I was told by another broker that if the other pilot meets the open pilot clause and there is an accident, even though your aircraft is covered, the insurance company will sue the other pilot for the claim (subrogation) which broker’s rarely discuss. From what I was told even if the other pilot was added to as a named pilot, the insurance company will still sue the other pilot for damages. As a matter of fact that same broker was told by the insurance why does he bother to discuss this with his customers? Amazing how unethical these insurance companies are. Why don’t you discuss subrogation?
The definition of “letting someone fly your plane” has thrown Reasonable Man Theory (used in airline hearings) completely out the window. 1. Here’s the keys. Go fly my plane. A serious situation! Obviously! 2. Here’s how the STOL kit feels compared to a stock wing. At altitude, virtually no risk. Valuable information that INCREASES safety. 3. Hold this heading and altitude while I change the batteries in my headset. NOT letting a person familiar with the controls, assist would be reckless….but….that’s letting someone else “fly your plane”. Lawyer stupidity can be pretty dangerous. NOT OKAY
What if another pilot, with more than enough requirements to meet the open pilot clause, has a non-owners policy with more than double the coverage of your aircraft's value. Would that pilot having an accident still create a claim on the owner's policy?
Great question! The owners aircraft insurance policy is always (primary) in the event of a claim. All claims should be turned in first to the aircraft owners policy. If there is no policy or a lack of coverage, then turn in coverage for the non-owned policy.
