I am insured with Aviabel via Fernando Urquia who also supplies Aepal. Contact [email protected]
To get back to this topic:
If I rent an airplane that complies with the legal insurance standards and I crash with friends/family I am
- covered for the damage to the plane (minus deductible).
- covered for the damages to the passengers.
- covered for my damages.
A passenger could decide to sue for disability, deprivation of future career earnings etc…
Thanks for any info!
On another note I found this about airplanes insured in clubs (Austria):
Possible recourse of the hull insurer:
In this context, the following legal position is important:
Normally, club members or other users of an aircraft ask whether this aircraft is insured in a hull, in the hope that in the event of damage the damage is covered up to a possible deductible on the part of the comprehensive insurance. The comprehensive insurance covers the damage incurred by the policyholder. A recourse against the policyholder itself is not possible. However, such a recourse can be taken against a third party in accordance with § 67 of the Insurance Contract Act if the legal requirements for this exist. In fact, the insurer follows in the footsteps of the insured person, in our case mostly a club, and can assert claims against a club member acting culpably instead of the association. For a long time there was a belief that club members should be considered as insured persons. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Judgment 7, 1/93 of 17 February 1993, that club members are not to be regarded as third persons. This means that every user of an aircraft, in particular every member of the club has to convince himself that the comprehensive insurance also works in his favor. This can be brought about by changes in the insurance conditions, according to which the insurer waives a recourse against members of the association or other named persons.
Snoopy wrote:
However, the Supreme Court ruled in Judgment 7, 1/93 of 17 February 1993, that club members are not to be regarded as third persons.
From context, you probably mean “club members are to regarded as third persons” or “club members are not to be regarded as insured persons”
aart wrote:
Did they give any reason for the no-go?
It’s been a while so I don’t recall. It could have been that they wouldn’t cover the trip over from the US. I’ve re-applied so we’ll see how it goes this time.
In the UK, to be covered by insurance you have to be a named party on the policy.
So if e.g. I have the plane insured for myself (by name) and “club use” (basically anybody with a PPL, subject to any other limitations e.g. 100hrs P1 min) and a renter crashes it, I will get the payout but the insurer could then go after the renter to recover some of the money they paid out.
So if you rent a plane from a school, the school is covered but you are almost certainly not.
While such recovery is routine in the general insurance business, GA insurers rarely go after such a pilot but they can do especially if the claim is large and they feel the pilot has little in his defence (acted stupidly) and has good assets. A passenger claim could be huge.
A search here for
renter* AND insurance
digs out some relevant threads.
Are there no aviation insurance brokers in Spain? A good broker should not only be able to find you an insurance, should also help you find a good deal. I’d go to a broker and put pressure on him to do the work and get a good deal for you. That’s what they’re paid for.
Where you’re based shouldn’t matter. I know that AXA insures N-reg worldwide coverage, and I believe that Allianz does also. I recently heard that a Swiss broker (AFS in Birrfeld LSZF, I believe) found a very competitive insurer in Belgium, but I don’t know the insurer name or coverage or whether just EASA or also N-reg.
I obtained the insurance policy. I rent the airplane from a club which I am a member of. The airplane is owned by a ltd. company and is provided to the club via this company. Attached is a jpg copy of the insurance policy. Am I safe or not? Thanks!
My understanding is that the insurance is adequate (and fulfills the legal norm) for the holder/owner of the plane.
However, the text I posted above about “Possible recourse of the hull insurer” says that there have been cases where the insurer went after the pilot and sued for damages if he was merely a clubmember (and not the owner himself) renting the aircraft during which time damages against a third party (e.g. passenger lost legs and loses career income worth millions, someone swimming on a beach was hit during a dead stick landing) occurred.
I think this it is crazy that many people seem to rent airplanes without knowing inside out how they will be covered in the case of an accident.
Unclear from this alone.
Leaving alone the coverage limit (passenger liability of 250k is a bit low), the insured is the “registered operator” (“Halter”) of the aircraft. Which means that he is covered for all claims made against him as the operator. Which is important because, subject to certain limits, the operator is liable for any damage caused regardless of how it came about and who is at fault.
For claims that can be made against you as a pilot, there is no explicit coverage on this certificate (otherwise it would say “Any pilot with current licence and medical appropriate for the aicraft” or somesuch under “Co-Insured”.
But you
– may be an insured person under the T&C of the insurance in general
– may be an insured person under national law.
– the operator may indemnify you for any damage that is covered by the insurance
you should check that.
chflyer wrote:
Where you’re based shouldn’t matter.
Basically, there are two markets: Europe and North America, and as Nick has found out, there is very little overlap, the exception being temporary re-location.
