PPL Training and Deer Strike - Read your Insurance Policy

rocketflyer84 said:
AIG is acting as expected though given the facts provided. Agree that its debatible if hitting a deer at night with no lights is an act of God. Best bet is likely for the renter to be determined to have been negligent here, oddly enough.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the OP told the adjuster that he was landing with the landing light intentionally off?
 
Tflhndn said:
Regardless of what you may feel right now, this is not your monkey and this is not your circus.

This mess belongs to the owner of the plane who tried to cheap out on insurance and is trying to pass the buck onto you.
Click to expand...
I would agree, except that he signed a rental agreement stipulating that he was responsible. He might be able to fight it, but that will take legal assistance.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I agree that practicing night landings is a good thing to do, but had you had the light on, you may very well would have seen the deer in time to avoid it. You could very easily argue that the deer strike was related to your action of landing without a landing light.
Click to expand...

That's supposition. Aircraft aren't as maneuverable on the ground as a car and the braking systems are nowhere near as good. Also, the lighting is generally inferior, certainly on a trainer.
 
paflyer said:
That's supposition. Aircraft aren't as maneuverable on the ground as a car and the braking systems are nowhere near as good. Also, the lighting is generally inferior, certainly on a trainer.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying that he was doing wrong, but as others have said, in a liability sense, intentionally operating with the landing light off was out of the norm and could certainly have contributed to the accident in question.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not saying that he was doing wrong, but as others have said, in a liability sense, intentionally operating with the landing light off was out of the norm and could certainly have contributed to the accident in question.
Click to expand...

No light landing for training at night is a normal training evolution. The proper precautions were followed with regards to making a landing first to try to scare away animals.

My grief with this is the declaration of an act of God while the airplane is in operation. If that's the case then what else is an act of God? Carb ice? External Icing? Bug in the pitot? Electrical failure? Major break on the airplane? Mid-air?

Why can't an insurance company just be up front with this and provide a renter's policy that covers the renter?
 
sblackb said:
... Let's start with the plane owner and the rental agreement. The agreement very clearly details out his insurance doesn't cover damage caused to the plane and stipulates the need for the renter to have a policy to cover. ...
Click to expand...

does the agreement not cover damage to airplane due to renter negligence or ANY damage to airplane?

any chance your homeowners policy will cover?
 
Last edited:
So reading into this a bit more with the OP's replies.

It sounds like the renter's insurance is worthless in this case, as it is written to be a supplement to an airplane owner's policy that allows renting the plane to a student. If we give the owner the benefit of the doubt, maybe he was not aware either that this gap in coverage exists with renter's insurance.

If you feel this is the case, and are feeling charitable you might offer to split the cost of the repair with the owner. It also might end up being a lot less than 36k. I don't know if you ever said what kind of plane this is, but you can buy a nice 172 for that.

On the other hand, if the owner was renting the plane without the right insurance, and probably without the required 100hr inspections, maybe he deserves to pay for it himself.
 
It is a 75 Archer....... 36 grand should just about total it...:dunno:...

I still say the CFI has maximum exposure...

But... The owner knew it was being used to train, so he eats the mess... IMHO.
 
bflynn said:
No light landing for training at night is a normal training evolution.
Click to expand...
Is there an FAA publication that describes conducting such training? I did not do any such training as a student pilot (wish I had, but it was not part of my training).

Again, I am not against it, but it is hardly a 'standard' practice, which may help the OPs case with his policy.

bflynn said:
Why can't an insurance company just be up front with this and provide a renter's policy that covers the renter?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but what I find sad is that the premiums they are charging for that limited coverage are very high considering what they won't cover.
 
dell30rb said:
If you feel this is the case, and are feeling charitable you might offer to split the cost of the repair with the owner. It also might end up being a lot less than 36k. I don't know if you ever said what kind of plane this is, but you can buy a nice 172 for that.
Click to expand...
That was my suggestion earlier if the OP's ultimate desire is to avoid a legal battle and not burn bridges.
 
I thought I was being overly cautious one time when I started requesting some insurance details from an owner before I agreed to rent. Things were legit, but I would have also ended up thinking my renter's insurance would have kicked in just like the OP did.
 
bflynn said:
No light landing for training at night is a normal training evolution. The proper precautions were followed with regards to making a landing first to try to scare away animals.
Click to expand...

They could have done the no-light landing practice at an airport with better fencing and lower chance of a large animal on the runway.

I'm not against the practice of no-light landings. I've done them myself, both intentionally and when the bulb went dead during flight. The insurance company needs to be given a reason to pay the claim, and this is a reason.

I would force the owner's hand to file a claim. This isn't going to get resolved until:
1) all of the potentially applicable insurance companies (including the CFIs, and I hope he has insurance) have been notified and they start pointing fingers at each other;

2) when step one goes full-stop, the OP gets a lawyer involved.

I would also write a personal note to the President of AOPA to inform him that the brokerage that represents their name is selling a crap insurance product and acting in bad faith.

$36K is a lot of money - worth burning a bridge or two.
 
Last edited:
Bobanna said:
I proceeded similarly (years ago) while renting two different bonanzas from two different owners. In retrospect, I was a "named pilot" in both aircraft on the owners insurance policies, but I realize (now) that I wanted to be a "named insured" if I wanted to avoid subrogation against me or my estate in the event of a loss. I had a smooth million of coverage on my non-owned, and I believe there was protection there; a "named insured" status would have been a way to increase my protection. Btw, both insurance carriers were fully aware of the rental/lease arrangements and approved of it...but maybe they were thinking they would pay-off the owner and then subrogate against me (?) in the event of a loss.

In the case described by the OP, it seems to me that the owner/renter was out-of-bounds with his insurance, and failed to make sure that his interests were protected in case his renter had an accident.
Click to expand...

I'm no so sure the owner didn't know exactly what he was doing. He was trying to save a buck on his own insurance. Is it normal for an aviation insurance co to drop a customer if they find out about something like this?

Also, you bring up a good point about "named insured" and "named pilot". There is a lot of confusion between the two, but there are big differences.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Is there an FAA publication that describes conducting such training? I did not do any such training as a student pilot (wish I had, but it was not part of my training).

Again, I am not against it, but it is hardly a 'standard' practice, which may help the OPs case with his policy.


Don't know, but what I find sad is that the premiums they are charging for that limited coverage are very high considering what they won't cover.
Click to expand...

Nothing formal written anywhere I've seen, played with landing with no landing light before, but landing with no runway lights, F that.

There is a reason some bush ops wil use flame cans, car headlights, solar lights, etc. landing with no RUNWAY lights IMO is just stuuupid
 
James331 said:
Nothing formal written anywhere I've seen, played with landing with no landing light before, but landing with no runway lights, F that.

There is a reason some bush ops wil use flame cans, car headlights, solar lights, etc. landing with no RUNWAY lights IMO is just stuuupid
Click to expand...

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.

At least referencing landing without a landing light, Without runway lights I am not going to try it, at least until someone I trust can give me some good instruction on how to do so.

Maybe if I have Reil Lights or VASI/PAPI but no runway lights I would try it, but I have tried a totally unlight runway and decided it was a good way create an NTSB report.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
Is there an insurance policy available that a renter may purchase that covers an 'act of God'? Did you have an attorney read through your original rental agreement with the owner since the accident? I'm inclined,at this moment, to say that the owner has more of a problem than yourself... of course, depending how far you want to push it. One more thing, do you know if the plane is owned out-right or if there is a lender? Crummy luck at any rate.
 
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.

At least referencing landing without a landing light, Without runway lights I am not going to try it, at least until someone I trust can give me some good instruction on how to do so.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...


But nothing saying to practice landings without the landing light as far as I recall.
 
Bobanna said:
yes, verify that your non-owned policy is refusing to pay and file formal complaint letters with AOPA, the specific agent/agency, and your state's Insurance Commissioner (this is very heavy-handed); you are the victim of a misrepresented insurance product. Name them in the counter-suit.
Click to expand...

Yep definitely not a bad idea to file that complaint. I've asked for a quote before from AOPA for renter's insurance and read tons of their promotional material about it, nowhere does it mention that for full coverage the owner of the airplane must have insurance that allows renting.
 
James331 said:
There is a reason some bush ops wil use flame cans, car headlights, solar lights, etc. landing with no RUNWAY lights IMO is just stuuupid
Click to expand...

One of the more creative ones, a mechanic at an ag strip in SC told me they used CD's turned upside down mounted on a stick. The landing light reflects off of them and voila, you have runway lights.
 
I don't know but common sense would tell me that it may not be the best idea to practice unlit night landings on a field where wild animals may be on the runway. :yikes:

(Probably good to save those for a secure towered airport where the runways will (should) be clear.)

A slight twist to the phrase "deer in the headlights"...
 
Last edited:
bravocharlie said:
Is there an insurance policy available that a renter may purchase that covers an 'act of God'? Did you have an attorney read through your original rental agreement with the owner since the accident? I'm inclined,at this moment, to say that the owner has more of a problem than yourself... of course, depending how far you want to push it. One more thing, do you know if the plane is owned out-right or if there is a lender? Crummy luck at any rate.
Click to expand...

People are confusing Liability insurance (aka renters insurance) with Hull insurance. Hull Insurance should cover most acts of God, Liability insurance won't.
 
brcase said:
People are confusing Liability insurance (aka renters insurance) with Hull insurance. Hull Insurance should cover most acts of God, Liability insurance won't.
Click to expand...

If you read the first paragraph of the first post you will see the renter's insurance included 80k in hull coverage.
 
dell30rb said:
One of the more creative ones, a mechanic at an ag strip in SC told me they used CD's turned upside down mounted on a stick. The landing light reflects off of them and voila, you have runway lights.
Click to expand...

That's creative! I remember when AOL send disks, than later CDs, would have been a good use for that junk :yes:


orange said:
I don't know but common sense would tell me that it may not be the best idea to practice unlit night landings on a field where wild animals may be on the runway. :yikes:

(Probably good to save those for a secure towered airport where the runways will (should) be clear.)

A slight twist to the phrase "deer in the headlights"...
Click to expand...

No such animal (see what I did right there :rofl: )

But yeah, those buggers get in everywhere, even towered airports with prison style fences manage to get critters.

To make it worse some agencies will only allow hunters to take deer on the airport out if you donate all the meat to the food bank, vs being able to keep the meat for yourself, a bit of work for really no reward, thus no one bothers to clear the deer out from our airport, a airport which gets late night IFR medevac traffic.
 
brcase said:
People are confusing Liability insurance (aka renters insurance) with Hull insurance. Hull Insurance should cover most acts of God, Liability insurance won't.
Click to expand...

Indeed, which is why I believe the owner should be sweating a tad, not the op.
 
dell30rb said:
If you read the first paragraph of the first post you will see the renter's insurance included 80k in hull coverage.
Click to expand...

Yes... but "renters" hull insurance may not be the same as "owners" hull insurance. The idea behind renters hull coverage would normally be that it covers you if the owner's policy doesn't name you as the "insured." If a renter is declared a "named insured" under the owner's policy rider permitting renting then the renter would normally just be liable for the deductible on the owner's hull policy. The extra cost (if any) of that rider would be built into the rental price.

Think about it this way. If 20 people rent a plane worth $40k and each of them plus the owner gets a 'hull policy' those 21 people might be spending something like $25k a year to insure an asset worth $40k. :yikes: The correct scenario is that the owner has a hull policy that allows renting, and the renters purchase insurance against the deductible of that policy plus liability insurance. That means each of the 20 renters is paying perhaps $200 a year for insurance vs. >$1k if they each had hull policies.

I'm not aware of any insurance that provides insurance for the situation described... specifically one rents from an owner that has not properly insured the aircraft and is operating the aircraft in violation of their policy. It appears that may be why the insurance companies are throwing their hands up here. Same idea as if you try to use your personal car as a for-hire taxi with normal insurance and then get in an accident. The insurance companies are just going to see that as their out and will throw their hands up.

Until anything else happens, this is all the owners problem now. Let him sue the renter, but as others have said there is plenty of grounds for a counter suit... especially if the owner misrepresented their dodgy insurance situation with the renter.
 
Last edited:
Can the OP claim "act of God", too? I know, it probably depends on the wording of the rental agreement.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Think about it this way. If 20 people rent a plane worth $40k and each of them plus the owner gets a 'hull policy' those 21 people might be spending something like $25k a year to insure an asset worth $40k. :yikes: The correct scenario is that the owner has a hull policy that allows renting, and the renters purchase insurance against the deductible of that policy plus liability insurance. That means each of the 20 renters is paying perhaps $200 a year for insurance vs. >$1k if they each had hull policies.
Click to expand...

Except the OP did pay a "full coverage" amount for the hull insurance. I'd really like to see a copy of that policy's exclusion language.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Except the OP did pay a "full coverage" amount for the hull insurance. I'd really like to see a copy of that policy's exclusion language.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I suspect that policy was written with the intention that it was meant for a renter and thus wasn't a primary policy on the aircraft.

i.e. the owner should file a claim with their insurance and then that insurance company would reach out to the renter's insurance. If the renter tries to file directly on hull they might say "hey that's what this is for... the owner needs to file". Seems like that's what happened here.
 
All, thanks once more for the continued input. I will try and get my policy and renter's agreement scanned and redacted this weekend to let you all take a peak. The AIG policy is essentially identical to the one posted above.

The owner refuses to engage his insurance, but the rental agreement is pretty clear that I'm responsible for damage when the plane is in my possession. It does however have an odd statement about his coverage details being available upon request immediately following the statement that his insurance does not cover anything. When I have a lawyer draft a letter to AOPA and AIG, I might send one his way to request this.

Again, my fear is that if I drag this to court, the rental agreement will still have me liable, now for damages and court costs and anything else they tack on. I could have AIG defend me, loose, and then not have coverage under my policy for the "liability I assumed." Essentially I have no faith AIG at this point would act in good faith.

AOPA and AIG are selling a policy that in my opinion, is only good in very specific and undisclosed circumstances - and that is counter to their advertisements. I bet there are thousands of pilots flying with this crap insurance thinking they are covered, but may not be. If it's deductible coverage, they should sell it as that and I'm unclear on why I paid 700+ extra for hull coverage. Tack on the lousy customer service at AOPA, and I know who won't get my policy next year or my $59 for a membership renewal. $36k is a lot of money to me that they are trying to get out of, but I bet I can cost them more than that in lost revenue in the long run. I plan on flying for a long time and will tell everyone I know about their bad faith. That said, I will take the advice to write them and give their leadership a chance to make it right.
 
sblackb said:
AOPA and AIG are selling a policy that in my opinion, is only good in very specific and undisclosed circumstances - and that is counter to their advertisements. I bet there are thousands of pilots flying with this crap insurance thinking they are covered, but may not be. If it's deductible coverage, they should sell it as that and I'm unclear on why I paid 700+ extra for hull coverage. Tack on the lousy customer service at AOPA, and I know who won't get my policy next year or my $59 for a membership renewal. $36k is a lot of money to me that they are trying to get out of, but I bet I can cost them more than that in lost revenue in the long run. I plan on flying for a long time and will tell everyone I know about their bad faith. That said, I will take the advice to write them and give their leadership a chance to make it right.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of many AOPA services (they have wasted my time and money), but the fact is they are selling a product that provides protection against liability and subrogation when the client is dealing with a legitimate, properly insured organization renting an aircraft. In the majority of cases it will provide those protections. "Covers you when the owner's primary policy does not" is certainly seems misleading on its own in this case, but given what is written in the policy and the way the vast majority of aircraft renters do business it may be tough to claim bad faith.

I certainly think a statement indicating that their policy is not suitable in lieu of the owner's policy would be reasonable to expect. Its certainly not straightforward, and if you are marketing to new pilots and those with limited insurance experience it pays to spell things out, especially when you claim to represent the interest of those folks!

The real problem here is the aircraft owner. There is a reason legitimate operations maintain appropriate insurance, and whether he is ignorant of this or is trying to cut costs he doesn't have business renting aircraft. The bad faith is primarily in his dealings.

Its unfortunate you got caught up with this kind of an operation and I hope you are able to resolve the situation with minimal headache (financial and otherwise).
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Except the OP did pay a "full coverage" amount for the hull insurance.
Click to expand...
Even of that had been what the OP bought, it likely still wouldn't pay. You have no insurable interest in someone else's property. That's why renter's insurance is really liability insurance. Similarly, the insurance company isn't going to insure you for liability you volunteer for since that would give the insured the ability to unilaterally expand the coverage and increase the insurance company's exposure.
 
dell30rb said:
If you read the first paragraph of the first post you will see the renter's insurance included 80k in hull coverage.
Click to expand...


80k in hull insurance IF the renter is proven to be negligent and that negligence caused the loss. For instance, if the guy base to final stalled and spun the plane in, 80k can go to the owner to help replace the loss.

The key here is was the pilot negligent. Call your insurance commissioner all you want... Hitting a dear is NOT a negligent event and your renters coverage won't pick it up.

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Yes... but "renters" hull insurance may not be the same as "owners" hull insurance. The idea behind renters hull coverage would normally be that it covers you if the owner's policy doesn't name you as the "insured." If a renter is declared a "named insured" under the owner's policy rider permitting renting then the renter would normally just be liable for the deductible on the owner's hull policy. The extra cost (if any) of that rider would be built into the rental price.



Think about it this way. If 20 people rent a plane worth $40k and each of them plus the owner gets a 'hull policy' those 21 people might be spending something like $25k a year to insure an asset worth $40k. :yikes: The correct scenario is that the owner has a hull policy that allows renting, and the renters purchase insurance against the deductible of that policy plus liability insurance. That means each of the 20 renters is paying perhaps $200 a year for insurance vs. >$1k if they each had hull policies.



I'm not aware of any insurance that provides insurance for the situation described... specifically one rents from an owner that has not properly insured the aircraft and is operating the aircraft in violation of their policy. It appears that may be why the insurance companies are throwing their hands up here. Same idea as if you try to use your personal car as a for-hire taxi with normal insurance and then get in an accident. The insurance companies are just going to see that as their out and will throw their hands up.



Until anything else happens, this is all the owners problem now. Let him sue the renter, but as others have said there is plenty of grounds for a counter suit... especially if the owner misrepresented their dodgy insurance situation with the renter.
Click to expand...


Completely agree here.

This is why Farmers Insurance has such a large stake in the disruptive taxi scheme.

Once you go online in your ride sharing app and offer your vehicle as a way to make money through its use, 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 (Uber has revised their coverage to provide collision and other than collision when you accept a ride. Check your providers coverage carefully!) So what happens if you wreck while waiting for a ride? Your personal policy won't cover the damage to your car and Uber/Lyft won't cover the car either. Whoopsie.

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
 
Last edited:
The OP said the renter's agreement recommends the renter get a policy to cover damage. The OP did. The owner made sure the OP's coverage does no good (it could have covered the deductible, maybe, but not much else because there was no negligence).

Is there ANY policy a renter could have gotten for this, other than being added to the owners policy?

Would an umbrella policy work for this?
 
Last edited:
Tj1376 said:
Hitting a dear is NOT a negligent event
Click to expand...

My argument, and it is the insurance company that needs to prove it isn't a valid argument, is that hitting a deer when intentionally landing without the landing light on *is* negligent.

Note that what may be negligent from an insurance perspective does not mean it rises to "careless and reckless" in the view of the FAA. Totally separate issues.

The OP probably needs an hour or two consult with an aviation insurance attorney.

BTW, who is the owner's insurer?
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
The OP said the renter's agreement recommends the renter get a policy to cover damage. The OP did. The owner made sure the OP's coverage does no good (it could have covered the deductible, maybe, but not much else because there was no negligence).

Is there ANY policy a renter could have gotten for this, other than being added to the owners policy?

Would an umbrella policy work for this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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...

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/
 
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...


Hahahha

I'm the guy who helped design the coverage.

I'm not wrong. :)

TJ


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