PO BOX 899, PINE, COLORADO 80470 PHONE: 720.208.0844 FAX: 720.208.0845

Should Insurance Companies Place Poor Judgment Exclusions in Aviation

Insurance Policies?

By: Terry Miller At least once a week, I’m asked by some company or individual if we would be willing to require our insureds to use their product or service as a condition of providing insurance coverage. My usual response is to ask if they can prove to me that their product or service actually improves safety and in turn, profitability to insurers. So far, none have provided any type of proof or supporting data. I was recently asked the following question and thought I would share in case others had similar questions.

“I mainly wanted to ask about how your company is taking weather into account when providing insurance. I know the FAA's NPRM only requires a preflight consideration of local weather conditions, but I wonder whether a provider of insurance would have stricter requirements. For example, say a policy dictates that an operator can only fly a UAS in certain conditions (low wind speeds, no precipitation, under 50% cloud cover, etc) and the operator ignores these parameters and crashes. Perhaps he would be barred from recovering because he disregarded the policy's weather limitations”.

I responded as follows: "Let's start here: "A ship in harbor is safe -- but that's not what ships were built for" - John A. Shedd Go/no-go in weather has been an aviation conundrum since Icarus. And he had problems with severe clear. Since then, huge resources have been developed, dedicated and made available to pilots yet we still see poor decision making, poor judgment and inadvertent flight into IMC. Firstly, yes, I agree that making it easier for pilots to access and understand weather is a good thing. However, from an insurance standpoint, we would not exclude weather losses therefore we have to rely upon a pilot's judgment and ability to make the decision whether to go or no-go. Insurance exists to cover losses; sometimes even stupid losses. It cannot be so restrictive that it becomes an unreasonable hindrance to operations in normal or even challenging conditions. One pilot's no-go may be another pilot's specific skill set. What if my car insurer excluded driving in snow? I have a 4X4 (technology) with excellent tires (special equipment) and living in the Rocky Mountains, I have a level of advanced skill

driving in snowy conditions (training). Should my insurance company determine what level of snow I'm capable of driving in? Should my insurance company deny coverage to people that I might injure if I breach the snow warranty? The Rocky Mountains would become a collection of deserted ghost towns as would much of the United States. If I'm speeding at the time I have an accident, should insurance exclude the loss? The Progressive Insurance Company "Snapshot" is designed to monitor and measure a driver's judgment and some level of skill and in turn, future insurability. Progressive cannot deny coverage to an insured for speeding however they can non-renew your insurance if they determine, through monitoring your driving habits with the "Snapshot", that you regularly speed, brake hard, lack judgement or lack skill. That's why Flo hides in dark parking lots asking strangers to put the "Snapshot" in their vehicles. Most people don't like that level of control by their insurance company. Education, training and technology have to be relied upon in order to make man and machine useful. If they're capable of operating in "no-go" conditions but grounded by insurance, what good is the man, the machine or the insurance?