Is there a reference to its usage in alleged departures into, or flight in, icing conditions, applicable to insurance payouts?
There is significant UK jurispridence applicable where “gross negligence” is defined as reckless disregard for basic duty of care. See inter alia:
Torre Asset Funding v Royal Bank of Scotland.
Marex Financial v Creative Finance
Winnetka Trading Corporation v Julius Baer
International.Camerata Property v Credit Suisse Securities
Red Sea Tankers v Papachristidis
Great Scottish & Western Railway v British Railways Board
Just because “it isn’t codified in civil law” is not a good getaway strategy – parties to a contract are free to use whatever language they please; and due to their very frequent use of “gross negligence” their Lordships have been forced to come back to the roots of Roman law and opine on what gross negligence is (no surprise, they rejoined 2’000 years of accepted legal opinion…).
The general UK public is still under the (very misguided) impression that UK courts do not distinguish between the two sorts of negligemce, and hark back to the 100 y.o view of “gross negligemce is negligence with a vituperative epithet attached to it”.
Not anymore.
To answer the specific question, it is applicable not only to icing controversies but any contractual event that can generate a payout, as long as you have a “gross negligence” carve-out clause in your contract.
T28 wrote:
as long as you have a “gross negligence” carve-out clause in your contract.
…means eg insurance is rendered fruitless if gross negligence is determined?
Exactly.
Why not post examples of applicable clauses from GA insurances, and relevant case law?
Then, someone reading it can, ahem, become wiser 
arj1 wrote:
ut, just as a crew must always have a plan which allows them to avoid flying into a thunderstorm that appears on their intended route, so they must have a plan to avoid icing conditions more severe than the aircraft’s systems, if any, can cope with,
So EASA is basically saying the same I did: If you have an icing forecast on your intended route, and an aircraft that has no systems to cope with any known icing, you need to fly in a way that you can avoid the ice on the route, e.g. by staying VMC so that you can visually identify moisture and avoid it and by not entering clouds in the critical temperature range.
Therefore according to your quoted document, it is not an offense to commence a flight that leads through areas where you have to expect icing, but it is an offense when you actually experience Icing on such a flight because you did not follow a plan that allowed you to avoid such icing conditions.
I.e. you can get out of the icing area,
This alone is not enough, because the text you cited clearly states:
…so they must have a plan to avoid icing conditions more severe than the aircraft’s systems, if any, can cope with, and to escape from any such icing that is actually encountered
That is an “and”, not an “or”.
T28 wrote:
Exactly
It’s not quite that simple. The insurance would still pay “innocent” parties like pax. In a famous case in Sweden a couple of years ago, a PA32 crashed on takeoff on an illegal charter operation. If you did the calculations it was obvious that the takeoff was unlikely to succeed (so gross negligence) and commercial ops violated the terms of the insurance. Still the insurance company payed in full as the owner (an aeroclub) was unaware of the illegal charter (or at least it could not be proved that they knew). The insurance company then went after the pilot and was awarded damages in court – but that doesn’t mean that the insurance was void.
Well if the court decided to award damages, it must have found that the pilot’s actions have voided the insurance contract… so whether the insurance refuses to pay outright or pays and then sues the party or its estate to recoup costs the end result is the same and is due to voided coverage, and wording similar to “we reserve the right to reduce or cancel compensation in cases of gross negligence” buried somewhere in the contract.
The only practical difference is whether the party originating the damages has sufficient assets to repay damages or not – but whether you’re bankrupt because you owe money to the insurance or the person whose asset you’ve destroyed the result is the same: your liability is not covered.
Also note that recourse can be mandatory (e.g. you drive drunk and the insurance has a legal obligation to sue you for damages) or optional (you cause a road accident due to gross negligence like running a red where thebinsurance is given the option to sue you for damages – which it will ^^).
EASA does mention some models of the SR22T as FIKI approved. See the SR22T specs and related note 4 local copy
Indeed; I reckon they just copied the FAA wording, since the FIKI SR22 is FIKI
Malibuflyer wrote:
This alone is not enough, because the text you cited clearly states: …so they must have a plan to avoid icing conditions more severe than the aircraft’s systems, if any, can cope with, and to escape from any such icing that is actually encounteredThat is an “and”, not an “or”.
:) Then it contradicts that quote “It is often impractical to plan a flight in a way that leaves no possibility for icing conditions to be encountered”.
I mean I read it as: if you see ice forming – get out!
Obviously, minimal amount of ice can be sustained by almost any aircraft…
