Plane Insurance Coverage

[FW]

Just for sake of discussion, what if that CAP Rider is not for flying CAP Aircraft but for a member (and members) flying his/her own aircraft (or rental aircraft) to or from a CAP Activity.  (Which I have seen quite a few do and have done myself).

I fly my POA to CAP activities all the time. For this,  I am fully covered by my insurance company (yes, I checked).  The CAP rider isn't needed for flying to and from the activity, however I would double check with AOPA or AVEMCO if you need further info.

[sardak]

Here is a court case in which a CAP member crashed his POA going to a meeting. It didn't concern liability, but workers comp, and the courts directly addressed the issue of coverage going to and from meetings. In Colorado, for the purposes of Workers Compensation, under statute 8-40-202 (1) "Employee" means:

"Every person in the service of...volunteer rescue teams or groups,... and all members of the civil air patrol, Colorado wing while said persons are actually performing duties as volunteer members of such volunteer rescue teams or groups...or as members of the civil air patrol, Colorado wing, and while engaged in organized drills, practice, or training necessary or proper for the performance of such duties."

In 1980, a COWG member crashed his POA flying to a CAP meeting. He filed for, and was awarded, workers compensation. CAP and the insurance company appealed but the appeals court upheld the original order. Here are some excerpts from the ruling:

"The referee found that Hagans was considered to be under C.A.P. jurisdiction from the time of leaving home until his return following the meeting, and that the only purpose for undertaking the travel was to attend the meeting. The referee concluded that Hagans was an employee under § 8-41-106(1)(a)(I)(A), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.), and that his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment.

"The general rule is that an employee injured while traveling to or from work is not entitled to compensation; however, this rule is subject to exception when special circumstances bring the accident within the course of employment. Among such special circumstances is the exception that an employer may agree, expressly or impliedly, that the employment relation shall continue during the period of coming and going.

"The C.A.P. commander testified that, under patrol regulations, its members are pursuing C.A.P. duties from the time they leave home to attend a meeting until they return. This testimony supports the finding of the Commission that "traveling to attend was included in the activity by necessity; the duty of claimant encompassed all of his activity from the moment of entering the aircraft to depart for the meeting, through the time of travel."

Fast forward to 2015 and another case in which the appeals court upheld a volunteer's claim to workers comp, and the court cited the earlier CAP case throughout. In this case the volunteer was driving his POV to a meeting and was hit head on by another vehicle.

In this case, among the appellants' arguments was that because the volunteer was driving to a meeting — not "actually performing duties" or "engaged in" an organized drill or training, claimant's claim should have been barred by the "coming and going" rule. The court stated "We are not persuaded by these arguments to set aside the Panel's order."

This year the latter case went to the state supreme court, which refused to hear it.

Link to the original CAP case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/1983856662P2d194_1844/COLORADO%20CIVIL%20AIR%20PATROL%20v.%20HAGANS

And the 2015 case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20COCO%2020150423071/TELLER%20COUNTY%20v.%20INDUSTRIAL%20CLAIM%20APPEALS%20OFFICE#

Mike

[Eclipse]

Wow - very clear policies and regulations, yet the people of Colorado got stuck with the bill anyway.

[Ned]

I believe that the 1980 case referenced above was at least one of the reasons changes were made to what is now CAPR 900-5 which is, as you point out, fairly clear:

b. Member Owned Vehicles. The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP. CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule."  (Emphasis added)

So it seems unlikely that the result of the litigation would be the same today.  But the important part was that the member was covered and cared for.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[NC Hokie]

b. Member Owned Vehicles. The general rule is that travel to and from CAP meetings, conferences, encampments and other CAP activities in CAP member owned/furnished vehicles is not considered a part of CAP official travel and, therefore, is performed at the risk of the member—not CAP. CAP assumes absolutely no liability for such travel, which is known as the "home-to-work rule."  (Emphasis added)

I am not a lawyer, but isn't calling this a "general" rule an invitation for future litigation and findings of liability?  Wouldn't it have been better to just say, "Travel to and from...?"

[DakRadz]

Maybe an exception for NCSAs? I don't know, but since there can be reimbursement involved, that may be why. But Ned is the better answer giver.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk