Insurance WARNING - read and heed

[kragby]

After gear collapse on landing and some damage, it looks like Avemco will deny any claim based on somewhat small obscure definition that says they define "flight" as including all phases of takeoff and touchdown including rolling along the runway even with the wheels firmly on terra firma.

Webster says - an act or instance of passing through the air by the use of wings. Google - Flight is the process by which an object moves through an atmosphere (or beyond it, as in the case of spaceflight) without contact with the surface.

When I got their insurance they asked if I wanted in flight hull coverage. I said I didn't as damage to the hull in flight wasn't likely and probably not survivable and thought no more about it.

Seems to me changing common and universal understanding and definition of terms to mislead customers is not legitimate but maybe other aviation insurance does as well? With their definition my insurance doesn't cover very much - mostly just parked on the ramp. Might want to carefully check yours.

[dan1000]

I'm more used to seeing "in motion" and "not in motion" rather than "in flight", which makes this a lot clearer.

I agree, reading the small print on insurance is a good idea. Not all are equal.

Dan

[YankeeClipper]

Spoke to an agent today about this topic specifically. Not all insurers work the same way, but he said that in the vast majority of cases "in motion" starts as soon as the aircraft does, literally. Stops--you guessed it ...

Another "or" qualifier is, of course, being in motion. He hadn't heard of "in flight" used as a term, but guessed that it was a poorly chosen handle in place of "in motion".

So the original warning here would apply: read-carefully. Assume nothing.

[hharney]

Who is the underwriter? Does AVEMCO write these in-house? Are you a member of AOPA? Do you have their pilot services? I think I would get a second opinion on this policy, something stinks.