My AOPA airplane renters insurance is up for renewal and I see they want to charge extra for a CAP coverage rider. I've always been told by folks in my Squadron that Hdq provided coverage for the planes, but now I'm wondering if its like renting from an FBO? Would CAP come after a pilot for the deductible like a FBO would? If so, do all CAP Pilots have the extra coverage?
.
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PMWould CAP come after a pilot for the deductible like a FBO would?
(http://www.animateit.net/data/media/july2012/animated-gifs-ants-50.gif)
Yes in cases where negligence is alleged.
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
My AOPA airplane renters insurance is up for renewal and I see they want to charge extra for a CAP coverage rider. ...If so, do all CAP Pilots have the extra coverage?
Only CAP pilots who use their owned or rented aircraft for CAP reimbursable missions would need 'extra' coverage. FWIW, I don't know of any CAP pilot who has permission to fly a rental for CAP missions, and only one in the wing who has permission to fly his own aircraft.
This wouldn't cover the pilot for damages incurred on COAs?
I carry a $1mm blanket policy for my consulting that also covers me during CAP ops, that's different from this, though.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 22, 2016, 05:23:52 PM
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PMWould CAP come after a pilot for the deductible like a FBO would?
(http://www.animateit.net/data/media/july2012/animated-gifs-ants-50.gif)
Yes in cases where negligence is alleged.
CAPR 174-1
Quote2-27. Assessments. Assessment policy is crucial to ensuring accountability for CAP property and
applies to all property owned or assigned to CAP, including aircraft, vehicles, communications
equipment and any other property. This assessment policy is intended to reduce property losses by
holding members and/or units accountable for their actions.
a. Commanders shall financially assess CAP members and/or units for all CAP property lost,
damaged or destroyed due to a Type I, Type II or Type III incident. Assessments will not be made
for acts of God or for unforeseen events over which members/units have no control. Members/units
shall be afforded an opportunity to make statements and present evidence to explain circumstances.
Commanders will consider these statements when making assessment decisions.
(1) Type I Incident – A Type I Incident is one that results from a member's and/or unit's
failure to use care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances.
For damage/loss that occurs due to a Type I incident, assessments shall be, at a minimum, the cost to
repair or replace the property up to a maximum of $500.
(2) Type II Incident – A Type II incident is one that results from a member's and/or
unit's act or omission of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise
ordinary care. Such an incident is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of
risk to others or their property. It is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to
others or their property. Intentional violation of CAP and/or federal or local government regulations
shall be deemed a Type II incident if the violation contributes to causing the loss or damage. For
damage/loss that occurs due to a Type II incident, assessments shall be, at a minimum, the cost to
repair or replace the property up to a maximum of $5,000.
(3) Type III Incident – A Type III incident results from a member's and/or unit's willful
or intentional misconduct or conduct in which there is a reckless disregard of the probable
consequences. Members and/or units assessed for a Type III incident shall be afforded an
opportunity to make a statement and present evidence to mitigate the assessment. For damage/loss
that occurs due to a Type III incident, assessments shall be, at a minimum, the cost to repair or
replace the property up to $5,000; however, the National Commander may increase the assessment to
any amount in excess of $5,000 up to and including the full repair or replacement cost.
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
My AOPA airplane renters insurance is up for renewal and I see they want to charge extra for a CAP coverage rider. I've always been told by folks in my Squadron that Hdq provided coverage for the planes, but now I'm wondering if its like renting from an FBO? Would CAP come after a pilot for the deductible like a FBO would? If so, do all CAP Pilots have the extra coverage?
.
CAP self insures for aircraft hull damage and liability. Unless the PIC is found negligent, grossly negligent, or behaved with "willful misconduct", the probability of being personally liable for damages is very low. That said, I always have separate coverage; just in case. Avemco's (thru AOPA)policy with the CAP rider is perfect for almost everyone's need. For me, it's worth the peace of mind....
Quote from: FW on July 22, 2016, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 04:55:56 PM
My AOPA airplane renters insurance is up for renewal and I see they want to charge extra for a CAP coverage rider. I've always been told by folks in my Squadron that Hdq provided coverage for the planes, but now I'm wondering if its like renting from an FBO? Would CAP come after a pilot for the deductible like a FBO would? If so, do all CAP Pilots have the extra coverage?
.
CAP self insures for aircraft hull damage and liability. Unless the PIC is found negligent, grossly negligent, or behaved with "willful misconduct", the probability of being personally liable for damages is very low. That said, I always have separate coverage; just in case. Avemco's (thru AOPA)policy with the CAP rider is perfect for almost everyone's need. For me, it's worth the peace of mind....
Yes. I've always had renter's insurance for the flying I do
outside of CAP with FBO planes. With renewal coming up, I was just wondering if I need to add the CAP rider with the extra expense for when I'm flying the CAP airplane ... in case there was an accident and CAP held its hand out for their deductible. I don't think I'm ever negligent, but insurance adjusters can define that in many ways after an incident. So I guess I'll bump up my coverage just in case.
.
You realize that CAP does NOT have a deductible because we self insure our airframes.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 22, 2016, 09:12:44 PM
You realize that CAP does NOT have a deductible because we self insure our airframes.
No I didn't ... hence my asking. But just in case I were to accidentally incur any damage, it might be a good idea to get the extra coverage. You just never know what bureaucrat type person might be in charge at Hdqs who might want to make brownie points and try to get money out of me. LOL
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 10:10:26 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 22, 2016, 09:12:44 PM
You realize that CAP does NOT have a deductible because we self insure our airframes.
No I didn't ... hence my asking. But just in case I were to accidentally incur any damage, it might be a good idea to get the extra coverage. You just never know what bureaucrat type person might be in charge at Hdqs who might want to make brownie points and try to get money out of me. LOL
Well, if you look at what I quoted above, there's a cap on the amount of brownie points that can be extracted, and it's the Region Commander, not a NHQ 'crat that makes the determination.
-Ordinary negligence (failure to use care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances): $500
-Gross negligence (act or omission of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care): $5,000
-Willful or intentional misconduct or conduct in which there is a reckless disregard of the probable consequences: Unlimited
Think of "Ordinary negligence" as something like you forgot to put the gear down on a retract. That $500 cap will cover you 99% of the time.
^^^ Thanks everyone for the info.
Sounds like the insurance companies are raking in lots of cash for unnecessary CAP policy riders. Maybe CAP could send out info to all the pilots in this regard.
.
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 11:58:43 PM
^^^ Thanks everyone for the info.
Sounds like the insurance companies are raking in lots of cash for unnecessary CAP policy riders. Maybe CAP could send out info to all the pilots in this regard.
.
Maybe. There's always the possibility that an injury/fatality accident might occur in a CAP aircraft, with the deceased's estate alleging that the pilot, CAP, and who knows who else should be held liable. In that case insurance might be helpful. You'd have to judge whether your risk aversion/risk tolerance would warrant the "extra" peace of mind.
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 11:58:43 PM
^^^ Thanks everyone for the info.
Sounds like the insurance companies are raking in lots of cash for unnecessary CAP policy riders. Maybe CAP could send out info to all the pilots in this regard.
.
What is "peace of mind" worth these days? The CAP rider is not expensive, and covers you for A, B, and C missions for hull damage and possible personal liability (last I looked). Yep, the insurance company rakes in the cash, but it only takes one hiccup to be hung out to dry...
BTW; if a member dies in an aircraft during CAP missions, they are "covered" by the corporation (C missions) or the US Government (A and B missions). That said, your personal insurance is nice to have when the "aggrieved family members" come looking for you (or the estate)...
Quote from: Live2Learn on July 23, 2016, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 11:58:43 PM
^^^ Thanks everyone for the info.
Sounds like the insurance companies are raking in lots of cash for unnecessary CAP policy riders. Maybe CAP could send out info to all the pilots in this regard.
.
Maybe. There's always the possibility that an injury/fatality accident might occur in a CAP aircraft, with the deceased's estate alleging that the pilot, CAP, and who knows who else should be held liable. In that case insurance might be helpful. You'd have to judge whether your risk aversion/risk tolerance would warrant the "extra" peace of mind.
That is less of an issue if you're flying on an "A" or "B" mission symbol. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides considerable protection in such case.
Quote from: JeffDG on July 23, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: Live2Learn on July 23, 2016, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: etodd on July 22, 2016, 11:58:43 PM
^^^ Thanks everyone for the info.
Sounds like the insurance companies are raking in lots of cash for unnecessary CAP policy riders. Maybe CAP could send out info to all the pilots in this regard.
.
Maybe. There's always the possibility that an injury/fatality accident might occur in a CAP aircraft, with the deceased's estate alleging that the pilot, CAP, and who knows who else should be held liable. In that case insurance might be helpful. You'd have to judge whether your risk aversion/risk tolerance would warrant the "extra" peace of mind.
That is less of an issue if you're flying on an "A" or "B" mission symbol. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides considerable protection in such case.
Even given the FTCA and sovereign immunity, everybody gets sued and the cases can drag-on for years, even if being dismissed, so personal insurance is still aldvisable.
Yep. I already signed up for the extra. Not much and as said 'peace of mind'. :)
Quote from: FW on July 23, 2016, 04:48:57 PM
BTW; if a member dies in an aircraft during CAP missions, they are "covered" by the corporation (C missions) or the US Government (A and B missions). That said, your personal insurance is nice to have when the "aggrieved family members" come looking for you (or the estate)...
Educate me: I thought corporate insurance (C) missions offered only minimal coverage to the pilot for 3rd party liability claims. I dunno, but don't think there would be hull coverage (and maybe not even 3rd party liability coverage) if either the corporation or the AF litigate against the pilot/pilot's estate alleging negligence issues.
^ For "C" missions the corporation will cover a member for up to $10,000 for injury/death expenses. Non members flying in corporate aircraft are not covered, and sign the CAPF 9 before being allowed to fly. That is not much, and I would definitely highly recommend additional insurance while acting as a PIC, crew member, or passenger. Even though the corporation will indemnify you as PIC, if the accident/crash was not a result of negligence, I wouldn't fly a CAP aircraft without additional coverage for hull damage and liability. As far as I remember, CAP or the AF has never litigated against a pilot or their estate. There is a recent case in AKWG which may be the exception.....
There were quite a few actions against members, though, by 3rd parties.... Bottom line: I would get extra insurance for the piece of mind; it only costs an hour or two of flying time a year! Just my $.02
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).
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on July 26, 2016, 12:54:42 PM
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).
Being not a lawyer...
In that case you aren't flying
for CAP, as it's made clear to / from is the responsibility of the member and CAP isn't involved. I would think it's no different then
any other flying and the CAP rider doesn't apply / isn't needed, though I could certainly see an insurance lawyer trying to make it stick and disavow.
Now, if you're from one of those wings that likes to / tries to sign members into missions in an attempt to provide them coverage during the to / from, that
might get sticky as technically you're now a part of the mission, and technically flying a POA on a mission.
We were never able to come to a satisfying conclusion / decision when I was wing ESO regarding the to / from sorties and coverage, and we beat it up pretty hard.
They were convenient for WMIRS expense tracking, but I always felt we were insinuating coverage to members that wasn't actually there. I moved on while the discussion
was ongoing.
In my tenure, to my knowledge, POAs were never included in any to / from sorties or expense reimbursement, so not on the table.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on July 26, 2016, 12:54:42 PM
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.
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 (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# (http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20COCO%2020150423071/TELLER%20COUNTY%20v.%20INDUSTRIAL%20CLAIM%20APPEALS%20OFFICE#)
Mike
Wow - very clear policies and regulations, yet the people of Colorado got stuck with the bill anyway.
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 (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R900_005_8F2514161E982.pdf) which is, as you point out, fairly clear:
Quote from: CAPR 900-5 at para 10bb. 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
Quote from: CAPR 900-5 at para 10bb. 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...?"
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