Need CIE Credit?

Earn up to nine (9) CE hours by taking up to two (2) aviation insurance courses through WebCE.  Log on to www.aiaweb.org and visit the online education portion to get to our courses. Once there,  click on course catalog and then your State and AIACE. Course description and overview are included for the Hull and Liability course as well as the Airport Premises Liability and Other Related Issues course. Each course is $29.95. If you have any questions, call WebCE at (800) 488-9308 or AIA at (913) 627-9632.

Pilot's Logbook - The Best Insurance

The FARs require entries in a pilot’s logbook for several limited purposes, such as establishing a record of flight time for qualification for a higher rating, maintaining a record of pilot proficiency under IFR and substantiating recent flight experience. However, an up-to-date logbook may be the second most important document next to the pilot’s aviation insurance policy in case of an accident. Here’s why –

            Typically insurance brokers or agents will, prior to the inception date,

            or the renewal of that policy, send an aviator a pilot-history form that

            he or she must complete before the broker or agent will seek quotes

            from the insurance market. Most pilots will estimate their flight

            experience in the various categories specified in the history form

            without going to their logbook for verification. The reason for this

            is that many pilots, especially those with higher certificates and ratings,

            do not log all of their time; they only record the number of hours

            required by FARs to be legal. In addition, many who do not seek higher

            ratings look at the task of logging time as one more unnecessary detail.

            The unfortunate truth is that should an accident occur, the NTSB will undoubtedly look to the pilot’s logbook to see if he or she was qualified for the flight, and then his or her insurance company will look at the logbook to see if the pilot-history form, which was submitted to the broker or agent and is part of the application for insurance, is corroborated by actual entries in that same logbook.

            The scenario in cases where the pilot has estimated flight hours on his or her insurance form goes something like this: The insurance company issues a policy based on a mis-representation that a pilot has 2,500 hours total time – 1,500 hours were multiengine and 1,800 hours were retractable. However, the pilot’s logbook shows 1,500 hours total time – 750 hours multiengine and 800 hours retractable. Since the pilot is often deceased or unavailable because of injuries when a post-crash inquiry is being made, the insurance carrier decides to decline coverage based on this material representation or breach of the insured’s warranties of the pilot’s experience.

            Unfortunately, the lack of insurance coverage becomes another unnecessary complication to the already complicated aftermath of an accident.

            Some pilot-history or qualification forms ask for the flight time logged, others just ask for the flight time or pilot-in-command time under various subcategories. The need to be precise is not often made clear by brokers or agents, many of whom just do not understand the significance of these different terms, especially when that language is used in the investigation of an accident. Often times if a claim is made after an accident against a manufacturer for deaths of occupants of an aircraft based on defective design or manufacture of the aircraft, the best available defense will be the lack of recent flight experience of the pilot or the lack of his or her total experience in the aircraft. This argument is often made when a manufacturer wants to show either misuse or abuse of the aircraft as the cause of the accident or just plain pilot error due to inexperience.

            The careful logging of time, however, seemingly insignificant, can leave an important legacy to a large estate. If flight time is not documented, an uninsured loss might make a small estate out of a very large one.

            Just as important, a legitimate claim that the death of a pilot or other occupants was caused by an aircraft defect can be made far less valuable or even worthless if a pilot does not carefully record flights in his or her logbook. Failure to substantiate flight experience may give the impression that the pilot was unqualified for the flight, not by FAR standards, but in the eyes of the jury.

            It can even be more troublesome in the case of placing insurance through a direct writer of aviation insurance because there is no recourse against an independent insurance agent or broker who may have inadvertently estimated flight time instead of logged pilot time required by some insurance carriers.

            Here are a few suggestions that might be helpful to pilots in dealing with this little known, potentially serious, insurance problem:

1.    Getting into the habit of noting flights in their logbook, even those local flights that seem to be of little importance to record.

2.    Inserting a note in their logbook that all flight time has not been recorded, and attach some separate realistic estimates of past unrecorded time.

3.    Read the pilot-history form carefully and verify all flight times that are reported. If the flight experience is an estimate it should be stated as such. If the flight experience is not logged, it should be mentioned. In fact, a broker or agent might even require the underwriter to acknowledge that the pilot-history form times are estimates or are only approximate. This holds true with respect to other questions on the pilot-history form regarding training and recurrent training; hours during the last 12 months and last 90 days; total instrument and night flying.

4.    The insurance policy must be read carefully to make certain that the declarations page and any endorsements specify the pilots experience and he or she has logbook entries to back it up.

5.    Make certain that in reporting flight experience on the application for a medical certificate, the times reported are consistent with the insurance application and pilot-history form as well as the logbook. If the pilot carefully documents the flight time for the insurance company and then only makes an estimate of that time when applying for a medical certificate, that disparity will come back to haunt him or her.

6.    It is important to be honest about estimating and recording flight experience. It is hard to be untruthful and consistent at that same time. Inconsistency can make a completely honest claim worthless and more importantly, could lead the pilot into not realizing his or her own experience limitations.

           

            The pilot’s logbook is like a diary. Not only for the pilot, but also others reading it. It is like going back in time and realizing the experiences, great and small, make flying so exciting and economically rewarding. It is part of the pilot that lives on, and in the event of an accident, be the best insurance he or she ever had.

Article Submitted by:  Alexander T. Wells, Ed.D.

lIlinois Federal District Court Grants Summary Judgment to Defendants for Product Liability Claims Arising Out of 2005 Crash of Commuter Plane in Queensland, Australia

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., Honeywell International, Inc. and Jeppeson Sanderson, Inc., each of which was sued for product liability arising out of the May 7, 2005 crash in Australia of a Metro 23 commuter plane operated by Transair.  The court dismissed the product liability claims against Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. on the ground that it did not manufacture or sell the GPWS computer on board the aircraft.  The court noted that Hamilton Sundstrand had sold its entire GPWS business in 1993, seven years before the GPWS system at issue was manufactured.  Additionally, plaintiffs offered no evidence in support of their allegations that the GPWS computer was defectively designed or dangerous.  The court also dismissed the claims against Honeywell International, Inc. on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the accident aircraft was equipped with a Honeywell GPWS computer at the time of the crash or that it was defective.  No GPWS was discovered in the wreckage, no maintenance log exists identifying a GPWS computer on the aircraft, and because the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder was not functioning, it did not capture crew dialogue or any aural alert from a GPWS mechanism.  Plaintiffs' bare allegations that the GPWS must have been defective because the crew did not respond as expected to a GPWS alert were too speculative to survive a summary judgment motion.  Finally, the court dismissed the claims against Jeppeson Sanderson because there was insufficient evidence that the crew actually used Jeppeson's chart at the time of the accident or that the chart actually contributed to the accident.  Thornton v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2014 WL 3107961 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2014).

Information Provided by Clyde & Co

Seventh Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Putative Class Action against United Relating to Frequent-Flyer Program

Plaintiff Hongbo Han commenced a putative class action against United Continental Holding, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., and Mileage Plus Holdings LLC (collectively “United”) for United's alleged breach of the terms of its frequent-flyer program, the “MileagePlus Program”.  Plaintiff specifically alleged that United credited him for “mileage” improperly determined by the distance between the airports instead of by the number of miles the airplanes actually flew (including such things as weather diversions and landing delays). The district court dismissed the complaint and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.  Although the court agreed with plaintiff that the contract was ambiguous concerning the meaning of "mileage" and how it was to be calculated, it also noted that the contract gave United "the sole right to interpret and apply the Program Rules.”  Under Illinois law, a contract can include language giving one of the parties the discretion to interpret the terms of the contract but the interpretation cannot be unreasonable.  Accordingly, plaintiff had to demonstrate that United's interpretation of “mileage” (the total distance-in-miles between the airports) was unreasonable.  The court found, as a matter of law, that United's interpretation was not unreasonable (and in fact was cheaper, easier and more predictable) and thus affirmed the district court's dismissal.  Hongbo Han v. United Continental Holdings, Inc., 2014 WL 3895760 (7th Cir. Aug. 11, 2014).

Information provided by Clyde & Co

JLT Expands its US Specialty capabilities

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group plc ("JLT") one of the world's leading providers of insurance, reinsurance and employee benefits related advice, brokerage and associated services, is today announcing the significant expansion of its US specialty capabilities and the merger of JLT Specialty Ltd. and Lloyd & Partners Ltd. to drive a new phase of growth, following its successful acquisition of Towers Watson Re last year.

Expansion of US specialty capabilities

Over recent years, JLT has firmly established a successful specialty-led strategy and distinctive client proposition that has driven our growth and positioned us as one of the world's pre-eminent brokers in those specialty areas where we have chosen to compete.

This announcement signals a significant expansion of our US activities into the Group's specialty areas including Energy, Construction, Financial Lines, Credit, Political & Security and Aerospace (where we already have a successful US presence).

For full article, please visit the JLT Web site