Would some one really buy this airplane?

But that's a detail in the big picture and only in play when if the original repair estimate is less than the cost of invoking the total payout option. When the outcome is in question, or if the owner wants a repair vs replace, a number of other options come into play, most of which involve the insurance company telling the insured what they will and won't pay if the repair vs total option is used.

In one such case it appeared that a falling light fixture struck a VOR antenna and caused the antenna to make a slight dent in the vertical stab. The adjuster told the owner in uncertain terms that they wouldn't pay for that kind of stuff, and the owner should submit a shop estimate of known and contingent damage for purposes of determination which method would be used.

In another case an almost-new King Air was beat to crap and required well over a mil to fix plus a number of months in the shop. The carrier wanted to fix it, the owner refused, and litigation ensued. The carrier finally relented and the owner used the proceeds to buy a new plane.

total amount, which is
Henning said:
Right, that's where the bottomless repair trap comes in. Once they commit to the repair, they will see it through, and all too often there are issues not found until a significant way into the project which bring the costs of repair beyond those of the policy limit. After hurricane Frances the boat I was running got $2.2MM of repairs on a $1.5MM policy because the insurance company's surveyor missed seeing some significant damages.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
But that's a detail in the big picture and only in play when if the original repair estimate is less than the cost of invoking the total payout option. When the outcome is in question, or if the owner wants a repair vs replace, a number of other options come into play, most of which involve the insurance company telling the insured what they will and won't pay if the repair vs total option is used.

In one such case it appeared that a falling light fixture struck a VOR antenna and caused the antenna to make a slight dent in the vertical stab. The adjuster told the owner in uncertain terms that they wouldn't pay for that kind of stuff, and the owner should submit a shop estimate of known and contingent damage for purposes of determination which method would be used.

In another case an almost-new King Air was beat to crap and required well over a mil to fix plus a number of months in the shop. The carrier wanted to fix it, the owner refused, and litigation ensued. The carrier finally relented and the owner used the proceeds to buy a new plane.

total amount, which is
Click to expand...

Can you show me a policy where the insured has the final repair/total choice? Every policy I have ever seen puts that on the insurer. You always have the option of buying the salvage from the insurer.
 
Could make a cool 3D simulator out of it.
 
They don't have the choice, but they often voice an opinion. If the cost is ~equal and/or if a certain outcome can be determined, the adjusters and in-house claims approval will sometimes go either way. The net result is the same to both the carrier and the insured and the paperwork might be identical depending on the insurer. We typically don't have the opportunity to see move than one set of settlement docs, so there's no way to obtain a side-by-side comparison.

PS: Other than my own plane that was clearly a total (nothing bigger than a kitchen table remained intact after the crash) all the claims I'm involved with are the result of ground damage vs. in-flight damage, and where some valuation work or consulting service is sought, usually by the owner.

Henning said:
Can you show me a policy where the insured has the final repair/total choice? Every policy I have ever seen puts that on the insurer. You always have the option of buying the salvage from the insurer.
Click to expand...
 
12 bids so far. I am surprised!

David


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top