again, I'm not against the practice, but the idea here is that the OP has genuine grounds for challenging the denial if he chooses to challenge it.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Except hitting a deer while you were landing with the landing light intentionally turned off could certainly be construed as 'negligent' and worth pointing out in an appeal of the denial. They may still deny it, but it is worth a shot.



The OP really only has a few options:



1) Suck it up and pay the $36k himself

2) Ask AIG to defend him and legally push back on the bill since it is truly the owners responsibility (but could burn bridges)

3) Appeal the denial based on his 'negligence' intentionally operating without a landing light (note, could burn bridges if AIG then chooses to go after the CFI)

4) Point out the situation to the owner and point out that the owner was wrong in renting the aircraft with a non-commercial policy and suggest they split the cost as a way of maintaining a friendly relationship.



I don't see too many other options.
Click to expand...


I'm not a lawyer (just an insurance guy), but if this were true (landing without using a light is negligent) then the CFI should have insurance to cover this. The student was merely doing what the instructor asked when the loss occurred.

My limited understanding (I've only been involved in a few courtroom cases) would point me to believe this outcome is not likely. Too many people (myself included) hit deer with the lights on. You'd have to show that lights on would have "spooked" the deer away, and that's going to be hard to prove. Especially if the judge has ever hit a deer.

I do agree that #4 is probably the best option, but it would be interesting to see if someone with contract law background could weigh in on the signed rental agreement.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matthew said:
In the OP's situation, there is no insurance he could have gotten to cover him for this? Other than getting on the owner's policy?
Click to expand...


You might be able to find a specialty insurance company who could look at this with their lawyers and offer protection for the specific case, but this is so uncommon that I highly doubt that you'd a) find a company to do it and b) find it worth the price that they would charge.

This is why it's super important you use a standard renters agreement when you buy standard renters insurance. The AOPA renters insurance is designed to protect you against a standard rental agreement contract. In this case, it sounds like the renter signed a nonstandard renters agreement and then purchased coverage not designed to protect him for this loss.

The insurance really isn't crap (despite what has been said in this thread.) The insurance offered just didn't match the contractual obligations the renter took on when they signed the nonstandard rental contract. Thus the gap in coverage. I would bet that the majority of folks who rent from rental companies sign a standardized contract and this situation doesn't apply (as the owner of the plane has insurance designed to cover this loss and doesn't need the broad "you are responsible for all damage" language that was written in the OPs situation.)

TJ



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is a moral to this sad story folks. When the owner informed the renter that his insurance does not cover damage and that the renter is on the hook for damage, the renter should have called his insurance broker and asked, simply, if the airplane is damaged while I am using it, am I liable? If the answer is no, the renter should ask for an email stating this, if the answer yes, then the next question should have been can I get coverage for this.

I do this when ever a question comes up with insurance (although I've never had to do it with aviation). It's a simple thing to do. You know the saying about assume.
 
Bobanna said:
Good points, TJ. What we're not examining is the fine print: insurance is all about fine print. An inability to grasp the meaning of the fine print confuses and frustrates people, but the insurance is a contract delineating the insured's obligations and the insurance carrier's obligations.

While I am not aware of a "standard rental contract" (whose standard is it?), I don't think the carrier can deny an ordinary and customary claim because they didn't like the way the contract was drafted -- the carrier has stated their obligations in the policy language and endorsements issued to the OP. Language holding the renter responsible for losses from all causes during his use of the airplane is goofy; you can be sure the non-owned carrier has no intention of standing by that, but a renter's culpability in an in-motion situation is usually spelled-out clearly as a covered peril. Not that the carrier won't try to deflect the claim, but the claimant needs to be informed and push-back hard and long to keep the insurer's feet to the fire. From what little I know, I think the OP will prevail in this case if he wanted, but I don't think the fight is his: The renter tried playing fast and loos with the insurance and bears the responsibility for the loss, im(not)ho.
Click to expand...

Yup....

It is the owners loss... The renter is getting *ucked...
 
PaulS said:
There is a moral to this sad story folks. When the owner informed the renter that his insurance does not cover damage and that the renter is on the hook for damage, the renter should have called his insurance broker and asked, simply, if the airplane is damaged while I am using it, am I liable? If the answer is no, the renter should ask for an email stating this, if the answer yes, then the next question should have been can I get coverage for this.

I do this when ever a question comes up with insurance (although I've never had to do it with aviation). It's a simple thing to do. You know the saying about assume.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Take the agreement (prior to agreeing to it) to a lawyer and/or an insurance agent and figure out what it really means and what you need to do to protect your interests.
 
Bobanna said:
Good points, TJ. What we're not examining is the fine print: insurance is all about fine print. An inability to grasp the meaning of the fine print confuses and frustrates people, but the insurance is a contract delineating the insured's obligations and the insurance carrier's obligations.

While I am not aware of a "standard rental contract" (whose standard is it?),
Click to expand...


They exist. Your auto, home and umbrella policies are all based off standard forms.

A quick Google search led many results, here are a few:

Scroll to the bottom. Find the AOPA example
http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources...-An-Aircraft-Owners-Guide-to-Aircraft-Leasing

(As far as I know, the only difference between renting and leasing is that in a lease, both parties mutually benefit. Rental agreements are also typically short term, but I don't believe length of contract legally separates a rental from a lease. *im not a lawyer.)

Here is an exceptional example... It even includes the owners insurance information so you know what you need to cover.
http://sportysnetwork.com/BlanketAircraftRentalAgreement.pdf

What's been most interesting during this research is that many rental agreements online indicate that the renter is fully responsible when loss occurs. This tends to indicate that the companies renting their aircraft don't have much of a clue about how insurance works. That's a real shame, as it leads to situations just like this OP is in.

TJ




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We have AIG on our phenom. I took a bird to the right engine on departure a month ago, wiped out the cold side of a PW617F-E, and added up to about 300K in damages. We won't pay a dime.


Completely covered, including a rental engine or plane. I don't see how a deer is any different than a bird strike.
 
n20junkie said:
We have AIG on our phenom. I took a bird to the right engine on departure a month ago, wiped out the cold side of a PW617F-E, and added up to about 300K in damages. We won't pay a dime.


Completely covered, including a rental engine or plane. I don't see how a deer is any different than a bird strike.
Click to expand...
Do you have an owner's or renter's policy?
 
Its been almost 8 months since this thread has been active.

If the OP is still here, what ended up happening in this situation? An update would be nice.

Thanks
 
The closest calls I've had in my career in aviation have been deer/coyote related, no surprise the dead beat insurance industry won't cover those events, they HATE paying, but love collecting.

Even the state has a fit over giving out permits to shoot the things and KEEP the meat, they want you to take the deer, you dress it and you DONATE the meat to the food bank, jeeze wonder why no one has taken a deer off a airport since anyone can remember.
 
Pbtx0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that is the game they play. Remember, insurance companies aren't in business to pay out money. There in business to make money. And by sending out a flat out denial they hope you just take it at face value and move on, then the company doesn't spend money.
 
James331 said:
The closest calls I've had in my career in aviation have been deer/coyote related, no surprise the dead beat insurance industry won't cover those events, they HATE paying, but love collecting.

Even the state has a fit over giving out permits to shoot the things and KEEP the meat, they want you to take the deer, you dress it and you DONATE the meat to the food bank, jeeze wonder why no one has taken a deer off a airport since anyone can remember.
Click to expand...

Of course your owners policy would cover those events.

3 things in this case. 1) Owner rents out an uninsured asset (completely legal), 2) Renter signs a contract assuming responsibility for that asset, again - completely legal.
3) Renter gets insured against some risks, but not the ones he thought of. It's like getting flood insurance and complaining it didn't cover fire.

So - either renter pays out and complies with the rental agreement, or renter contests that rental agreement in court. It's not bad faith insurance, it's just the renter not understanding what risks he is insuring against.
Rental insurance assumes hull coverage from the owners policy, but doesn't protect against renting from owners who don't have insurance on the asset(this would be impossible, there would be no insurable interest). - especially in this case when the rental agreement specifically says this (apparently).

The sad thing is, that with such a ridiculous hull value (80k) for renters policy which turns the insurance crazy expensive - it would've very likely been a lot cheaper to pay the owner to add the OP as a named pilot in the policy.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Its been almost 8 months since this thread has been active.

If the OP is still here, what ended up happening in this situation? An update would be nice.

Thanks
Click to expand...

The owner hasn't logged into POA since Jan 18.

Sad - would be nice to get an update.
 
mtuomi said:
Of course your owners policy would cover those events.

3 things in this case. 1) Owner rents out an uninsured asset (completely legal), 2) Renter signs a contract assuming responsibility for that asset, again - completely legal.
3) Renter gets insured against some risks, but not the ones he thought of. It's like getting flood insurance and complaining it didn't cover fire.

So - either renter pays out and complies with the rental agreement, or renter contests that rental agreement in court. It's not bad faith insurance, it's just the renter not understanding what risks he is insuring against.
Rental insurance assumes hull coverage from the owners policy, but doesn't protect against renting from owners who don't have insurance on the asset(this would be impossible, there would be no insurable interest). - especially in this case when the rental agreement specifically says this (apparently).

The sad thing is, that with such a ridiculous hull value (80k) for renters policy which turns the insurance crazy expensive - it would've very likely been a lot cheaper to pay the owner to add the OP as a named pilot in the policy.
Click to expand...


The thing is how is predatory, the insurance company knows how most planes get bent, but they do this al la carte thing to hope you'll jack up your premiums enough that they make some $$ but won't know enough to pick the options which are more likely to pay out, like deer/act of god.
 
This thread had me review the agreements for two flight schools/FBOs near me. Two have similar language in their rental agreements as the OP.

"Renters / Students are financially and legally responsible for all damage caused to the aircraft and to property that occurs when the aircraft is directly and indirectly in control and in use by the renter / student. This includes any and all damage caused that is not considered “wear and tear” items. "

"DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: At the termination of the rental period, Renter shall return the Aircraft to Operator in the same condition as when received, excepting reasonable wear and tear. Renter shall be liable to Operator for all damage sustained by the Aircraft during the rental period. Ordinary wear and tear excludes flat-spotting tires, and batteries drained due to leaving on the master switch."

I have both liability and non-owned aircraft physical damage coverage on my non owner's policy, similar to the OP, but my coverage is through Starr, not AIG. So, if I hit a deer (let's assume my landing light works to simplify the scenario) and I cause the same 36K in damage, the "system working" would go like this:

1) The flight school makes a claim on their insurance. Their insurer processes it, but I still have to worry about subrogation.
2) If their insurance company subrogates against me, my policy says "sorry you aren't legally liable" and bows out. It is unclear if they have to pay for my attorney to defend, as they argue the deer strike isn't covered:

From my Starr policy:
"III. DEFENSE, INVESTIGATION AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AND SUITS
We have the right and duty to defend, investigate and settle any claim or suit against an insured covered by this
insurance. But, when the applicable limit of liability has been exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements, we
then are not obligated to pay any claim or judgment, or to provide any defense or pay any expenses. We have no
obligation to defend, pay any expense, investigate or settle any claim or suit not covered in this policy."

So, I think, the only safe out for me is to get a waiver of subrogration from the flight school before the incident?

A twist on the scenario (making the situation look more like the OP) would be:

1) The flight school makes a claim on their insurance. Their insurance denies for some bogus excuse, so now the flight school comes after me.
2) The flight school says their rental agreement makes me liable. I call my non-owner's insurance, and they have the same response as the OP, saying I am not "legally liable" so they decline coverage.

Here, not even a waiver of subrogation helps - is there anything else I can do to prevent a scenario like the OPs? I know buy a plane and have my own policy - maybe the wife will let me after this thread. :)
 
Yes. Be careful. Have the discipline to not run out of gas. Don't fly into bad weather, land instead. Be able and willing to hire a driver to drive you home, or catch a bus, whatever. Come back later and get the plane. Anything but take off with that defect. If you rent, call the FBO and get advice. Good luck on the weekends. Anyway, stay safe.
 
I remember this thread = the OP rented from an owner that did NOT have insurance and the owner expected the renter to cover his aircraft for him. The renter's insurance covered only the renter's liability, and there was none in the case of this accident, so the renter's policy didn't cover anything. Owner then was left with zero coverage and a renter's agreement that said renter was liable for everything.
 
IF the renter accepting liability by way of the rental agreement somehow cancels out his renter's insurance (several posts asserting that in this thread), then that basically means that rental insurance is garbage and useless B/C I don't know a single rental outfit that doesn't make you sign an agreement that says you assume liability for damage caused. On the other hand, I've been in several clubs that simply stipulate you pay the deductible, but those were open pilot.

In other words, I don't think that's an issue here. I tend to agree with the other posters who say this is an issue of the owner not wanting to get his insurance involved and that because it's an "act of God" and "no fault," the owners policy should be on the hook. Even if AIG might be on the hook, they aren't going to accept liability without a fight with the owner's policy first.

By refusing to even get them involved, the owner is screwing the OP badly and I'd burn that bridge all day long over it.

But it'd be interesting to see what actually happened. Someone should PM him. He may get email notifications from those.
 
Last edited:
As an aside from this case, what's considered "renting" in legal terms?

For example, if my friend asks me to help him with maintenance in exchange for being able to fly his plane and I get a non-owners policy for coverage, what's the outcome if something happens? Was he technically "renting" to me and needed a rental policy? 100hr inspections? Or will the non-owner policy cover my liability (at fault, in motion accidents) while the owner's policy will cover no fault accidents? Since it's no fault, does it matter who was flying in regards to the owner's policy?
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
In the OP's situation, there is no insurance he could have gotten to cover him for this? Other than getting on the owner's policy?
Click to expand...

That's what I want to know. IMO, if it's no fault, I think the owner's insurance has to pay out regardless of whether he was named or not as there is no pilot "at fault" in this case. That's how it works with car insurance. If you have insurance and your friend hits a deer, then it's going to be covered regardless of who was named on the policy UNLESS the policy specifically excludes any drivers not named from ever operating the vehicle in any circumstance (some church van/bus policies have this).

And if that's the case, then the owner screwed up anyway by allowing someone to fly his plane when his insurance forbid it. He's liable regardless.

In regards to the rental agreement, "you" didn't bend it. A deer did by no fault of your own so you aren't liable. That's what AIG is asserting.
 
Bonchie said:
IF the renter accepting liability by way of the rental agreement somehow cancels out his renter's insurance (several posts asserting that in this thread), then that basically means that rental insurance is garbage and useless B/C I don't know a single rental outfit that doesn't make you sign an agreement that says you assume liability for damage caused. On the other hand, I've been in several clubs that simply stipulate you pay the deductible, but those were open pilot.....
Click to expand...

It's not that the rental agreement got "cancelled" - the renter agreement covers the renter's liability in case of an accident, and only if the renter is negligent. In this case the renter was not negligent, so the renter's insurance doesn't pay. That's not garbage, that's just the way it is. That the renter took on additional liability by agreeing to cover ANY damage isn't he problem of the renter's insurance policy.

I just went back and re-read some of the earlier posts (not all). I think the owner DID have insurance, but didn't want to report it and risk raising rates, so he wanted the renter to cover what his own insurance should have. Possibly he was renting it out without the proper coverage in his own policy in order to save money, or defraud his insurance carrier.
 
Matthew said:
It's not that the rental agreement got "cancelled" - the renter agreement covers the renter's liability in case of an accident, and only if the renter is negligent. In this case the renter was not negligent, so the renter's insurance doesn't pay. That's not garbage, that's just the way it is. That the renter took on additional liability by agreeing to cover ANY damage isn't he problem of the renter's insurance policy.

I just went back and re-read some of the earlier posts (not all). I think the owner DID have insurance, but didn't want to report it and risk raising rates, so he wanted the renter to cover what his own insurance should have. Possibly he was renting it out without the proper coverage in his own policy in order to save money, or defraud his insurance carrier.
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I'm agreeing that rental insurance isn't garbage. I was saying IF that was the case, it would be. But that's not the case IMO. The fact that he signed a rental agreement assuming liability for damage wouldn't cancel out his renter's insurance IF he was actually liable for the damage. That's what the rental policy is there for. To cover you for damage you are assuming liability for.

I agree the owner is the shady one here. This seems like a case of the owner not wanting to get his insurance company involved when they are almost assuredly the ones liable since it was "no fault."
 
BTW, how in the world could 36k worth of damage get done to a 75' Archer if it was intact enough to taxi back to the hanger?

A totally overhauled engine with new cylinders is only like 15k for an 0-360. New prop and body work to the cowling still isn't going to get it anywhere near 36k.

Again, it seems like the owner was trying to screw the OP big time.
 
Bonchie said:
Read my post again. I'm agreeing that rental insurance isn't garbage. I was saying IF that was the case, it would be. But that's not the case IMO. The fact that he signed a rental agreement assuming liability for damage wouldn't cancel out his renter's insurance IF he was actually liable for the damage. That's what the rental policy is there for. To cover you for damage you are assuming liability for.

I agree the owner is the shady one here. This seems like a case of the owner not wanting to get his insurance company involved when they are almost assuredly the ones liable since it was "no fault."
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see it now.

I also wonder how this all played out.
 
sblackb said:
Debated where to post this, but while I'm still in flight training, I feel like this is an issue that will affect more than just students, but possible many renter.

It all started in November on a three hour tour with my CFI to get my night requirements in. I really don't like the idea of flying at night as a low time VFR pilot and have been pushing this dual time off to the bitter end. I had knocked out all my other required time, with the exception of the night work, a little more hood time, and some solo work. I rent a plane from an individual who has a renters agreement that states if I bend the 75 Archer, I pay to fix, so I took out a non-owned (renters) policy through AIG via AOPA for $80k hull and $1mm liability. (About $950 for the year) Of course that was the furthest thing from my mind as we lifted off into the dark at 3dw headed for JLN for some landings.

After handling those well, and being surprisingly less terrified of landing in the dark, we headed down to HFJ to do some more work. Instructor wanted me to land with no runway lights to make sure I knew how in case lights wouldn't come on. After landing reasonably well the first lap, we then were going to perform a no landing light scenario. I was able to set that one down on pavement as well, I raised the flaps and started the roll for takeoff when a buck charged in front of the plane and went through the prop, down the cowl, and landing gear. I quickly shut it down a brought the plan to a stop. I was able to still taxi to the ramp and luckily there was a crew there to help get the deer off the runway before a jet that was arriving 20 minutes later landed. We had a much longer trip back to 3dw as you might imagine that night.

So, the next day I talk to my insurance company and the owner of the plane. We go through an info gathering phase for a couple weeks only to have AIG come back and deny the claim stating I wasn't legally liable for the damage since it was "act of God" and siting an exception buried in the policy that states the policy does not cover liability I assume. AKA, my rental agreement. And, since the owner refuses to turn it into his insurances since he didn't tell them he was renting the plan, I don't have a way of forcing AOPA / AIG to the table unless I sue them personally. The total bill is coming to $36k, and I've had two lawyers review the contracts and agree this is insurance bad faith, but I'd end up most likely spend $8 - 10k to get this to court with about 70% chance of reclaiming the $36k, but probably not legal fees.

My reason for posting is two fold:

1. See if anyone has experience with this and any advice on dealing with insurance companies like this.
2. Make sure those with non-owned policies (Especially ones through AOPA / AIG) understand that they may only cover the owner's deductible, your negligence as a pilot, and specified legal fees. That leaves a lot of gray areas that you are on the hook for.

The whole thing has had me pretty bummed out on flying, but I went ahead and finished my night requirements before Thanksgiving and now just have 5 hours of solo time to do. I'm basically spending my airplane purchase fund getting this guy's plane fixed.

Am I getting screwed or and I just screwed? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes.. you are getting screwed.

The owner is likely required to notify his insurance company of any incidents requiring repair..whether he claims it or not. I am all but certain that it is in his policy language. If he wants to force you to pay, he needs to notify his insurance, and then they will subrogate against you (and your insurer). His insurer has deeper pockets and can go after your rental policy insurer. And.. it would be much better for the owner to notify his insurance company, than for them to find out about it second or third hand... if he wants to keep it insured with them.

It goes without saying you need to get a new rental insurer, and that you probably wont be flying that guy's planes again.
 
steve_il said:
"Renters / Students are financially and legally responsible for all damage caused to the aircraft and to property that occurs when the aircraft is directly and indirectly in control and in use by the renter / student. This includes any and all damage caused that is not considered “wear and tear” items. "
Click to expand...

You should never agree to a clause like that. Well, I don't think it's legally enforceable as written anyway.

As written, It allows someone to rent an airplane to you, and while you're doing the warm-up, they can take their fuel truck and deliberately ram into you and then force you to buy them a new one.
 
my take is that aig knows that the owner's policy is not going to pay. im sure it clear as day (as much as any legal document is) that the owners policy does not cover commercial use of the aircraft and probably not even flight training for anybody other than the owner. so aig denies it a hoping that the policy holder does not take legal action. i would bet just the threat of legal action from the renters lawyer would go a long way towards getting AIG to loosen up a bit.

bob
 
Just thought I should tie a bow around this and let you all know how this turned out. I hired a lawyer and had to push the airplane owner to sue me to get AIGs attention. They appointed a lawyer, who was great, and we worked back and forth until we got to a place where we settled. Airplane owner was paid for the dammages and also got a new engine out of the deal. I will be I out a couple grand, but feeling a whole lot better than when I wrote the initial post.

My initial comments/warnings are unchanged. I hope all renters out there understand what is not covered under their policy and how that relates to the aircraft owners policy and obligation to tender a claim. Thanks for everyone who added input to this and helped guide me to a successful conclusion.

Blue skies...
 
Lando said:
I can't remember ever landing without landing lights during training - is that really a normal thing to do???
Click to expand...

I've never been required to land without actualy runway lights (though I have accidentally taken off without turning them on), but I've had to do plenty of landings with no taxi/landing light as the bulb kept buring out in the rental plane at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top