Because they accepted the offer by the insurance? Or because a judge said so?
Their lawyers accepted the 50%
Peter wrote:
Their lawyers accepted the 50%
They would only do that when instructed by their client.
Only a divorce lawyer would say that, as a one liner 
Quite, Jason. So, since the lawyers accepted the offer, we still have no evidence that a court would have judged on gross negligence.
But hey, it’s just all about money, and you can’t fault the insurance’s lawyer for trying. That’s how it works. And in fact, it DID work here, since the insured’s lawyer did accept. 80k saved for the insurance. So, the gross negligence claim probably wasn’t all too far fetched, otherwise, the insured’s lawyer wouldn’t have accepted.
Actually, no.
Quite often, with the insured being largely disinterested (own death tends to have that effect) there is insufficient energy to fight for the insured amount.
Of course the insurer knows this. He has time on his side. Eventually the opposition will run out of will or money.
My point is that the gross negligence position allows an insurer to clutch at the thinnest straw and avoid payment, in whole or in part. That is not why one buys insurance.
Peter wrote:
That is not why one buys insurance.
Question of philosophy: Some buy insurance as a protection against unforeseeable outside events, some want it as 360 protection against doing stupid things.
This question is not at all specific to airplane insurance. Just take homeowners: Some want a fire insurance that protects only against lightning strikes and malfunctions of home appliances – some also expect the insurance to pay if they smoke a cigarette in bed and the blanket catches fire.
And to the specific case: Unfortunately the only one who really knows what happens has died in the accident. Therefore both the insurance as well as the dependents had to guess what happened and would have faced a 50:50 chance of paying 100% or nothing in front of a court.
Just another data point regarding increased insurance premiums: Got last night from my co-owner the renewal offer from Traffords which went up from 1600 GBP to 2300 GBP for our RV-7 (third-party liability up to 1.750.000 GBP, hull insurance with agreed value of 90.000 GBP, underwritten by Lloyd’s); that’s over 40% increase! Visicover would offer 3.000.000 Euro liability and 100.000 Euro hull value for 1900 Euro (underwritten by Allianz) which is a huge improvement over the present renewal offer. As far as I understand it, both brokers have a good reputation, but if anyone knows about any pitfalls not already discussed in this thread, I would be very thankful.
Most clubs got a heads up from their insurance brokers this week, that any damage done due to a flight/taxi not in accordance with the partial (3 hrs out, 20km max from home, only household members in the airplane) will not be covered. Basically insurers are having a bad year and told their brokers they need to save their annual results and screw the customer.
Are those restrictions law or guidance?
If they are law then I can believe this – even though it smell really bad.
