Rental "damage", after return

[rocketflyer84]

On a recent vacation a family member rented from an FBO. Rentals were made from this FBO before so the transaction and flight were smooth. After the flight the aircraft was returned and checked back in by FBO personnel without incident. Invoice was paid and that was that. No issues with the aircraft were observed before, during or after flight.

5 days later FBO calls to say that a crack on the windshield was discovered and they want to start the process of filing a claim against the renter's insurance. FBO states that the during the preflight by the next renter the crack was discovered and the windshield will likely need to be replaced. The FBOs logic is that the damage must have occurred during the last flight and thus the last renter is responsible. 4 days elapsed between the rental flight and this pre-flight discovery by the next renter. A lot could have happened in 4 days.

My advice was to tell the FBO that's too bad, but no way is an insurance claim against the renter acceptable. The FBO accepted return of the aircraft and noted no issues with the airframe. They can't un-do the fact that they accepted the aircraft back and made no adverse claims regarding obvious issues.

Does anyone have experience with such a situation?

An initial call to the renter's insurance company not surprisingly finds them rolling their eyes but the FBO is insisting on filing a claim. They clearly don't want to be out of pocket their own deductible. Obviously this FBO won't be seeing any business from the family next year. Any advice on next steps? It seems likely the renters insurance company is likely to tell the FBO to take a hike but time will tell.

 

[schmookeeg]

The FBO can't initiate a claim on someone else's policy. He needs to stand firm, tell them to pound sand, and let them lawyer up if they're so sure he broke their windshield. Let them try to prove it, I can't imagine how they would.

Was this on a C172 or similar? Hard to imagine what bonehead FBO would alienate a renter over a few hundred dollars.

 

[NJP_MAN]

Thats not the kind of damage that a renter does to an airplane IMO. Unless it is an AA5 or something similar where a renter could put weight on it and crack it. This sounds more like the cost of doing business as a rental place.

 

[vintage cessna]

On a recent vacation a family member rented from an FBO. Rentals were made from this FBO before so the transaction and flight were smooth. After the flight the aircraft was returned and checked back in by FBO personnel without incident. Invoice was paid and that was that. No issues with the aircraft were observed before, during or after flight.

5 days later FBO calls to say that a crack on the windshield was discovered and they want to start the process of filing a claim against the renter's insurance. FBO states that the during the preflight by the next renter the crack was discovered and the windshield will likely need to be replaced. The FBOs logic is that the damage must have occurred during the last flight and thus the last renter is responsible. 4 days elapsed between the rental flight and this pre-flight discovery by the next renter. A lot could have happened in 4 days.

My advice was to tell the FBO that's too bad, but no way is an insurance claim against the renter acceptable. The FBO accepted return of the aircraft and noted no issues with the airframe. They can't un-do the fact that they accepted the aircraft back and made no adverse claims regarding obvious issues.

Does anyone have experience with such a situation?

An initial call to the renter's insurance company not surprisingly finds them rolling their eyes but the FBO is insisting on filing a claim. They clearly don't want to be out of pocket their own deductible. Obviously this FBO won't be seeing any business from the family next year. Any advice on next steps? It seems likely the renters insurance company is likely to tell the FBO to take a hike but time will tell.

My experience with rental aircraft is that it is rare when someone will own up to damage. As for advice as to what to do next. Nothing. Wait and see what the FBO does.

 

[Clark1961]

I had a crack develop while the 'kota was setting in the hangar this winter. Plastic breaks. The ****er for me is that the plastic was only three years old.

Anyway, no impact that I know of, just temperature change.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I'd tell them to take a hike. If I did not find the damage, and the FBO did not note any damage after the aircraft was turned in, they get to eat the claim. You don't call me a week later claiming I broke something because it was found later. Unless you can prove I did it, I'd tell 'em to pound sand. If they want to force the issue, so be it, but I wouldn't rent from them ever again.

 

[vintage cessna]

There are some types of damage that it is obvious that it happened the last time the aircraft flew. The fact that it was not discovered immediately is really not relevant. The OP says cracked windshield, not much of a description to make a determination if it was damaged or just cracked on its' own. Doesn't sound like the OP'wasn't even on the flight.

 

[vintage cessna]

If the FBO does not own the airplane, my experience is the FBO in a situation like this where the damage is minor, would rather sock the owner with the bill rather than **** off the customer. Might be more to the story.

 

[rocketflyer84]

There are some types of damage that it is obvious that it happened the last time the aircraft flew. The fact that it was not discovered immediately is really not relevant. The OP says cracked windshield, not much of a description to make a determination if it was damaged or just cracked on its' own. Doesn't sound like the OP'wasn't even on the flight.

Correct, I was not in the flight but did see a photo of the damage. It's a crack about 4-5 inches long coming from the bottom on the co-pilots side. Could have been from an impact of some sort but it's not exactly a smashed windshield. As someone above said sometime these things just get old and crack. Also could have been a pre-existing micro-crack that expanded at some point. Could have been a variety of different things but wasn't noted when the plane was returned and looked over / tied up by FBO personnel prior to closing out the rental and paying up.

If it was some sort of internal issue or something with the avionics that would only be noticed in the next flight I could see the FBO wanting to question the last person that flew the plane, but with visible external damage it seems clear to me that's for the FBO to check on return of the aircraft.

Once they accept possession of the aircraft that's when they need to note such visible issues of concern. After that? They can pound sand at that point and then fire the lazy FBO employee that was too lazy to do a proper check-in post rental. The later assuming that they truly believe it was the fault of the renter and aren't just trying to take advantage of a renter's insurance to avoid their own out of pocket costs.

 

[docmirror]

Simple cold expansion crack. They happen all the time in winter. If someone was pre-heating the engine, or had the engine started and put on the defrost, or cabin heat anything with a heat change in winter will strain the plexi and crack it. Heck, it can crack just sitting in the sun.

No claim, go away.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Yeah, definitely no way I'd give them a dime or even my insurance info.

BTW, while the product cost isn't that bad, the labor to change a windshield in a 172 is substantial (and, if anything like a 182, a completely miserable job, right up there with changing a fuel bladder).

 

[jesse]

As someone that is running a small rental business, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would go after someone over a cracked windshield days later. Unless I saw a video on Youtube of the guy taking a baseball bat to it or something.

Had a guy flat spot a tire, landed with the brakes on, tire had 30 hours on it. I spent some time trying to decide if it would be worth trying to collect but ultimately came to the realization that it is a $65 tire and the guy is flying the airplane often. He is learning to fly. Flat tires happen.

Now if he flat spots it the day after I put a new one on...I might start to change my tune.

 

[Clark1961]

As someone that is running a small rental business, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would go after someone over a cracked windshield days later. Unless I saw a video on Youtube of the guy taking a baseball bat to it or something.

Had a guy flat spot a tire, landed with the brakes on, tire had 30 hours on it. I spent some time trying to decide if it would be worth trying to collect but ultimately came to the realization that it is a $65 tire and the guy is flying the airplane often. He is learning to fly. Flat tires happen.

Now if he flat spots it the day after I put a new one on...I might start to change my tune.

Keep the tire in the hangar as a training aid - explain what happened and how to avoid it. Easy enough and fair to your students.

 

[jesse]

Keep the tire in the hangar as a training aid - explain what happened and how to avoid it. Easy enough and fair to your students.

Wasn't my student, I'm not doing the majority of the instruction right now, sent a picture to the other instructor and using it as a training aid is exactly what he is doing.

For training purposes..here it is..sure went through a lot of rubber, lol. You can see how it happened on landing since the outside of the tire would touch first. Went through at least 12/32nds of rubber.

As to damage happening to rental airplanes it's not really the pilots I worry about. It is the line crew at various FBOs.

Tough business though, very thin margins, can only afford to "eat" so much damage that didn't have to happen. Some places handle that better than others.

 

[Clark1961]

Wasn't my student, I'm not doing the majority of the instruction right now, sent a picture to the other instructor and using it as a training aid is exactly what he is doing.

For training purposes..here it is..sure went through a lot of rubber, lol. You can see how it was the outside of the tire that touched first.

I know of at least one school that would keep flying that tire - no cords showing. Vibrates somewhat...

 

[jesse]

I know of at least one school that would keep flying that tire - no cords showing. Vibrates somewhat...

Yeah, I've seen plenty that would keep running it, but I like things to be right. I didn't see it on the preflight (I was distracted by a pretty girl on the ramp) but knew immediately someone flat spotted it after about 5 feet of taxing. Vibration on takeoff was substantial.

I've seen the local FSDO get pretty upset over tire condition of rentals. Since they're just down the ramp...it's a pretty good idea to avoid that.

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah, I've seen plenty that would keep running it, but I like things to be right. I didn't see it on the preflight (I was distracted by a pretty girl on the ramp) but knew immediately someone flat spotted it after about 5 feet of taxing. Vibration on takeoff was substantial.

I've seen the local FSDO get pretty upset over tire condition of rentals. Since they're just down the ramp...it's a pretty good idea to avoid that.

Gotta agree with making things right. Changed a tire on the 'kota last month 'cause the tread was gone. Still legal to fly but close enough to change the tire during the annual inspection. Anyway, equipment lasts longer when it is maintained.

 

[Henning]

Unless they can find a point of impact, a radiating crack in a window is a 'wear and tear' / maintenance issue. The adjuster will have a tough time getting it past the file manager. Sometimes owners get paid small questionable claims to keep business relationships. As far as against the rental insurance, I think it's going to be denied.

Have him give the insurance info, and call first! Better yet, have the insurance contact him. This is what he is paying for, representation, as much as any physical claim. He should let the insurance company set the guy straight, or pay it. Either way your buddy is in good shape.

 

[Henning]

The FBO can't initiate a claim on someone else's policy. He needs to stand firm, tell them to pound sand, and let them lawyer up if they're so sure he broke their windshield. Let them try to prove it, I can't imagine how they would.

Was this on a C172 or similar? Hard to imagine what bonehead FBO would alienate a renter over a few hundred dollars.

No, he needs to call his insurance man and tell him what's going on. It's the insurance company's job to tell him to go pound sand, that's why you buy insurance.

 

[Henning]

People really need to read the "My Responsibilities" section of their policies, you're supposed to inform them of anything as quickly as you can, this is something you report, since this may lead to something the insurance company may have to pay on, whether the claim or the court costs.

 

[rocketflyer84]

People really need to read the "My Responsibilities" section of their policies, you're supposed to inform them of anything as quickly as you can, this is something you report, since this may lead to something the insurance company may have to pay on, whether the claim or the court costs.

The renter's insurance company was contacted when the issue was raised by the FBO. As there was no claim at that point it was more of a "what if the FBO pushes the issue" conversation.

The insurance company's attitude was that the FBO would most likely need to pound sand on this one. They said if the FBO pushed for the renter to pay a claim could be filed and the adjuster would most likely tell the FBO (or the FBOs insurance) to prove their case or buzz off.

Once the rental is returned all is clear. It's the responsibility of the FBO to raise issues of concern at that point. The pilot preflights the plane to check its condition before flight and before accepting legal responsibility for the aircraft; similarly the FBO needs to inspect the plane on return to make sure the condition is satisfactory for them to retake legal responsibility over the aircraft's condition. If they do a poor job of the later then the FBO assumes the risk of anything that was missed by either party just like the pilot assumes the risk of an obvious defect missed in preflight. In this case the issue could have occured after in the time the plane sat there on the ramp.

If the FBO wants to claim damage sometime later then they have 100% of the burden to show that it was caused by the renter. Once they accepted back the airplane without issue the airplane is their legal responsibility. Absent a video or clear before and after photos taken on return if the airplane clearly proving it was the renter's fault then that burden of proof won't be met and it will be their responsibility.

We'll wait and see what the FBO does.

 

[Henning]

The renter's insurance company was contacted when the issue was raised by the FBO. As there was no claim at that point it was more of a "what if the FBO pushes the issue" conversation.

The insurance company's attitude was that the FBO would most likely need to pound sand on this one. They said if the FBO pushed for the renter to pay a claim could be filed and the adjuster would most likely tell the FBO (or the FBOs insurance) to prove their case or buzz off.

Once the rental is returned all is clear. It's the responsibility of the FBO to raise issues of concern at that point. The pilot preflights the plane to check its condition before flight and before accepting legal responsibility for the aircraft; similarly the FBO needs to inspect the plane on return to make sure the condition is satisfactory for them to retake legal responsibility over the aircraft's condition. If they do a poor job of the later then the FBO assumes the risk of anything that was missed by either party just like the pilot assumes the risk of an obvious defect missed in preflight. In this case the issue could have occured after in the time the plane sat there on the ramp.

If the FBO wants to claim damage sometime later then they have 100% of the burden to show that it was caused by the renter. Once they accepted back the airplane without issue the airplane is their legal responsibility. Absent a video or clear before and after photos taken on return if the airplane clearly proving it was the renter's fault then that burden of proof won't be met and it will be their responsibility.

We'll wait and see what the FBO does.

Good, that's exactly what needs to happen. The minute anything happens, you call your insurance person and they take over handling it, you go relax, you're done. That's why we insure, so we don't have to worry.

 

[vintage cessna]

The renter's insurance company was contacted when the issue was raised by the FBO. As there was no claim at that point it was more of a "what if the FBO pushes the issue" conversation.

The insurance company's attitude was that the FBO would most likely need to pound sand on this one. They said if the FBO pushed for the renter to pay a claim could be filed and the adjuster would most likely tell the FBO (or the FBOs insurance) to prove their case or buzz off.

Once the rental is returned all is clear. It's the responsibility of the FBO to raise issues of concern at that point. The pilot preflights the plane to check its condition before flight and before accepting legal responsibility for the aircraft; similarly the FBO needs to inspect the plane on return to make sure the condition is satisfactory for them to retake legal responsibility over the aircraft's condition. If they do a poor job of the later then the FBO assumes the risk of anything that was missed by either party just like the pilot assumes the risk of an obvious defect missed in preflight. In this case the issue could have occured after in the time the plane sat there on the ramp.

If the FBO wants to claim damage sometime later then they have 100% of the burden to show that it was caused by the renter. Once they accepted back the airplane without issue the airplane is their legal responsibility. Absent a video or clear before and after photos taken on return if the airplane clearly proving it was the renter's fault then that burden of proof won't be met and it will be their responsibility.

We'll wait and see what the FBO does.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. That being said, your attitude about turning in the plane without comment from the FBO and thereby relieved of responsibility is one of the reasons why I grew to hate having my plane on leaseback.

I don't know of any FBO that conducts business like Enterprise car rental. It just can't be done like that. Unfortunately, you can't rely on the renters to have any integrity when it comes to damage. The average renter has no idea how to properly operate an airplane with care. I finally reached the limits of my tolerance and pulled the aircraft.

I'm surprised the FBO even called you, usually the owner just eats it .

 

[mkosmo]

I spent some time trying to decide if it would be worth trying to collect but ultimately came to the realization that it is a $65 tire and the guy is flying the airplane often.

Perhaps I need to learn to shop better, but where can I find a $65 tire?

 

[PPC1052]

you call your insurance person and they take over handling it, you go relax, you're done.

I agree with the sentiment to go relax, but you may not be done. You do have to still cooperate with the defense, meaning that you still need to participate in discovery (statements, depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, etc.) if that occurs, and attend trial, if it gets to that.

 

[James331]

I agree with the sentiment to go relax, but you may not be done. You do have to still cooperate with the defense, meaning that you still need to participate in discovery (statements, depositions, interrogatories, requests for production, etc.) if that occurs, and attend trial, if it gets to that.

Even without insurance you can relax on this subject, this isn't going to go to court over a 172 windshield, especially this many days after the fact.

 

[rocketflyer84]

I don't know of any FBO that conducts business like Enterprise car rental. It just can't be done like that. Unfortunately, you can't rely on the renters to have any integrity when it comes to damage.

When it comes to obvious external issues on the airplane like a cracked windshield, damage to the airframe / skin, prop and such I think an FBO does need to act a bit like Enterprise car rental.

If the FBO calls me at some point well after the rental and check-in concluded and says "hey we found a crack in the windshield / ding in the skin / crack on the prop" then they can go pound sand.

I'm not going to act in bad faith and try to cover anything up that happened and hope they don't notice, but equally I expect the FBO to not try and play silly games a while later and have 're-dos' on their post-rental check-in of the aircraft when at that point there are a lot of other things that could have cracked a windshield / dinged the skin and such. If there's proof that something really happened during the rental and was missed by all parties then there's a conversation to be had, but otherwise it's their problem.

But in regards to this specific case, yes it's basically waiting for the FBOs next move and if they decide to pursue the insurance company already said they will handle the case and investigate appropriately.

 

[Henning]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. That being said, your attitude about turning in the plane without comment from the FBO and thereby relieved of responsibility is one of the reasons why I grew to hate having my plane on leaseback.

I don't know of any FBO that conducts business like Enterprise car rental. It just can't be done like that. Unfortunately, you can't rely on the renters to have any integrity when it comes to damage. The average renter has no idea how to properly operate an airplane with care. I finally reached the limits of my tolerance and pulled the aircraft.

I'm surprised the FBO even called you, usually the owner just eats it .

Oh yes it can, it just requires the effort to do so.

 

[docmirror]

Perhaps I need to learn to shop better, but where can I find a $65 tire?

http://www.desser.com/store/products/600%2d6-4-PLY-HIGH-PERFORMANCE-RETREAD-AIRCRAFT-TIRE.html

 

[vintage cessna]

Oh yes it can, it just requires the effort to do so.

Obviously it is not impossible. But just think about what would have to be done and the added expense. This could be a case where the renter blasted through an area of debris with no effort at avoidance.

Since aircraft rentals are not conducted the same as car rentals that is why some owners just say the heck with it.

You have to put your airplane on rental for a few years and see what happens. We get these one sided stories ( this one a second hand account of one side) of how yet again an FBO is trying to screw a renter and everyone piles on about how outrageous it is. People are lucky anyone is willing to engage in a leaseback.

 

[bnt83]

I've seen the local FSDO get pretty upset over tire condition of rentals. Since they're just down the ramp...it's a pretty good idea to avoid that.

They must be driving around on smoke breaks looking at tires

 

[Henning]

The person you hand the keys to does a walk around with the comp sheet from before the flight. Takes a couple minutes for a person who is already on the payroll anyway. Most FBOs are far from slammed busy. It would add no cost save a piece of paper to do it right, just effort.

 

[rocketflyer84]

Obviously it is not impossible. But just think about what would have to be done and the added expense. This could be a case where the renter blasted through an area of debris with no effort at avoidance.

A quick visual inspection of the aircraft for obvious external damage like that cited in this case takes 2-3 minutes tops.

At virtually evey FBO I've ever seen that translates into someone behind the desk having 2-3 minutes less time to play solitare on the computer. There's no real added cost to the FBO taking their reaponbility on check-in seriously. If the FBO chooses to be lazy about it then they're assuming the risk given that after the fact it's often impossible to prove that external damage was the fault of the renter.

The FBO in this case at best is going to irk their own insurance company during the claims process. "You didn't throughly inspect the aircraft on return? OK we need to talk about your business practices."

 

[MauleSkinner]

You have to put your airplane on rental for a few years and see what happens. We get these one sided stories ( this one a second hand account of one side) of how yet again an FBO is trying to screw a renter and everyone piles on about how outrageous it is. People are lucky anyone is willing to engage in a leaseback.

I had an FBO owner ask me once if I'd be willing to go in on a leaseback with another owner. After a 5-minute walk looking at their rental fleet, all of which had paint and interior within the last 3 years, it was obvious to me that it would be a bad idea. Most of those airplanes looked worse than the Archer I had been renting nearby that had 15-year-old paint and interior.

 

[vintage cessna]

The person you hand the keys to does a walk around with the comp sheet from before the flight. Takes a couple minutes for a person who is already on the payroll anyway. Most FBOs are far from slammed busy. It would add no cost save a piece of paper to do it right, just effort.

BS. The employee would have to accompany the renter on the pre flight. Sometimes the airplanes are scattered all over the airport. Then the same thing when the plane is returned. This would require more employees at the FBO. It would also require a larger block time for the rental. Margins are too tight for this kind of operation.

 

[vintage cessna]

A quick visual inspection of the aircraft for obvious external damage like that cited in this case takes 2-3 minutes tops.

At virtually evey FBO I've ever seen that translates into someone behind the desk having 2-3 minutes less time to play solitare on the computer. There's no real added cost to the FBO taking their reaponbility on check-in seriously. If the FBO chooses to be lazy about it then they're assuming the risk given that after the fact it's often impossible to prove that external damage was the fault of the renter.

The FBO in this case at best is going to irk their own insurance company during the claims process. "You didn't throughly inspect the aircraft on return? OK we need to talk about your business practices."

What happens to business when that phone call is missed? Is the airplane right outside the office or 1000 ft away. Do you roll the plane to check for bald/flat spots on the tire during preflight? How about when you return it ? Do you check to see if the firewall is crinkled, before and after? I could go on and on. The employee is going to be out there more than a couple of minutes, especially after you return.

 

[comanchepilot]

Car rental companies are pulling this scam alot lately. Five rentals later they find a bumper scratch or a ding or bent A arm, or a scratch on the top of the car. It is especially prevalent in europe when you do not get the 'insurance' that costs twice what the car rental does - and you are not an elite member of their program.

The simple issue here is proof. If they did not inspect the airplane after every rental and rely on the renter to do it . . . . they've abandoned all chance of collecting.

Now - the OP - do you ever want to rent from this place again? If no - tell them to pound sand. If yes, go have a rational discussion about it with the owner. Remember how old the windscreen is - what condition it is in now [scratches, chips. etc] and remember the phrase 'betterment.'

 

[rocketflyer84]

What happens to business when that phone call is missed? Is the airplane right outside the office or 1000 ft away. Do you roll the plane to check for bald/flat spots on the tire during preflight? How about when you return it ? Do you check to see if the firewall is crinkled, before and after? I could go on and on. The employee is going to be out there more than a couple of minutes, especially after you return.

That's a business decision for the FBO to make. If they forgo a proper post-flight inspection then they, mostly, forgo the option of making claims against the renter for a lot of things--especially external damage.

The FBO can't have it both ways.

 

[vintage cessna]

Car rental companies are pulling this scam alot lately. Five rentals later they find a bumper scratch or a ding or bent A arm, or a scratch on the top of the car. It is especially prevalent in europe when you do not get the 'insurance' that costs twice what the car rental does - and you are not an elite member of their program.

The simple issue here is proof. If they did not inspect the airplane after every rental and rely on the renter to do it . . . . they've abandoned all chance of collecting.

Now - the OP - do you ever want to rent from this place again? If no - tell them to pound sand. If yes, go have a rational discussion about it with the owner. Remember how old the windscreen is - what condition it is in now [scratches, chips. etc] and remember the phrase 'betterment.'

Exactly. If the renter doesn't own up to it, you may as well forget it, which is what will probably happen in this case. This wasn't caught until days later but there were no other renters in the interim, so I wouldn't compare it to your car rental example.

This is just one of the reasons I would advise against a leaseback.

 

[Henning]

Car rental companies are pulling this scam alot lately. Five rentals later they find a bumper scratch or a ding or bent A arm, or a scratch on the top of the car. It is especially prevalent in europe when you do not get the 'insurance' that costs twice what the car rental does - and you are not an elite member of their program.

The simple issue here is proof. If they did not inspect the airplane after every rental and rely on the renter to do it . . . . they've abandoned all chance of collecting.

Now - the OP - do you ever want to rent from this place again? If no - tell them to pound sand. If yes, go have a rational discussion about it with the owner. Remember how old the windscreen is - what condition it is in now [scratches, chips. etc] and remember the phrase 'betterment.'

Why?!? It's not his job, and if he has insurance, it's not even his place since it is no longer his sole liability. It's actually foolish because if things get stupid and suddenly he needs a lawyer, if he didn't abide with a 'timely reporting' clause (I will bet dollars to donuts it's in every one of these policies) then the insurance can deny him representation.

Aren't you a lawyer? You should know better. Just like when accused of a crime, you shut the **** up and let your lawyer handle it. In these types of civil situations of liability, the insurance company is your lawyer, you pay them a retainer every year in your premium, use them.