Not so long since, Bob Bevan was kind enough to post on the various limitations and options facing pilots/owners looking for 3rd. party and/or hull insurance. Either way, IIRC, you could have a "total maximum payout" -type policy, or a 3-rd party "section" with a separate Hull "section. and these had standard , preset base- limits, unless the client requested an upward lift with a commensurate premium increase. Either way, I am doubtful that the subject- aircraft would be insured to cover £15M for any one occupant, let alone the seating- capacity in what , to my uneducated eye, looks more like a small business aircraft, rather than a small family aircraft. (different standards apply to Oligarchs, Sheiks and John Travolta
I am pretty sure that the insurers will be able to refuse liability if
the terms of the insurance have been breached.
I know this to be true of motor- insurance.....you insure a standard car for your offspring, but he fits a fartcan exhaust, wide wheels and tyres and flared wheelarch trims.
That is not what they insured! irrespective of the modifications having any material bearing on an accident.....but supposing he comes out one morning and finds the wheels have been stolen...would they have been targeted if they'd been standard wheels and tyres?
This is, indeed a huge can of worms. the Welsh football business (I may be a pedant, but I don't see "club" ) reckons they are out £30 mil. (i read it on line so it must be true) Then there's the bereaved families, their dependants the lost earnings.......... against all this, the airframe is loose change.
The gutter-press are intimating that the Pilot's finances were connected with his undertaking the flight. It may or may not be relevant, but ,yes, they'll look for an angle to keep selling their scurrilous rags. When I see it in Private Eye, I'm more inclined to give credibility to the report.They have a track-record of "publish and be damned" (and subsequent to losing cases, being proved right after all!