problems

jesse said:
Yeah rental insurance would be nice. But the issue here isn't the insurance. It's the fraud.
Click to expand...

Bingo, hence the fight. It doesn't seem the OP is denying the original damage caused. Good for her, that's what one should do. However, she's being blamed for damage she DIDN'T cause. That is a big deal.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Bingo, hence the fight. It doesn't seem the OP is denying the original damage caused. Good for her, that's what one should do. However, she's being blamed for damage she DIDN'T cause. That is a big deal.
Click to expand...

Had the FBO dealt with her insurances claims rep/attorney right after the incident, none of this would have ever happened.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the problem -- she doesn't have insurance and doesn't want to pay out-of-pocket for an attorney.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the problem.

Renters insurance for 10k (to cover deductibles and minor boboos) and 250k third party is something like $250 through either Avemco or Chartis. That's what, 2.5% of the cost of a PPL these days ?
 
weilke said:
Yep, that's the problem.
Click to expand...

The REAL problem is that no one explains to the new student pilots what renter's insurance is and the need for it. When you get an FBO that tells a student that they are covered, what is that person supposed to do?
 
It's easy to understand why they might do a little soft-shoe. Telling somebody they must write a fairly big check for something they probably wouldn't understand anyway might not be real good for their business.

Greg Bockelman said:
The REAL problem is that no one explains to the new student pilots what renter's insurance is and the need for it. When you get an FBO that tells a student that they are covered, what is that person supposed to do?
Click to expand...
 
I would say that if the OP can prove to a court that the FBO really did tell her that she was covered by the FBO's policy, she can probably avoid the subrogation. Of course, that will take hiring a lawyer, and finding other renters to testify that they were told the same, and that will cost money out of pocket.
 
Ron Levy said:
I would say that if the OP can prove to a court that the FBO really did tell her that she was covered by the FBO's policy, she can probably avoid the subrogation. Of course, that will take hiring a lawyer, and finding other renters to testify that they were told the same, and that will cost money out of pocket.
Click to expand...

Pay now, or pay later. Either way you're gonna pay. I believe that's the take-away here....
 
Ron Levy said:
I would say that if the OP can prove to a court that the FBO really did tell her that she was covered by the FBO's policy, she can probably avoid the subrogation.
Click to expand...

How would the FBOs statements to the renters eliminate the right to subrogation that is based on the insurance contract between the FBO and the ins-co as well as applicable state law ? (a waiver of subrogation is issued by the insurance company, not the insured)
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The REAL problem is that no one explains to the new student pilots what renter's insurance is and the need for it. When you get an FBO that tells a student that they are covered, what is that person supposed to do?
Click to expand...

There should be something that you have to sign with the student pilot application. A flight-students bill of rights (or more precisely commandments):

#1 Thou shalt not ever pre-pay for your license.
#2 Thou shalt carry 'renters insurance'.
#3 Thou shall reckon all who have taught you this art equally dear to you as your parents and in the same spirit and dedication impart a knowledge of the art of flying to others.
#4 Thou shalt carry 'renters insurance'.
#5 Thou shalt not borrow large sums of money to get a worthless piece of plastic.
#6 Thou shalt smack anyone who telleth you that 'you are covered by our insurance' or 'we have never held a student responsible' upon his head with a heavy object until blood cometh out.


:wink2:
 
weilke said:

#6 Thou shalt smack anyone who telleth you that 'you are covered by our insurance' or 'we have never held a student responsible' upon his head with a heavy object until blood cometh out.


:wink2:
Click to expand...

There is a flight school at the airfield I fly at that effectively does say "you are covered by our insurance":

http://www.takewinginc.com/documents/HowCoveredAreYou.pdf

I've met the owner briefly and have heard her reputation in hangar talk - I suspect if anyone tried to smack her over the head they'd get double-smacked back. :wink2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
There is a flight school at the airfield I fly at that effectively does say "you are covered by our insurance":

http://www.takewinginc.com/documents/HowCoveredAreYou.pdf
Click to expand...

Will their insurance defend YOU in a civil action ?

Even they recommend renters insurance if you want to have the $2500 deductible covered (paying $250 to cover a loss-risk of $2500 is probably expensive in that case)

Oh, and then they have this nugget in there:

* Adhere to the FAR/AIM's and TakeWING's Policies and Safety Procedures.

Oh, so the cross-wind component was 11mph and our internal policy says 10, sorry waiver of subrogation go bye-bye.
 
weilke said:
It's not complex at all. The risk is all on you.
Click to expand...

So I've got my $1M/100K policy, and EAA (Young Eagles) has an additional $1M/100K policy that's also supposed to cover me. What's the "who/which covers and in what order"?
 
weilke said:
It's not complex at all. The risk is all on you.
Click to expand...

Good way to look at it. I was thinking of CAP which has self-insurance (Corporate) on some flights with lots of liability (all) on not just the PIC, but the entire crew, and then completely different scenarios when flying at the direction of the Air Force under a live mission.

The chart for the three different mission classifications and insurance is mind-blowing.

In addition, most "renters" policies specifically exempt CAP flying and many aren't aware of that. AOPA's underwriter makes adding a CAP rider policy a simple checkbox, that many don't notice and don't pay for.

Considering these are generally new Cessnas worth a lot more than the average rental Cessna "beaters", many pilots don't even think about the additional liability, nor things like what happens if the worst happens with a Cadet aboard doing an Orientation flight.

A couple of pilots did over $20K in damage to a T182T here in the not too distant past during a proficiency flight, and the left seater and the CFI split a $5000 bill. And they probably got off easy.

Flying "other people's airplanes" when not a named-insured on your own policy that covers your very specific flying, can be a very expensive game of Russian roulette if you have any assets at all.

Often "owner" policies really aren't covering your backside either, if you've set up a typical LLC ownership arrangement. It all depends on the wording of the policy. Any wording that you're covered in "rental" aircraft is if the LLC rented the aircraft, not the pilots of the LLC. A very deep "gotcha" that can bite "owners". The LLC has the insurance, not the individual.

It's a jungle out there!
 
murphey said:
So I've got my $1M/100K policy, and EAA (Young Eagles) has an additional $1M/100K policy that's also supposed to cover me. What's the "who/which covers and in what order"?
Click to expand...

They are the only charity that gives a hoot about your actual liability situation.

I was thinking about the various amateur medical transport outfits.
 
denverpilot said:
In addition, most "renters" policies specifically exempt CAP flying and many aren't aware of that. AOPA's underwriter makes adding a CAP rider policy a simple checkbox, that many don't notice and don't pay for.
Click to expand...

$50 checkbox.

Often "owner" policies really aren't covering your backside either, if you've set up a typical LLC ownership arrangement. It all depends on the wording of the policy. Any wording that you're covered in "rental" aircraft is if the LLC rented the aircraft, not the pilots of the LLC. A very deep "gotcha" that can bite "owners". The LLC has the insurance, not the individual.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that one. Good point.
 
weilke said:
* Adhere to the FAR/AIM's and TakeWING's Policies and Safety Procedures.

Oh, so the cross-wind component was 11mph and our internal policy says 10, sorry waiver of subrogation go bye-bye.
Click to expand...

Well, I read their rental agreement and it seems mostly reasonable - Except they require prior permission for each particular grass runway you want to land on (hey, better than not allowing it at all), and they require you to file a flight plan for any cross country flights at night, >100nm, or if you're a student. No mention of weather conditions.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, I read their rental agreement and it seems mostly reasonable - Except they require prior permission for each particular grass runway you want to land on (hey, better than not allowing it at all), and they require you to file a flight plan for any cross country flights at night, >100nm, or if you're a student. No mention of weather conditions.
Click to expand...


The rental contract refers to 'shall operate Aircraft in
accordance with applicable Federal, State, Local and TakeWING’s rules and regulations.' . So there are either additional such policies in a folder somewhere or they can be made up on the spot to fit the situation.

It also mentions that: weather conditions locally, en route, and at the destination are commensurate with the pilot's certificates, ratings, and experience, any endorsements or limitations placed in Renters logbook by TakeWING flight instructors, and within the capabilities of Aircraft.

Typical lawyerese ambiguity language. Write a clear contract and insert conditions and references to unclear outside conditions that you control :wink2: .
 
weilke said:
How would the FBOs statements to the renters eliminate the right to subrogation that is based on the insurance contract between the FBO and the ins-co as well as applicable state law ? (a waiver of subrogation is issued by the insurance company, not the insured)
Click to expand...
If the renter could prove the FBO indemnified the renter in that fashion, the FBO would be on the hook, not the renter. The renter might have to pay the insurance company, but then the FBO would have to cover the renter's payment to the insurer.
 
I read the entire thread and insurance fraud SCREAMED at me. The OP should hire an independent Certified Fraud Examiner (official title). She has to fight credibility with credibility. In her original, she damaged a wingtip; the engine teardown was the OWNER's option and WAS NOT caused by her. There were obvious airworthiness issues (should be noted in the a/c maintenance log) - (also check on that strut issue; see if it's in the log).

I would argue that the CFI who called the feds that earned her the 709 ride was complicit in the fraud. The school was obviosly in the red when they concocted this scheme and they thought they could get a check before saying cyonara (sp?)

Ron Levy said:
We're not talking about children here, we're talking about theoretically responsible adults being given custody and control of a $100K vehicle. If such a person trusts the undocumented word of the provider that the renter is already covered, the renter exhibits naivete that is beyond reasonability.
Click to expand...

How many of us would be guilty of this? Discussing accidents and liability (I'd imagine) is nearly taboo at a flight school, but I have no statistics to support or refute my intuitive claim. I had to specifically ASK about it and was referred to the Chief CFI to get an answer (and for the record, I was told that I was covered by the school's policy while a student). Heck, for fun, I pay close attention to CFIs faces when I talk about NTSB reports at the school...you could hear a roach pee on cotton (though I don't do it around new students).
 
Ron Levy said:
If the renter could prove the FBO indemnified the renter in that fashion, the FBO would be on the hook, not the renter. The renter might have to pay the insurance company, but then the FBO would have to cover the renter's payment to the insurer.
Click to expand...

So now you got to sue the FBO to retrieve damages caused by your own admitted negligence using your own recollection of the assurances by the FBO as evidence. Yeah, that's the ticket.

'Its deja-vu all over again'. Wasn't there another poor sap maybe 2 years ago, (either here or on the red board), who dinged a flight-school 150 on his third solo and got caught by the 'you are covered through our insurance' lie. To make matters worse, the plane was a leaseback and the owner and the operator had different opinions on the insurance situation. At some point, he was offered to settle for 10k but declined, it went before a judge and he was forced to settle for substantially more on the day of trial. Again, none of this would have happened for the low price of $176.

The flight-school in oregon mentioned above is a bit different. You have a contract that makes certain assurances regarding the insurance coverage in the 'insurance disclosure' portion referencing a particular policy and providing a point of contact at Falcon to verify that level of coverage. In a dispute about who pays what, you have at least a piece of paper to hold on to.
 
weilke said:
Here is the Chartis application for non-owned coverage:

http://www.chartisinsurance.com/ncg...iles/Nonowned_Aircraft_Liab_tcm295-207501.pdf

$5000 hull to cover deductibles is $94,
250k third party is a whopping $80

I was wrong, basic non-owned coverage is not $250, it's $174 (+ $1 for terrorism coverage).
Click to expand...
That doesn't buy you much. Most likely in training you're probably going to bend metal (prop strike) and probably not hurt anyone. So you're spending $180 per year to get $5,000 worth of coverage.

You screw up, get hit with a prop strike, FBO sues you for the deductible which eats up that $5,000 then teh insurance coverage turns around and sues you for what they paid...another $25,000.

You need a LOT of hull coverage to really be protected and that takes a lot of money. I can pay $5,000 out of pocket. I can't easily pay $50,000 out of pocket.

I see people walking around with a $200 renters insurance policy all the time thinking they're protected. In reality they could still end up owing a LOT of money if they had an incident and they're totally unaware.
 
jesse said:
You screw up, get hit with a prop strike, FBO sues you for the deductible which eats up that $5,000 then teh insurance coverage turns around and sues you for what they paid...another $25,000.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, I have allways carried enough non-owned coverage to put new engines and props on anything I fly. Compared with the overall cost of flying, the cost for that coverage is insignificant.

30k hull is $330 for singles without CFI endorsement.
 
jesse said:
That doesn't buy you much. Most likely in training you're probably going to bend metal (prop strike) and probably not hurt anyone. So you're spending $180 per year to get $5,000 worth of coverage.

You screw up, get hit with a prop strike, FBO sues you for the deductible which eats up that $5,000 then teh insurance coverage turns around and sues you for what they paid...another $25,000.

You need a LOT of hull coverage to really be protected and that takes a lot of money. I can pay $5,000 out of pocket. I can't easily pay $50,000 out of pocket.

I see people walking around with a $200 renters insurance policy all the time thinking they're protected. In reality they could still end up owing a LOT of money if they had an incident and they're totally unaware.
Click to expand...

That's why the estimate I got to add-on to my current policy was $1100. To make sure everything was covered.
 
Iirc from my aircraft insurance days, it's possible for an FBO to purchase a waiver of subrgation for students, but not many did. It was also our policy at the time not to subrgate against a non-owner policy holder for losses in excess of the policy limit if the fbo was also one of our insureds. So, it may be to the student's advantage to find out who covers the fbo, and purchase a non-owner policy from the same underwriter.
 
weilke said:
Here is the Chartis application for non-owned coverage:

http://www.chartisinsurance.com/ncg...iles/Nonowned_Aircraft_Liab_tcm295-207501.pdf

$5000 hull to cover deductibles is $94,
250k third party is a whopping $80

I was wrong, basic non-owned coverage is not $250, it's $174 (+ $1 for terrorism coverage).
Click to expand...


So, when you do $30k worth of damage (not difficult to do) you are on the hook for $25,000 in subrogation.

$5000 policies are only of value for small damages or if you rent from somewhere that has a "No Subro" rider on their insurance policy. To me that policy sounds to be of very limited usefulness, I would not pay $174 for that coverage. The coverage I would want is to protect me from the extreme event, not the minor event. What good is covering the deductible when you're going to be on the hook for the big bill?
 
Henning said:
$5000 policies are only of value for small damages or if you rent from somewhere that has a "No Subro" rider on their insurance policy.
Click to expand...

The cheesehead had posted the rental policy of a place with a no-subrogation rider. I posted the $176 basic policy in response to that post, that is the only time such a minimal policy makes sense, mostly as a pre-paid legal plan.

The reason why I keep saying that 'this wouldn't have happened with a non-owned policy' (even a 5k or 10k one) is that the initial report to the insurance company wouldn't have come from the flight-school. The student would have reported the scraped wingtip to the ins-co with photos etc. If the flightschool had put an engine overhaul into the claim at that point, the fraud would have come up. The only way this scam worked is by the flightschool filing the accident report and using their own mechanic to make up the damage.

I think 30k hull ($330 premium) is reasonable amount for your regular trainer aircraft, the great majority of claims should be covered with that amount.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top