Peter wrote:
This illuminates the “unaware” in a new light
Well, it has never been contested that Henderson organised the flight. In the case of a club renting an aircraft to a member, the club is not involved in either organising or carrying out the flight.
That sounds about right for here also, with the exception that the insurance company cannot go after a party named on the policy.
This is why e.g. when I did a 1hr flight with an FI some years ago he insisted on being named on the insurance. It would have covered him in case of a crash where he got blamed for it, etc. Normally, FIs don’t bother.
as long as the owner is unaware of the flight being illegal (including such things at being overweight), they will pay.
This illuminates the “unaware” in a new light 
Doesn’t this depend on the jurisdiction?
It must, because insurance has its own special branch of law.
whether such overweight was negligence or gross negligence
In Germany (and maybe others) you have the additional “gross negligence” dimension. There must be a “taking the p1ss” threshold everywhere though e.g. a TB20 loaded to 1.5x MTOW. According to the factory, it does fly, and structurally it is ok, but needs a lot of runway
The above Visicover clause is really interesting. I am with them also. Obviously, they put that in specially as a UK GA selling point. 4 adult male Brit POB in a PA28-140… needs no further comment But probably it is only confirming past claim scenarios – otherwise it looks like a hostage to fortune for the insurer.
Peter wrote:
Can someone contribute actual verified reports of insurance either paying, or not paying?
There was a case in Sweden a few years ago when an overloaded PA32 on an illegal taxi flight crashed on takeoff. The aircraft was owned by a club. The insurance company compensated the club in full, but then went after the pilot. This was much discussed in flying club circles and the insurance company in question made a presentation of the case at an annual general meeting of the Royal Swedish Aeroclub (central organisation of Swedish aeroclubs), so this is as “actual verified” as it gets.
Our insurance policies basically say that as long as the owner is unaware of the flight being illegal (including such things at being overweight), they will pay.
arj1 wrote:
or if you put “60” pounds instead of “160” pound, then it might show you’ve made a mistake.
Peter wrote:
and if somebody lies about their weight to the pilot, that gets him off the hook
As Udo also pointed out, in Germany a lot will depend on the order of magnitude:
If a passenger “pimped his weight” by 10kg, nobody will say something. If a 130kg fellow stated that he is 65kg, it would be (in Germany) assumed as gross negligence of the pilot if he blindly believed that.
If you misread 50kg for 60kg in your pen and paper calculation, you should be just fine. If the calculation error you made is leads to the result that the total weight of 4 Person plus baggage plus fuel is just 110kg, it would be gross negligence if you did not double check.
But experience is limited: I personally only know of one case where owner and insurance agreed out of court that the claim is reduced by 15% due to overweight – as it had been a collapsing landing gear in my opinion the insurance could have paid less if they really went in front of a court but obviously (due to some of the reasons Peter mentioned) they rather settled it privately
Doesn’t this depend on the jurisdiction? Without having any decision at hand at the moment I think in Germany it would be discussed whether such overweight was negligence or gross negligence. You cannot exclude overweight as such in general (speaking about Germany), because I could even imagine examples where this might happen without the pilot knowing it. So you would define some limit where it may be excluded as negligence, where the insurance has to pay, and in particular cases where a high amount of overweight was in the plane which should be visible to the pilot. (something like “disregarding due diligence which others would take into account”). But I can imagine that even if overweight had close to nothing to do with the accident itself (to give an example: in-flight electrical failure) then insurance company might – in a first step – obviate paying anything, until question of gross negligence has been settled.
The subtleties of the English language. ’’Provided’’…..‘’.causal factor’’…
What could possibly go wrong with a possible claim?
From Viscover Policy Booklet
Can someone contribute actual verified reports of insurance either paying, or not paying?
I have never heard of them not paying, UK or elsewhere.
As to why they appear to pay out even on over-MTOW crashes, my guess is that
In other words tou guessed😄
@Ibra
(also kidding 
)
Easy really: Just used the measured (varying according tides, wind waves, swell, and surges) balanced take-off distance (not roll distance), the maximum braking coefficient on wet sand with contaminated brake disks an pads, the maximum braking coefficient on wet salty sand with contaminated brake disks an pads, the age and luck vs. experience ratio of the pilot, the CL max at Vr with and without flaps at Vx and Vy, the density altitude correction of 2ft elevation and 12°C, the history of said pilot during his short 40+ years of flying, the possible flaps position for landing and takeoff, the latest edition of the sooo useful crap 413, the age of beloved wifey sipping beer at Glenforsa during this time, the phase of the moon, the flexed or non-flexed power output of the trusty Lyco, and last but not least, the takeoff mass vs. the MTOM of the aircraft divided by the root of the yearly insurance premium.
Despite being below MTOM, and therefore endowed to full insurance benefits in case of mishap, had one of the best flying experiences in my life
