Group flying opportunities & questions
#1803524
Beaker wrote:So really, it sounds quite concerning that the members of a syndicate could be liable for one of their fellow members actions. A ltd company mitigates this risk, but I guess not all syndicates are ltd companies.

Think bigger picture. :D

I would suggest in terms of probability there are many flying risks which are way ahead of this particuar risk in terms of concern. :wink:

If those don't over concern you, why let this? :D
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1803528
jerry_atrick wrote:All of the syndicates I have been in are trusts. I think the best thing is, regarldess of trust, ltd company, partnership, or other structure, is to ensure the insurance is adequate and everyone complies with the terms/has notmisstated their hours/quals. That way. liability is basically theoretical (bar the excess). Even as a ltd company, you could stand to lose your investment and while I am not sure of the details, the laws around directors liability has changed somewhat over the last few years...


Yeah, I wonder how it works with a trust... Perhaps there's some protection there? As far as I'm aware, with a ltd company, the directors assets are separate to that of the company so that in the event of a situation where the company cannot meet a financial debt, the company would be wound up.

I could accept the risk of losing my investment, but my home etc... That would be a hard pill to swallow.
#1803529
Miscellaneous wrote:Think bigger picture. :D

I would suggest in terms of probability there are many flying risks which are way ahead of this particuar risk in terms of concern. :wink:

If those don't over concern you, why let this? :D


That's true; I agree it's unlikely and I'd like to think the majority of syndicate members wood be responsible enough to behave themselves, but there's always the occasional person who pushes their luck and the thought of being on the hook for someone else's actions would worry me.

As I mentioned in my post just above, I wonder how it works with a trust? I'll take a look into how's that works. If it offers sufficient protection, then happy days!
#1803530
Yes that's a key feature of a limited company, the separation of liability for debts away from the directors and on to the company. Though directors can still be prosecuted for negligence, which is why D&O insurance exists - but this is for financial loss rather than physical injury. There you have public liability insurance.

(the amount of insurances I have to secure for the company I work for is ridiculous!)

In trusts, liability is normally around improper gains by the trustee at the expense of the trust

~ Scott
#1803536
Beaker wrote:As I mentioned in my post just above, I wonder how it works with a trust? I'll take a look into how's that works. If it offers sufficient protection, then happy days!

It's certainly good to satisfy oneself of the risks and not just dive in without consideration. It's equally important to keep those risks in perspective. In doing so it may be worth establishing just how many cases there have been of syndicate members being held liable for the actions of another member. :D

If an incident was of significant magnitude to be beyond insured levels I would doubt even hiding behind a limited company would be sufficient?
#1804204
Can I suggest that anyone who has assets worth worrying about in the event of a problem with a pilot in a syndicate causing losses beyond what is covered 'normally' is probably wiser to buy an aeroplane outright.

Given the size of those assets this would than probably just represent a tiny fraction of value against the other assets.

Sorry for interjecting a pragmatic stance.
Nick, jerry_atrick liked this
#1804270
Miscellaneous wrote:
Beaker wrote:But my assets behind that; not something I'd be quite so comfortable with personally.

Do you think those assets are only at risk from the actions of others, or are you happy to risk them for your own flying? :wink:


I'd agree that it's unlikely that an insurance claim would go above what an insurer would pay out and I really wouldn't lose any sleep over that. However, the thing that would concern me is the possibility of a syndicate member having an accident whilst going against the terms and conditions of the policy and myself being liable for something that I had nothing to do with. I personally would ensure I remain within whatever terms and conditions are imposed by any policy, but I'm sure some people take risks that they really shouldn't such as "for hire" flights without the appropriate certifications, licences etc.

So it's not so much I'd be happy to place myself at risk from my own flying, but I cannot guarantee all syndicate members (current or future) will abide by the rules. I suppose if I was in a small syndicate with people I knew personally, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But in a larger one where I may not know all of the current or future members makes me feel slightly uneasy.

Anyway, it looks like grow45 has hit the nail on the head and answered the question. I suppose it's up to individuals to take it into account when deciding if a particular syndicate is right for them.
#1804274
@Beaker thanks for your considered reply. :thumright: It's really good to see you giving so much thought to the process. If only everyone did so. Each of us has to do what we are comfortable with, that can never be wrong. Please don't think I am trying to talk you in to doing something you don't want to do, nothing could be further from the truth. What I am doing is trying to help you consider all factors and not make decisions based on myth.

There are many, many benefits fo being in a syndicate. Equally it is not difficult to make a case against them. I would argue non payment on a third party claim is low on the list of reason not to join any particular syndicate.

I'll make one more comment on your reply and then I'll leave the thread alone. :thumright:

Beaker wrote:[However, the thing that would concern me is the possibility of a syndicate member having an accident whilst going against the terms and conditions of the policy and myself being liable for something that I had nothing to do with. I personally would ensure I remain within whatever terms and conditions are imposed by any policy, but I'm sure some people take risks that they really shouldn't such as "for hire" flights without the appropriate certifications, licences etc.

There is much misinformation about insurance companies declining a third party payment due to non compliance with policy Ts&Cs. It is very often said that they will decline a payment at the drop of a hat. It comes up regularly. Indeed I seem to recall someone making that assertion on the forum in the last couple of weeks? In response another forumite asked for one example of where an insurance payment to a third party was refused. I don't recall anyone being able to provide a single example from the history of syndicates. :wink:

Personally I consider the liklihood to be as close to zero as to be zero. IE not worth worrying about.

You clearly have to make your own decisions and not base them solely on information on an internet forum, including mine. :wink:

It would be a real shame though if you based a decsion on misinformation and missed out on the benefits of syndicate flying (assuming all other aspects tiked the box). :wink:

Here's a link to a post about liability which I believe is more relevant than worrying about a non payment. It applies whether a single owner, or a syndicate member and equally can be problematic for someone who has fully complied with all Ts&Cs to the letter. It could 'easily' catch out the most careful of us.

viewtopic.php?p=1560674#p1560674
#1804512
This question has troubled me before and, as I was writing to my own insurers to ask if we were covered should a syndicate member wanted to offer Wingley flights, I asked about the liabilities of other syndicate members.

It was very clear: -
we do not cover risks associated with Wingley flights.

the syndicate members are jointly and severally liable, so once the Combined Single limit is reached, an injured party "will go after everyone" !
#1804794
Nothing !

Unlike car insurance - unlimited liability for 3rd party claims, we are all limited by the aircraft insurance CSL. Ours is £4million, but what happens if one of our syndicate goes flying with two budding young doctors who end up being maimed for life. £4m probably will not cover their care for the rest of their lives and leaves other syndicate members jointly liable !
#1804834
I didn't expect to add much more to this thread, but I spoke to an aviation solicitor earlier this week who was extremely helpful. I though I'd post my findings in case it is of some help to others:

The main points he suggested was as follows:

    Check the liability indemnity limits. These should not be below £10M on a combined single limit basis. If a policy comes below this level, it should not cost much to bring it up to £10M.
    Some policies will contain a breach of air navigation regulations clause which deals with a situation whereby a syndicate member operates the aircraft in contradiction to regulations.
    If the liability indemnity limit is insufficient or there is no breach of air navigation regulations clause, it should be possible to purchase suitable personal liability insurance.

I hope that's of some help to others.