What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What insurance does cover

dmattmul

Well Known Member
Listening to a recent I learned from that podcast (I had 3 hours to kill at an airport) about a 210 that lost electrical power and initial thought was the alternator which was kind of true. Apparently, the alternator is a gear driven system that the cotter key become detached, and the castle nut came loose or fell off. Pretty much destroyed the engine. What was interesting is they said their insurance company would have taken care of this if Continental did not step in which they did. The plane made it back to the departure airport ok although they lost all power and had to pump the gear down manually. I would not have thought hull insurance would cover this type of what I would consider a maintenance issue.
 
My previous experience from situations like this, are that the insurance company would have covered all repairs if the failure of the alternator had resulted in an accident which damaged other portions of the airplane. Since the airplane was successfully landed, it wouldn’t have been classified as an accident, so in simple terms it was just a failure of a component of the airplane which is not covered by insurance.
 
Not really...

Years ago we had a flight school with a C-172RG. Climbing through about 1700 feet, an oil galley plug came out (don't ask how, don't know, and the FAA doesn't either). Classic textbook, oil on the windscreen, engine seizure, and subsequent emergency landing. Unfortunately, unable to make the airport and ended up in a clearcut logging area. Destroyed the aircraft. The 110 hour private pilot and his passenger walked away with bruises and scratches.

Insurance covered ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. Apparently there was a clause in the flight school policy about catastrophic engine failures not being covered.

At the time, the aircraft was worth about $60k. Flight school ended up selling what was left for about $12k...

Make sure you READ and understand your insurance policy!
 
Thread drift

Since it's my post maybe ok. In a recent discussion with FSDO (new experimental registration) was reminded to sign the logbook for the conditional exactly as stated in the C&L. One builder who holds a RC signed it as an annual and the insurance company rejected the claim because the airframe was not properly inspected. The FAA guy told the insurance company it's the same inspection. Went to arbitration. Be careful, proper documentation matters.
 
Since it's my post maybe ok. In a recent discussion with FSDO (new experimental registration) was reminded to sign the logbook for the conditional exactly as stated in the C&L. One builder who holds a RC signed it as an annual and the insurance company rejected the claim because the airframe was not properly inspected. The FAA guy told the insurance company it's the same inspection. Went to arbitration. Be careful, proper documentation matters.

Well since words are important, it is a “Condition” inspection - nothing conditional about it….. ;)

But the truly interesting things is that in the past few years, Ops Lims have said something to the effect of “these words or similar” - so you can actually free-lance a bit. But yeah - don’t call it an “annual” - at least not in writing….
 
Years ago we had a flight school with a C-172RG. Climbing through about 1700 feet, an oil galley plug came out (don't ask how, don't know, and the FAA doesn't either). Classic textbook, oil on the windscreen, engine seizure, and subsequent emergency landing. Unfortunately, unable to make the airport and ended up in a clearcut logging area. Destroyed the aircraft. The 110 hour private pilot and his passenger walked away with bruises and scratches.

Insurance covered ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. Apparently there was a clause in the flight school policy about catastrophic engine failures not being covered.

At the time, the aircraft was worth about $60k. Flight school ended up selling what was left for about $12k...

Make sure you READ and understand your insurance policy!

Unusual outlier case. Never heard of it on a personal owner policy.
 
Well since words are important, it is a “Condition” inspection - nothing conditional about it….. ;)

But the truly interesting things is that in the past few years, Ops Lims have said something to the effect of “these words or similar” - so you can actually free-lance a bit. But yeah - don’t call it an “annual” - at least not in writing….

^ ^ ^
What Paul said

Still wondering how conditional ever got in our E-AB vocabulary.
 
C&L

The current 4-page 27-part Conditions and Limitations do not allow for much if any wiggle room for not stating EXACTLY what the exact wording needs to be. Read section 10, it's been in effect for at least the last 6 years. Do not assume close is good enough. Your insurance company will not.
 
From my Operating Limitations dated 10/2016. It does say "... showing the following, or a similarly worded, statement ...".

i-htRhfBQ-M.jpg
 
Last edited:
Agreed

If you want to not use the exact wording that is in your C&L and hope that your wording is similar give it a shot, maybe ok.
 
insurance

How exactly did they explain that a missing condition inspection invalidated the the policy? I've read several aircraft policies and none of them contained direct statement that the a/c must have a current condition inspection
 
Most of them will have an exclusion if you fly the aircraft illegally.

Flying without a condition inspection is illegal.

- mark
 
My insurance claim

Just had to do this unfortunately. My insurance wanted logbook, last BFR, last condition inspection, and last medical. They go by the book. Pays to keep everything current and proper.
Cal
 
So the lesson here is leave the gear up so insurance will cover all of it 🤷🏼*♂️

Unless the adjuster can prove that the engine self-destructed prior to the crash. An NTSB report might find that and that is all the evidence the adjuster needs to exclude the engine from the claim.
 
FAR 43.15

Anyone have any experience with an insurance adjuster asking for the checklist that was used for the condition inspection. Does FAR 43.15 even apply? I use a checklist, but it is rather thin on detailed documentation. I've seen others that are quite detailed. (Tim Olson and E's, both extremely well done)

FAR 43.15 - Additional Performance Rules for Inspection

(1) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall use a checklist while performing the inspection. The checklist may be of the person's own design, one provided by the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected or one obtained from another source. This checklist must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D to this part and paragraph (b) of this section.
 
When I was part of an unfortunate group who had issues with a bad batch of MT prop governors, my insurance company (AIG through Gallagher), covered everything necessary (engine, and prop teardown and repair). They did not cover the PG itself, but covered all damages associated to it's failure. What was interesting was that three of us out of six or seven victims were all with AIG. The first one through the process got denied, but after two of us who followed got covered, the company went back and reversed its decision on the first one.
All paperwork definitely needs to be in order, but once that was verified, they were actually quite progressive in making us whole and happy, at least from my perspective.
 
Last edited:
Anyone have any experience with an insurance adjuster asking for the checklist that was used for the condition inspection. Does FAR 43.15 even apply? I use a checklist, but it is rather thin on detailed documentation. I've seen others that are quite detailed. (Tim Olson and E's, both extremely well done)

FAR 43.15 - Additional Performance Rules for Inspection

(1) Each person performing an annual or 100-hour inspection shall use a checklist while performing the inspection. The checklist may be of the person's own design, one provided by the manufacturer of the equipment being inspected or one obtained from another source. This checklist must include the scope and detail of the items contained in appendix D to this part and paragraph (b) of this section.

Technically 43.15 doesn’t apply to amateur built aircraft because the entirety of FAR 43 doesn’t apply as stated in the very first paragraph, but using one is still highly recommended.
Short of having anything else, the one that is included in advisory circular 90.89B is a good choice since it actually comes from the FAA. That is what we use in our shop for all of our company aircraft with some minor additions/modifications. That make it more specific to RV aircraft.
 
I am not a lawyer, but (my understanding)……
There are ‘strict liability’ states. In these states, any violation of what it says in your insurance contract is grounds to deny a claim.
There are also ‘non-strict liability’ states. In these states, the insurance company cannot deny your claim unless they can show a causal relationship.
So the answers to a lot of the foregoing discussion are, ‘it depends on where the accident took place’.
 
wording

i'm more curios about which particular words in the policy say that the insurance in not in effect if the aircraft has no current CI. i personally have not found such statement. Medical - yes, there is a clause in the policy that specifically says that the pilot has to have a current medial/basicmed. Not so much about BFR and CI...

If there are no such provisions in the policy then it does not matter whether this state is strict liability or not.
 
Back
Top