Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
I have a student who is going to use a friends plane for his training. What should we do about getting apropos insurance? I imagine I'll need separate insurance as a non owned CFI.
My policy has a clause that covers me in non-owned rental aircraft and I think Ed's does too, so I believe he was covered by the policy he has on his own plane.
And even if there's a no subro clause, that just covers against them coming against you for the insurers losses. You are still uncovered for liability if you kill Farmer Brown's prize bull in your off-airport landing, unless you are a named insured on a liability policy.
I didn't know you were an aviation adjuster.Do you have something in writing from your insurer to back that with or are you speculating? I have never heard of that or seen a similar situation played out on a claim. As an adjuster, I have never seen liability severed like that in an accident.
OK - you own the plane.
Jeannie is flying the plane, and she's a named pilot but not a named insured.
Jeanie has a problem and lands off airport and kills farmer brown's prize bull.
Farmer Brown sues Jeanie (as the pilot), and you (as the owner), and probably Cessna and Lycoming too.
Your insurance will cover your liability as the owner, but not Jeanie, as she's not a named insured, only a named pilot. Your insurance will cover your hull damage, and depending on the subrogation clause, may or may not try and recover their loss from Jeanie.
Now, if she IS a named insured, she's covered too.
Bottom line is that unless you are a named insured on a policy somewhere, you're naked as far as coverage goes.
I didn't know you were an aviation adjuster.
I didn't know you were an aviation adjuster.
The aviation policies I've read say in writing whom they cover and whom they don't. And, as you said earlier, you really need to look at (and understand) the individual policy. Unlike auto insurance, which for policy reasons, tends to be fairly uniform, aviation policies are not.
An aside on the "open pilot warranty." What I think a lot of people miss is exactly what it is. It's a promise by the policy-holder to the insurance company that no one will act as PIC of the airplane without certain minimum qualifications. If the policy-holder breaks that promise with respect to a claim, the insurance company doesn't have to pay out. (There may be other policy provisions that change that result, such as "naming" a pilot with the insurer's approval).
Henning is stating facts without basis and making assumptions not stated. First, even if the loss is not staggering, if a third party is involved, they may well go after everyone involved. The biggest issue is that unless you are a named insured, you have no paid legal defense, and that can run tens of thousands of dollars even if you win. Further, in the "bull" scenario, it would not be easy to prove liability of the aircraft owner who is not piloting the aircraft at the time. No doubt the owner's insurer will spend some of their legal defense money on behalf of the owner trying to shift the blame to the pilot, who is now having the finger pointed by the attorneys for both the plaintiff and the owner -- and that runs up the cost of the pilot's legal defense. Finally, without a "waiver of subrogation" clause, subrogation is entirely possible. Only if there is an explicit "waiver of subrogation" clause is this remedy for the insurer barred.Reality is they will go after the insurance that is in effect and leave it at that because it will be sufficient to cover even the most prized Bull. The insurance covers the "incident", that's everything including the bull. The insurance could come after Jeannie but there's a no Subro clause so they can't.
I guess Henning has no assets to protect, but I suspect Jeanie does. Further, subrogation only involves what the owner's insurer paid to the owner. If the jury finds the pilot negligent, the plaintiff is going to have a finding against the pilot, too, no matter what is collected from the owner's insurer -- and not all states are "joint and several."Right, I'm only talking about what happens, not what is theoretically possible. The only time an insurance company tries to collect "blood from a turnip" is if you p- them off. Otherwise they want the file closed. I can't count how many good subro actions I've submitted to the subro guys in legal just to have them look at it and throw it away, "Not worth pursuing". The have legal departments on staff yes, but they're busy. Unless the person they are subrogating against is insured for it or is wealthy, it's rare on these small (less than $100k) claims to see subro over money because it's a loser for them. They know that unless the figure is trivial (again a waste of their time) you will be driven into bankruptcy and they will have wasted all that time and money. They typically only do that if you p- them off.
That said, I have nothing against non owner policies, but not having one won't keep me from flying.