alioth wrote:
Did they ever explain what this meant? I’ve never flown a plane with a list of runways authorised (what are they expecting? A list of authorised airports with ICAO codes?)
I think/expect it is stuff like:
alioth wrote:
(many of the planes I have flown were designed to be flown out of a sheep paddock)
Then “sheep paddock” is an approved runway for that plane 
The same for beaches. Don’t get too hung up on the word “runway”, I would think of it in its ICAO definition of “surface used for takeoff and landing of planes”. If that’s a sheep paddock, a beach or the gravel bed of a dry river, then that’s your runway.
If in doubt, ask them!
Brokers do need to earn money
Everybody needs to earn money, but there is the argument that commissions should be transparent (be disclosed to the client). The financial services industry has gone through this transformation over recent years, mostly painfully, and with ever newer methods of subterfuge being created.
You can transfer an entire unit trust portfolio from one broker to another, with the 2nd one offering a lower commission, only to discover years later that the 1st one was still getting a kickback commission for ever afterwards. One might think this is not relevant but say 1% a year skims 10% off your investment over 10 years, which is quite a lot, and this is the main reason why just stupidly buying the top 10 FTSE100 (or whatever) stocks and totally forgetting about them for say 10 years will outperform nearly all investment managers over those 10 years!
The issue of intermediaries will probably never go away because that structure has been there since for ever. For car insurance, somebody might demolish it and probably already has (some insurers like e.g. Aviva seem to be going totally direct) but GA is way too small. It’s exactly the same argument re aircraft dealers: that business runs on the 1930 “Chevrolet dealer” model, but they are really quite pointless, because planes can be flown to the customer, the dealer’s 15-20% margin is largely a waste of the manufacturer’s money, parts can be flown US to Europe in 24hrs, etc.
Anyway, the owner of Visicover, @Bob_Bevan, should be able to answer the questions on the above details specific to his policy.
if the owner in good faith rented the plane to the pilot (or someone that hired the pilot) with reasonable assurance the pilot was properly licensed, then the insurance should not be void for the owner
I agree, and it is what I wrote above. The insurance may be technically void but basically the owner is purchasing cover against an unauthorised/illegal flight which he had no means to prevent. As you suggest, an owner-pilot cannot possibly get this because why bother getting any license? Syndicates are somewhere between the two, and I’ve heard of cases where “negotiation” was necessary to get a payout in case of say a lapsed medical. But they did pay out…
I’ve just heard of one insurance case where I can’t post the details (not in the UK) but the insurer tried to get out of paying anything, on grounds which would really surprise us pilots. A partial settlement was agreed, after a few years. I hope to get an ok to post details one day.
JasonC wrote:
Not fair to call it a kickback. Brokers do need to earn money. They get paid commission to write risk and wholesale prices are lower than retail.
Having now read the definition of kickback on wiktionary, I apologise. It was not meant as a negative term; I made an error in English. Maybe “commission” is more appropriate and closer to what I meant?
I do agree brokers deserve to be paid for their work; a good broker is worth their weight in gold, and will defend your claim with the company, will pursue the company when it is too slow, etc. That’s why I have far more loyalty to a good broker than to the insurance company. I stayed with my “general risk” one until he retired. If they would not get a commission from the insurance, I would still pay the fee of a good one rather than going direct with the insurance and save a few bucks, but have to handle all the hassle with the company myself.
One can argue that their fee should be listed separately on the invoice rather than hidden within the insurance premium. Or counter that the “all-inclusive” presentation is more consumer-friendly and attractive.
lionel wrote:
One can argue that their fee should be listed separately on the invoice rather than hidden within the insurance premium. Or counter that the “all-inclusive” presentation is more consumer-friendly and attractive.
No issues with this of course. And not defending the insurance sector as a whole at all but kickback carries an almost criminal connotation in English.
alioth wrote:
Did they ever explain what this meant? I’ve never flown a plane with a list of runways authorised (what are they expecting? A list of authorised airports with ICAO codes?), or even specifying that you even had to use a runway (many of the planes I have flown were designed to be flown out of a sheep paddock). I sometimes land on beaches so expecting me to use a runway always, let alone one authorized by a company that’s been defunct for 50 years, is a bit of a tall order!
I think one US insurance policy I come across did exclude renter taking aircraft to grass/gravel airfields for normal operations which is not even listed in the aircraft POH/AFM, hopefully precautionary/forced landings are not considered normal operations
Now if Barra Beach is ok is a good question 
German insurance law, and “gross negligence”
I have just heard of a very interesting insurance case from Germany, regarding the D-ESPJ accident, where they didn’t want to pay out, or didn’t want to pay out the insured value, citing “gross negligence”.
This is their offer. It is posted here redacted and with the recipient’s permission.
Machine translation of relevant text:
Perhaps a German speaker can confirm whether the above translation makes sense.
It is rather interesting that in Germany there is a get-out option for “gross negligence”. This should be covered by insurance. Otherwise, insurance is practically worthless, in many situations in which people actually crash. This also came up here 7 years ago. It is however one thing to talk about it; quite another to see it in writing in an actual case, which is extremely rare.
No surprise there. Insurances are a national thing. For German hull (Kasko) insurances, the AKB Lu-2008 apply, which as stated, allow for deductions on the payout in case of gross negligence on the part of the insured.
I guess that other countries have similar mechanisms in place.
Of course, in such cases, the question is always whether it was a case of gross negligence or just ordinary negligence. Here, they argue that continuing flight into IMC, whilst knowing about bad weather conditions ahead, is a voluntary action, thus involving gross negligence.
Getting 50% does not seem bad. The insured value of the aircraft was probably something like 160.000€, so we are talking 80k. Did the estate of the insured person accept the offer? This letter is 2.5 years old…
The more interesting aspect I think is the liability side of it (search and rescue costs, wreck removal, etc.).
In Switzerland, for my car insurance, I can add “gross negligence” as an option, which covers for example driving while under the influence. It is not even that expensive.
My (Swiss) airplane insurance excludes gross negligence for the hull insurance part in a very similar manner, e.g. allowing the insurer to reduce their payout pro rata in relation to the grossness of the negligence. It excludes deliberate acts. But there is no such exclusion for the liability part.
AFAIK it is still ongoing, due to some other angles.
It is interesting; in the UK the insurer would pay out 100%. Establishing “negligence” on the pilot merely enables passenger liability (Civil Aviation Act) which is why estates of dead passengers are ever so keen to establish that the pilot was negligent: £££££.
Rwy20 wrote:
But there is no such exclusion for the liability part.
Correct also in Germany. And it makes sense. Liability insurance always has to pay out (in full), since the “impacted” party will be a third party. The insurance can then later take recourse to the insured. And of course they often do. Likely in this case, too.
