CAP and Insurance

[simon]

Is a CAP pilot insured if they damage a CAP plane, someone else's property or injure another person?

Does it depend on the mission type?

I am looking at my aircraft renters renewal offer. There is a check box to cover CAP flight activities for an extra $50. I am wondering whether it is necessary.

[Extremepredjudice]

I think the pilot is responsible.

[EMT-83]

^ Based on which regulation?

[Extremepredjudice]

A guess, based on someone else's posting.

I said, and underlined "think"

[Thom]

^ Based on which regulation?

I'm not him, but the applicable regs (that I know of...) are CAPR60-1 section 2-7(g) and CAPR174-1 section 2-27.

ANYONE who operates a CAP vehicle or aircraft should be VERY familiar with the section of CAPR174-1 where it allows CAP to 'Assess' damages against a member for damaging CAP property. This can also apply if you lose a Radio or other expensive gear.

Personally, I DEFINITELY RECOMMEND looking closely at the possible CAP coverage from your insurer. Check the policy language carefully, but keep in mind that, if you just normally mess up an airplane or van, CAP can bill you up to $5000.00, and if you really go full throttle moron and do something clearly against the regs, they can bill you for the entire cost of the plane, if necessary.


Thom

[Eclipse]

I'd be interested to know if those AOPA-type policy add-ons would cover a pilot for negligent operation of an aircraft resulting in
property damage or injury, because that's generally the only time you're going to be handed a bill by CAP, or be left hanging by our
insurers, and a lot of policies carry those clauses these days.

Most of the answer is that your coverage depends on the mission symbol, but for the most part that is only an issue between the member and
CAP from a FECA perspective.  External mayhem is covered by one or the other of the deep-pockets.

[Thrashed]

Simple renter's insurance should cover it.

[Lord of the North]

You may wish to review CAPR 900-5, THE CAP INSURANCE/BENEFITS PROGRAM, as well as the revision to this regulation which is currently posted for comment.

[EMT-83]

A guess, based on someone else's posting.

I said, and underlined "think"

My point exactly. A pilot asks a very serious question, one to which you have absolutely no clue as to the answer, or even where to find the answer, and yet you offer an answer.

[Thom]

Simple renter's insurance should cover it.

Many of the standard Rental Insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for aircraft used for CAP, or for any charitable flying organization. That's precisely why the CAP add-ons exist.

ALWAYS read the policy, front to back, and be sure you and your agent/broker are comfortable with the exact language of any limitations.



Thom

[FW]

Definitely get renters insurance with the CAP rider.  It's worth the extra $50 for peace of mind.  Also remember to include hull insurance coverage; not just liability.

It covers you for the same mishaps and accidents while on CAP missions as you would for any other aircraft you are qualified to fly.

[simon]

The reference to CAPR 900-5 and others was good. Thank you.

As to speculation, especially the comment:

...negligent operation of an aircraft resulting in property damage or injury, because that's generally the only time you're going to be handed a bill by CAP, or be left hanging by our insurers

with all due respect, this runs against every experience I have had dealing with insurance companies when it comes to claims. They are happy to take the premiums every year with almost no questions asked, but it all changes what a claim is made, because most people never claim.

When you take up a policy there is explicit wording where you give away all your rights to the underwriter to protect anyone not explicitly listed as the insured. And be very careful about the difference between named insured and additional insured. There are boatloads of traps here and they only come to light during a claim. The underwriter doesn't care whether the policy holder doesn't want to sue the operator of the machinery that was damaged. The underwriter is going to do what they can to recover damages from the operator to reduce the payout to the policy holder. It is called subrogation. I am familiar with it because I have had a long discussion with the owner of an FBO that had this very thing happen recently. I have also read the wording of the three clubs I am/was a member of and their coverage varies wildly from a policy that names the renter as insured (The best), to those that insist upon the renter having their own insurance for the deductible yet offer no protection against subrogation. You get to pay the FBO's deductible under a claim on your own policy and then get sued by the FBO's insurance company. Great.

I am also currently battling my own insurance company for a non aircraft related claim on a property of mine, my first for this particular property, where they are arguing over very specific wording in the policy. I learnt a lot about interpretation of words from this one. They are being absolute b**tards, trying to get out of paying on minor wording buried deep in 64 pages of policy wording.

What I am getting is at is, assume you have no coverage unless you have a document that specifically includes you as the insured and you understand the terms of the contract. I am dealing right now with a company employed by the underwriter whose sole business is to find a way for the underwriter not to pay.

I have not read CAPR 900-5 in detail yet, but I think I might have already answered my own question.

[wuzafuzz]

Be careful painting all insurers with the same brush.  I just concluded 2 weather related claims that were handled very professionally and quickly, to the tune of $14k.

Although I'm not a pilot and don't use aircraft insurance, I do drive CAP vehicles and manage a LOT of CAP assets.  I carry a one million dollar personal liability umbrella policy attached to my homeowner's policy.  In addition, many of the expensive gadgets I use for CAP are covered under a personal articles policy.

Insurance has been good to me. 

[starshippe]

. . if flying on a type a or type b mission, cap folks are covered by feca and tort claims coverage. the tort claims coverage means that to a certain extent they are treated as military, which exempts them from being sued. the feca coverage means that, should the worst happen, they would receive the benefits of other federal employees.

. . i'm just trying to help answer a question here. i am certainly not an authority on these matters.

. . generally, if u can fly the flight/mission as a type a or b, u will have much better coverage than a type c mission. theres not much coverage for these.

. . i assume that the pic can still be found guilty of negligence/gross negligence, no matter what the release. this would put him in a position of financial responsibility.

bill

[JeffDG]

Speaking of which, make sure you read the insurance policies carefully.

The AOPA one for example, that they charge an extra $50 for CAP coverage for...well, it only covers you when you are on a flight ordered by a wing commander or higher...so...your C17 or B12 proficiency flights are not covered.

defined as flights in conjunction with or on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol.  Civil Air Patrol uses include, but are not limited to, search and rescue missions, aerial photography, courier flights, and aerial surveillance flights order by a corporate officer of the Civil Air Patrol or his/her designee.

Note the "ordered by", not "authorized by".  The designee covers actual missions, because the IC is a designee of the Wing Commander.

http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf

[Spaceman3750]

Speaking of which, make sure you read the insurance policies carefully.

The AOPA one for example, that they charge an extra $50 for CAP coverage for...well, it only covers you when you are on a flight ordered by a wing commander or higher...so...your C17 or B12 proficiency flights are not covered.

defined as flights in conjunction with or on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol.  Civil Air Patrol uses include, but are not limited to, search and rescue missions, aerial photography, courier flights, and aerial surveillance flights order by a corporate officer of the Civil Air Patrol or his/her designee.

Note the "ordered by", not "authorized by".  The designee covers actual missions, because the IC is a designee of the Wing Commander.

http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf

Strange. How is a CAP 172 different than the 172 on the FBO ramp?

[JeffDG]

Speaking of which, make sure you read the insurance policies carefully.

The AOPA one for example, that they charge an extra $50 for CAP coverage for...well, it only covers you when you are on a flight ordered by a wing commander or higher...so...your C17 or B12 proficiency flights are not covered.

defined as flights in conjunction with or on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol.  Civil Air Patrol uses include, but are not limited to, search and rescue missions, aerial photography, courier flights, and aerial surveillance flights order by a corporate officer of the Civil Air Patrol or his/her designee.

Note the "ordered by", not "authorized by".  The designee covers actual missions, because the IC is a designee of the Wing Commander.

http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf

Strange. How is a CAP 172 different than the 172 on the FBO ramp?

Good question.

However, I think I know what's going on...your C17/B12 is covered under the normal policy (ie. without paying the extra for the supplement).

However, the main policy has an exclusion for "patrol or surveillance of any kind".  So a lot of "mission" work would be excluded, hence the supplement to the policy and the wording thereof.

Note:  I am not a lawyer, just someone who reads a lot of legaleze.

[JC004]

Speaking of which, make sure you read the insurance policies carefully.

The AOPA one for example, that they charge an extra $50 for CAP coverage for...well, it only covers you when you are on a flight ordered by a wing commander or higher...so...your C17 or B12 proficiency flights are not covered.

defined as flights in conjunction with or on behalf of the Civil Air Patrol.  Civil Air Patrol uses include, but are not limited to, search and rescue missions, aerial photography, courier flights, and aerial surveillance flights order by a corporate officer of the Civil Air Patrol or his/her designee.

Note the "ordered by", not "authorized by".  The designee covers actual missions, because the IC is a designee of the Wing Commander.

http://www.aopaia.com/forms/AIGNon0wnedpolicy.pdf

Strange. How is a CAP 172 different than the 172 on the FBO ramp?

Liability associated with door seal-changing crews that pop out of nowhere.