Pax signing contracts to fly/Insurance - the Law
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax signing contracts to fly
Hello,
I hopefully will be completing my PPL shortly and the "When you pass..." phonecalls are already coming in from friends and family.
However during a course I was involved in we got discussing about friends and family who had sued each other over incidents in flight.
Therefore I was wondering if anyone gets their pax to sign a contract or disclaimer stipulating basically that they understand the risks involved and therefore can't sue you if something goes wrong.
I will be the first to admit I know very little about the law so not sure if this is legal and if for example the pilot was found negligent that it would become void.
Comments, feedback, ideas, etc would be appriciated,
Cheers
I hopefully will be completing my PPL shortly and the "When you pass..." phonecalls are already coming in from friends and family.
However during a course I was involved in we got discussing about friends and family who had sued each other over incidents in flight.
Therefore I was wondering if anyone gets their pax to sign a contract or disclaimer stipulating basically that they understand the risks involved and therefore can't sue you if something goes wrong.
I will be the first to admit I know very little about the law so not sure if this is legal and if for example the pilot was found negligent that it would become void.
Comments, feedback, ideas, etc would be appriciated,
Cheers
You mean just like you do whenever you take someone for a drive in your car?
Get real - before the moneygrabbing litigation society stops anyone from even the slightest risk of having fun!
Good luck with your PPL!
Get real - before the moneygrabbing litigation society stops anyone from even the slightest risk of having fun!
Good luck with your PPL!
You've got two problems:
1) a contract that disclaims liability for injury or death would be invalid as a consequence of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
2) if an accident occurs, any compensation that your passengers might get for their injuries depends on their suing you. The insurance policy for the aircraft insures you against that (but ensure that if you hire an aircraft that you are an additional insured on the policy).
IANAL
1) a contract that disclaims liability for injury or death would be invalid as a consequence of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
2) if an accident occurs, any compensation that your passengers might get for their injuries depends on their suing you. The insurance policy for the aircraft insures you against that (but ensure that if you hire an aircraft that you are an additional insured on the policy).
IANAL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
Thank you for your replies.
Looks like granny Weegsltl can go flying without the horror of having to fill in "yet another one of those bleeding forms which I never had in my day....."
Cheers
Thank you for your replies.
Looks like granny Weegsltl can go flying without the horror of having to fill in "yet another one of those bleeding forms which I never had in my day....."
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do mention to Pax that I do not have ANY insurance that will cover THEM in anyway what-so-ever should there be an incident. If the subject comes up (and I'm surprised how often it does) I also explain that most life insurance policies do not have exemptions for pax in light aircraft (only the pilot).
TG.
TG.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tall_guy,
I will not fly pax unless they are insured under my policy (as all my pax are under the CSL clause).
Personally I think it's a bit unfair to accept that a passenger has full knowledge and appreciation of flying, insurance and other matters and risks to accept an offer of a flight from me unless as a responsible person I insure them against those potential risks.
My own opinion is that as members of the aviation community we have a duty of care to ensure that all parties are protected to the fullest extent possible.
I think if you examine your insurance policy, any additional premium to protect second-parties (i.e. passengers) might not cost an awful lot more.
Your further opinion would be welcome,
best wishes
DT
I will not fly pax unless they are insured under my policy (as all my pax are under the CSL clause).
Personally I think it's a bit unfair to accept that a passenger has full knowledge and appreciation of flying, insurance and other matters and risks to accept an offer of a flight from me unless as a responsible person I insure them against those potential risks.
My own opinion is that as members of the aviation community we have a duty of care to ensure that all parties are protected to the fullest extent possible.
I think if you examine your insurance policy, any additional premium to protect second-parties (i.e. passengers) might not cost an awful lot more.
Your further opinion would be welcome,
best wishes
DT
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing about litigation is that one can not sue oneself for compensation.
In the case of a member's club, a member in good standing can not sue the club since to do so is the same as suing oneself.
However, if your passengers are not paid up members of the club then they (or their estate) can sue you, the club, and anyone else that they think will provide compensation or satisfaction or revenge or whatever they are after.
Of course, much depends on the legality of the flight.
Most personal insurance policies that I have come across including mortgage protection policies exclude all flying except passenger flying on a scheduled airline. (note the word scheduled the next time you take a package holiday with a charter company).
Regards,
DFC
In the case of a member's club, a member in good standing can not sue the club since to do so is the same as suing oneself.
However, if your passengers are not paid up members of the club then they (or their estate) can sue you, the club, and anyone else that they think will provide compensation or satisfaction or revenge or whatever they are after.
Of course, much depends on the legality of the flight.
Most personal insurance policies that I have come across including mortgage protection policies exclude all flying except passenger flying on a scheduled airline. (note the word scheduled the next time you take a package holiday with a charter company).
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My life insurance runs something along the lines of "Prohibit all flying except as a fare paying passenger".
I've never really understood what the "fare paying passenger" bit describes, for example does it cover you for flying offshore on a helicopter flight provided by your (chartered by the) company or chartering a non scheduled aircraft as part of your job?....or even as a PAX in a light aircraft, contributing towards the cost of the flight?
CU
I've never really understood what the "fare paying passenger" bit describes, for example does it cover you for flying offshore on a helicopter flight provided by your (chartered by the) company or chartering a non scheduled aircraft as part of your job?....or even as a PAX in a light aircraft, contributing towards the cost of the flight?
CU
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
I was told by an insurance broker that provided you didn't do some hazardous activity at the time you applied for the life insurance, you are still covered for death as a result of it if you start it later on.
I was told by an insurance broker that provided you didn't do some hazardous activity at the time you applied for the life insurance, you are still covered for death as a result of it if you start it later on.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DubTrub
As a renter, I rely on the club insurance to cover the aircraft and 3rd party claims (which pax might claim on depending on circumstances). I have no personal aviation cover, but I do benefit from a company 'death in service' policy that does not exclude dangerous sports etc.
Life insurance is a highly personal matter and in my case I have no dependants (cats excepted) and Mrs TG is self financing.
IO540 / Englishal
I would strongly advise you to check with your own insurance company about starting hazardous activities after taking out the policy. At the very least I would think you have a duty to keep them fully informed of th elevel of danger you are subjecting yourself to e.g. hours per year, aerobatics etc.
As a renter, I rely on the club insurance to cover the aircraft and 3rd party claims (which pax might claim on depending on circumstances). I have no personal aviation cover, but I do benefit from a company 'death in service' policy that does not exclude dangerous sports etc.
Life insurance is a highly personal matter and in my case I have no dependants (cats excepted) and Mrs TG is self financing.
IO540 / Englishal
I would strongly advise you to check with your own insurance company about starting hazardous activities after taking out the policy. At the very least I would think you have a duty to keep them fully informed of th elevel of danger you are subjecting yourself to e.g. hours per year, aerobatics etc.
My life insurance company confirmed that what IO said is correct. If you weren't flying when you took your insurance, then your cover is not affected by taking up dangerous pastimes at a later date.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
That bit about not being involved in private aviation when taking out the policy is only partly correct.
In most cases the clause excluding claims from private aviation is only inserted into the policy when you disclose, at the outset of the policy, that you are involved in private aviation.
If you subsequently take up flying (and had no intention of doing so when you took out the policy), it's too late for the assurance company to change the policy. Hence your estate can claim under the policy if you die in an private aviation accident. There is no requirement to tell your assurance company that you subsequently took up aviation.
However, this is not true of all policies. Some do include this clause in their standard conditions, and therefore you if you subsequently take up private aviation, you would not be covered. I suggest you read the wording of your policy to be sure.
dp
That bit about not being involved in private aviation when taking out the policy is only partly correct.
In most cases the clause excluding claims from private aviation is only inserted into the policy when you disclose, at the outset of the policy, that you are involved in private aviation.
If you subsequently take up flying (and had no intention of doing so when you took out the policy), it's too late for the assurance company to change the policy. Hence your estate can claim under the policy if you die in an private aviation accident. There is no requirement to tell your assurance company that you subsequently took up aviation.
However, this is not true of all policies. Some do include this clause in their standard conditions, and therefore you if you subsequently take up private aviation, you would not be covered. I suggest you read the wording of your policy to be sure.
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, an insurer can exclude anything he likes. But what isn't excluded is implicitly included (another insurance broker's piece of info...)
Worth mentioning that quite a few insurers will accept a 50hr/year PPL at no extra cost. Any independent IFA or broker can easily dig up a load of these firms. Some go up to 100 hours without a loading.
Unless excluded, you can fly more hours after taking out the cover - just make sure that your logbook doesn't show you are flying 200 hours/year at the time you take it out
Worth mentioning that quite a few insurers will accept a 50hr/year PPL at no extra cost. Any independent IFA or broker can easily dig up a load of these firms. Some go up to 100 hours without a loading.
Unless excluded, you can fly more hours after taking out the cover - just make sure that your logbook doesn't show you are flying 200 hours/year at the time you take it out
IO540 check your info. Under contract law, there is usually a principle of caveat emptor- let the buyer beware. The one exception to this is where the contract involves insurance, insurance, where the insured, under law, has a duty of disclosure of relevant facts.
Also, regarding disclaimers, in the eyes of the court, they are not usually worth the paper they are written on, especially if personal injury is involved
Long time since I had my nose in a legal text, but I'm pretty sure the law remains unchanged
Also, regarding disclaimers, in the eyes of the court, they are not usually worth the paper they are written on, especially if personal injury is involved
Long time since I had my nose in a legal text, but I'm pretty sure the law remains unchanged
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gingernut
I don't know whether one needs to disclose private flying if the application form doesn't ask whether you do any risky sports. It's a good question. You don't need to disclose that you ride a motorbike.
I don't know whether one needs to disclose private flying if the application form doesn't ask whether you do any risky sports. It's a good question. You don't need to disclose that you ride a motorbike.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weegsltl asked a good question.
Whilst his his idea for excluding liability for death/personal injury won't work for reasons already explained, he's wise to think about the financial risks involved when carrying passengers.
Many private pilots (possibly the majority) fly with inadequate passenger insurance, or no insurance cover at all for passengers. Pause to consider the financial consequences of your negligence causing their death or even serious injury which prevents them from working.
Those over ‘a certain age’ will remember a famous and very successful Grand Prix driver who pressed on in bad weather and crashed on the approach to Elstree. It's not so widely known that his family was ruined financially when the estates of his two passengers sued his estate.
Beagle
(We’re old enough to know the name of the driver. )
It's not quite the same as carrying passengers in your car. Motor insurance policies are likely to provide adequate cover for claims by passengers or their estates. In contrast, most aviation policies do not.
It’s sad, but the ‘money-grabbing litigation society’ is already here. Lawyers often get the blame, but the first reaction of many people these days is to look for someone to blame and sue. On the other hand, for example, it’s understandable that the families of young children who’ve lost one of more parents through someone else’s negligence need to try to obtain compensation for them.
DubTrub
Agreed. But not all passenger cover is adequate to cover what may be a substantial claim if one or more high-earning parents of young children are killed.
DFC
Up to a point. A school which is really a business and calls itself a club is unlikely to escape liability for negligence by an employee, whether FI or engineer.
Life Insurance
I strongly advise against accepting what IO540 was told by his broker friend.
What the broker says may well apply (depending upon the terms of the life policy) to someone who accepts an invitation to fly as a passenger in a light aircraft on a few occasions, but that is very different from someone taking up a hazardous activity during the term of the life policy. Your insurance company may decide to continue your cover without exclusions and without an additional premium, but they are entitled to know.
When you make an application for insurance, you have a duty to disclose all material facts relating to the risk to be covered. A ‘material fact’ is a fact which would influence the mind of a prudent underwriter in deciding whether to accept a risk for insurance and on what terms. (eg At a higher premium.) It would be very unwise not to disclose that you're a PPL, even if the application form doesn't ask if you engage in hazardous activities.
Your duty to disclose material facts operates from inception (the period until the date cover is confirmed by the insurers) up to the renewal date of the policy. If a material fact changes during that period, you have a duty to disclose it to your insurers. They may choose to continue the cover without any additional premium, but they are entitled to know and make their decision based on all material facts. If you don’t tell them, you risk having any claim rejected. Saying you didn’t realise will not help, even if that is the truth.
Different insurers take different views about private flying. Some exclude cover while you’re flying, others accept the risk for a higher premium. You’d find it difficult to persuade a court that your insurers weren’t entitled to know you’ve taken up flying light aircraft. It’s up to you whether you take the risk of having a claim under your life policy rejected, having to sue your insurance company in the hope you’ll win. Is it a risk worth taking? The additional premium (if any) is usually quite small.
Aviation Insurance policies
Read the small print in your policy: Is the extent of your cover affected if the accident is caused by your negligent flying?
Look at the section which deals with the circumstances in which you can claim under your policy. You’ll probably find cover is greatly reduced if an accident happens while you’re in breach of aviation rules/regs. eg Will you be able to recover the cost of repairing your aircraft? Or the value if it’s written off?
Pilot error almost certainly = negligence in law.
‘Negligence’ sounds very serious but, in law, it doesn’t necessarily involve a serious error. In this context, all it means is doing something which falls below the standard to be expected of a competent and prudent pilot. Pointing out it was an error which any competent prudent pilot could have made is unlikely to help you.
Negligence which causes an accident = negligently endangering an aircraft.
Negligently endangering an aircraft = failing to comply with the ANO (and an offence.)
Failing to comply with the ANO = Failing to comply with the terms of your insurance policy.
Tudor Owen
Whilst his his idea for excluding liability for death/personal injury won't work for reasons already explained, he's wise to think about the financial risks involved when carrying passengers.
Many private pilots (possibly the majority) fly with inadequate passenger insurance, or no insurance cover at all for passengers. Pause to consider the financial consequences of your negligence causing their death or even serious injury which prevents them from working.
Those over ‘a certain age’ will remember a famous and very successful Grand Prix driver who pressed on in bad weather and crashed on the approach to Elstree. It's not so widely known that his family was ruined financially when the estates of his two passengers sued his estate.
Beagle
(We’re old enough to know the name of the driver.
)It's not quite the same as carrying passengers in your car. Motor insurance policies are likely to provide adequate cover for claims by passengers or their estates. In contrast, most aviation policies do not.
It’s sad, but the ‘money-grabbing litigation society’ is already here. Lawyers often get the blame, but the first reaction of many people these days is to look for someone to blame and sue. On the other hand, for example, it’s understandable that the families of young children who’ve lost one of more parents through someone else’s negligence need to try to obtain compensation for them.
DubTrub
Agreed. But not all passenger cover is adequate to cover what may be a substantial claim if one or more high-earning parents of young children are killed.
DFC
Up to a point. A school which is really a business and calls itself a club is unlikely to escape liability for negligence by an employee, whether FI or engineer.
Life Insurance
I strongly advise against accepting what IO540 was told by his broker friend.
What the broker says may well apply (depending upon the terms of the life policy) to someone who accepts an invitation to fly as a passenger in a light aircraft on a few occasions, but that is very different from someone taking up a hazardous activity during the term of the life policy. Your insurance company may decide to continue your cover without exclusions and without an additional premium, but they are entitled to know.
When you make an application for insurance, you have a duty to disclose all material facts relating to the risk to be covered. A ‘material fact’ is a fact which would influence the mind of a prudent underwriter in deciding whether to accept a risk for insurance and on what terms. (eg At a higher premium.) It would be very unwise not to disclose that you're a PPL, even if the application form doesn't ask if you engage in hazardous activities.
Your duty to disclose material facts operates from inception (the period until the date cover is confirmed by the insurers) up to the renewal date of the policy. If a material fact changes during that period, you have a duty to disclose it to your insurers. They may choose to continue the cover without any additional premium, but they are entitled to know and make their decision based on all material facts. If you don’t tell them, you risk having any claim rejected. Saying you didn’t realise will not help, even if that is the truth.
Different insurers take different views about private flying. Some exclude cover while you’re flying, others accept the risk for a higher premium. You’d find it difficult to persuade a court that your insurers weren’t entitled to know you’ve taken up flying light aircraft. It’s up to you whether you take the risk of having a claim under your life policy rejected, having to sue your insurance company in the hope you’ll win. Is it a risk worth taking? The additional premium (if any) is usually quite small.
Aviation Insurance policies
Read the small print in your policy: Is the extent of your cover affected if the accident is caused by your negligent flying?
Look at the section which deals with the circumstances in which you can claim under your policy. You’ll probably find cover is greatly reduced if an accident happens while you’re in breach of aviation rules/regs. eg Will you be able to recover the cost of repairing your aircraft? Or the value if it’s written off?
Pilot error almost certainly = negligence in law.
‘Negligence’ sounds very serious but, in law, it doesn’t necessarily involve a serious error. In this context, all it means is doing something which falls below the standard to be expected of a competent and prudent pilot. Pointing out it was an error which any competent prudent pilot could have made is unlikely to help you.
Negligence which causes an accident = negligently endangering an aircraft.
Negligently endangering an aircraft = failing to comply with the ANO (and an offence.)
Failing to comply with the ANO = Failing to comply with the terms of your insurance policy.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 28th Jan 2004 at 03:35.