Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By carlmeek
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1910799
My name is down as the owner/operator on several aircraft. Two of which are being used for training.

In the event that another instructor has a claim, how is this likely to increase my policies in the future?

I guess I’m trying to work out the blowback should this happen. If another instructor crashing caused all my policies to increase I’d be in trouble!!

I emailed Visicover, but no answer from them so I thought I’d ask the forum :D
User avatar
By marioair
#1910803
Highly likely.
For Visicover (May apply to others) you’re asked if you’ve had any claims under any other policy (independent of whether you were PIC).
By Ibra
#1910808
Is your name down only as the insured pilot? or as the actual policy holder?

They do ask:
- If you made claim as policy holder
- If you crashed as the insured pilot

If someone insured crashes and you get claim on that policy, I expect it will increase premium on other policies you already hold…it won’t impact premiums on policies where you are named as pilot

I think the insurer can give quote or % mark up with past claim = YES/NO when you subscribe the first time
User avatar
By gasman
#1910813
carlmeek wrote:

> I emailed Visicover, but no answer from them so I thought I’d ask the forum

Whenever I’ve e-mailed a query to Visicover I’ve always had a response within a few hours either by e-mail or telephone call.
By Ibra
#1910991
Sooty25 wrote:
> Your bigger issue might be whether lawyers come after you personally, if
> the third part cover is insufficient.

You mean they can come after you if you just buy the minimum “legal” third party cover?
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1910996
Ibra wrote:
> Sooty25 wrote:
> > Your bigger issue might be whether lawyers come after you personally, if
> > the third part cover is insufficient.
>
> You mean they can come after you if you just buy the minimum “legal” third party
> cover?

If the cover you have, doesn't cover the claim, the third parties lawyers will go after someone. Pilot or aircraft owner are their options.

If you have £2M in cover, that's not going to cover crippling any young professional who loses their career. The £2M limit is what the insurer will pay, it doesn't create a cap for the claim.

You would be wise to shift the ownerships into a Limited company, to add an extra layer of protection. Still not bulletproof, but places another hurdle between claimant and your assets.
User avatar
By Charliesixtysix
#1911047
Ibra wrote:
> Sooty25 wrote:
> > Your bigger issue might be whether lawyers come after you personally, if
> > the third part cover is insufficient.
>
> You mean they can come after you if you just buy the minimum “legal” third party
> cover?

If the claim value exceeds cover, they will go after anyone with assets.

One reasonably well known example of that here:
https://www.nexa.law/wp-content/uploads ... -study.pdf
By Ibra
#1911058
Assuming, the pilot owns assets that are more than his max insured liability value…why someone with 1billion fortune would fly with 200k claim cover?

I doubt lawyers would go after pilots without assets?
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1911068
Ibra wrote:
> Assuming, the pilot owns assets that are more than his max insured
> liability value…why someone with 1billion fortune would fly with 200k claim
> cover?
>
> I doubt lawyers would go after pilots without assets?

House?, Pension? classic car maybe? You don't need to be a billionaire to have enough to be a target, they won't be coming for you instead of the insurers, they'd be coming at you for the shortfall.

£2M claim, £1M insurance, £1M shortfall = your house and pension!
User avatar
By defcribed
#1911126
If they can convince a court that you were culpable (as pilot presumably through what you did in-flight, as operator presumably through some maintenance oversight) and your actions caused the accident then yes.

You aren't on the hook for some claim simply because you were the pilot or operator. You would actually have had to have done something wrong that a court found was the cause of the accident.
By Shoestring Flyer
#1911132
I don't believe blame in a passenger liability claim comes into it at all.
The situation will be that an aircraft had an accident and a passenger got seriously injured with long term consequences. That is the bottom line and someone is going to get sued if the insurance passenger liability doesn't cover the costs.
A passenger in an aircraft that has an accident will be just that!...A passenger in an aircraft that you were the pilot and maybe owner/ part owner of.
The legal representation of the injured guy will, make no doubt about it, go for who and wherever they can get the adequate compensation from!
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1911140
To sue someone you have to prove fault - with personal injury, you are normally sueing for negligence.
Insurance you can get a payout if something happens. You just have to show that the thing has happened. You don't need to prove fault.

If you can show you have behaved responsibly, a case against you should be dismissed.

Example - recently in Scotland a family sued a dive boat owner saying he should have stopped the diver from walking on his boat with flippers on. A trip caused an injury which subsequently led to a diver's death. The boat owners showed they had done all that was sensible (including said when to put on flippers) so the case has just been dismissed.
By Shoestring Flyer
#1911159
So do you really imagine that someone with their whole life before them who suffers a life changing disability affecting his future earning potential after an accident is just going to accept a mere £2mil passenger liability because that is all you had taken out as passenger liability cover?
'It wasn't my fault mate the engine failed and we ended up upside down in a field'.....'Its just tough that you can only earn 10k a year for the rest of your life after flying with me'

I am afraid you are being very nieve!
User avatar
By defcribed
#1911333
And I'm afraid, Shoestring Flyer, you're showing a lack of understanding of how the legal system works, as well as the difference between insurance payouts and compensation awarded by the judgement of a court.

riverrock is correct. Insurance pays out upon an event. The event happens, so people get paid - that's the contract. Except in cases where the circumstances might have invalidated the insurance policy, it is not concerned with how or why it happened or whose fault it was.

Claims in the courts for compensation are something different altogether. Someone has to be found to be at fault and ordered by the court to pay. If you're a passenger in a private aircraft and you're injured in a crash, you are not automatically entitled to compensation from the owner, operator or pilot just because they were the owner/operator/pilot when you were injured. To gain such compensation you would have to convince a court that the owner/operator/pilot was in some way negligent or reckless in their actions - that they committed a tort - a civil wrong - against you. Just being the owner/operator/pilot at the time of a crash is not in itself a tort.

I'm not saying that lawyers for the injured won't try - especially if the owner/operator/pilot has significant assets ("is worth suing", in common parlance) - but there would actually have to be a finding of culpability by a court based on the specific circumstance - e.g. flew into a thunderstorm deliberately, decided to buzz the tower, etc. You don't commit a tortious act just because you were in charge and it happened on your watch.
GrahamB, riverrock, Ibra liked this