• Sharebar
Aviation Insurance
Friday, February 1, 2008
Misguided efforts

Last issue I raised the problem of interpretation of the proviso in Section 3 of the standard Aviation policy: standard that is except for one or two misguided efforts at rewriting the wordings that some brokers have come up with.

There was a case some years ago – Helibip v GIB Insurance Brokers and certain Lloyd’s Underwriters – which revolved round the fact that a broker had mucked about with the standard AVN1A wording and in the process had omitted all the definitions. This led to all sorts of ructions and a claim for the loss of the helicopter was declined. It all had to do with the definitions, and the insurers’ defence was based on the proposition that if the policy as signed by insurers, I repeat signed, did not allow for the claim to be excluded, then it was in order for the insurers to bring in another wording in which an exclusion was present in order to chuck out the claim. Evidence was led to say how ridiculous this was, and the end result was that Helibip got paid its entire claim. Rather strangely it wasn’t the insurers that coughed up, but the broker, who had done nothing wrong at all. This was all due to a weird deal struck by the attorneys.
Someone also recently raised the problem of the SACAA stating that Combined Single Limits are not allowed in terms of the Regulations. I hope this is not true – the Domestic Air Service Regs state very clearly in reg 5.2 that CSLs are permitted. By Henry Tours Aviation Consultant
 

Copyright © Insurance Times and Investments® Vol:21.1 1st February, 2008
712 views, page last viewed on March 27, 2020