Insurance

Discussion in 'CineStar FAQ - Tips and Tricks' started by Jon Fredericks, Oct 29, 2012.

  1. Bryan Harvey

    Bryan Harvey Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    18
    yeah, these insurance companies see an opportunity to cash in on some premiums for this kind of insurance, knowing full well that they can easily get out of paying on a claim. In my opinion a $1200 premium paid to these guys is throwing money down the drain. Insurance is supposed to buy peace of mind. With their blanket disclaimer, you get none of that. If you think you are, then you're just kidding yourself.

    Heck, even the most straightforward health insurance with no legality issues whatsoever, will do whatever they can NOT to pay. They try to make you jump through hoops until you just give up.
     
  2. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    801
    Well put, Bryan. The current US insurance situation is such that I think these folks are charging you $1000+ just to be able to tell your clients (ahem) that you’re insured. But if push comes to shove, I am pretty certain you’d have a hard time squeezing a claim settlement out of them if you didn’t have a COA or other official paper.
     
  3. Terry Miller

    Terry Miller New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    6
    Here is the background. After paying more than twenty claims and denying none, I'm confident that Transport Risk Management's insurance companies understand the risks and provide the coverage they contract to provide in their policies.

    Response to Bryan's post:

    “Hi Bryan,

    Legal applies to statutory law and includes a level of intent. If you are intentionally peering into a window and charged criminally, coverage will not likely be provided. That is an example of illegal activity.

    If you unintentionally catch an image in a window filming next door and are charged with a crime, it may be covered. While it may still be illegal, it is unintentional and coverage would most likely apply if it was in fact unintentional.

    FARs are not statutory in the policy insurance definition and the exposures covered are specifically named in the policy. Aviation insurance policies have not excluded coverage for FAR violations for many decades. Coverage applies to the approved use in the policy. The use is named in the application by you. The policy, if insurers agree to quote and bind, would name the exposure covered and coverage would apply to that use ie: aerial photo for hire. As long as the actual use matches the named policy use, coverage would apply even with an FAR violation. The policy does not defend the violation or pay fines but the coverage would be provided. This has been the case in aviation for at least 40 years. Likewise, we have paid many claims on UAS at this point and there is no question in this regard.

    Not paying a claim on that basis would not be a "get out of jail free card" as that does not exist in the insurance world. To do so could be considered bad faith which carries substantial punitive penalties to insurers that attempt to do so. Bad faith claims are very rare in today's market because it simply makes no sense to do so. We're in the business of insuring acceptable risk and providing coverage per the laws of states in which we do business.
    Another point of interest is that just because a flight may be legal under the FARs does not mean the policy would cover the loss. For example; if a helicopter is covered for passenger carrying and has loss conducting power line patrol in accordance with the FARs, the loss would not be covered although there was no FAR violation.

    Please understand that we want our clients to have complete confidence as well and that other sources for coverage may work better for some clients. I would strongly recommend that you consider the PARCAP recommended program as an option as they may cover illegal activity outside of FARs. PARCAP works with another aviation insurance broker called Costello Insurance. You might consider contacting Mr.Costello to confirm my statements above as well.

    Here is a link to the Costello site and their article on the FAR subject: http://www.aviationi.com/DroneArticle1.htm

    Thanks again and best regards,

    Terry”

    Hi Terry,
    I just completed an application for your UAV liability insurance. Despite what you are saying about no commercial exclusions, the very bottom line before the signature states in bold:
    COVERAGE WILL NOT APPLY TO LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH UNLAWFUL USES AND OPERATIONS.
    With the legality issue of the whole FAA/commercial operations being the very issue in question and still up in the air, the above statement could be taken as a blanket "get out of jail free card" for your company paying out on any actual claim that occurred during commercial filming operations.
    While I do wish to secure this type of insurance, I have no confidence that transportrisk would actually come through with a payout if I ever needed to make a claim.
    How are we to rectify this blanket disclaimer on your application with the clearly grey area of commercial drone legality?
     
    Bryan Harvey likes this.
  4. Dave King

    Dave King Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,707
    Likes Received:
    311
    I can see that no progress has been made since my inquires to Terry last August which is a shame. To answer Terry's question, how do we rectify this blanket disclaimer on the application? Simple, you put a general statement in the contract that says commercial drones are "generally" covered. You can put provisions and wording any way you want that basically spells out that if you are caught operating in a wreckless manner or peaking into your neighbors windows that your S.O.L.

    If you did this I would buy insurance.
     
    Howard Dapp likes this.
  5. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    801
    I agree with Dave. I’d like to see case histories or testimonials of actual claims (liability and/or hull) that have been paid out in the US for drone operators doing common commercial things (like photographing real estate or filming TV commercials) without a COA or other “official” paperwork.
     
    Dave King likes this.
  6. Dee Williams

    Dee Williams New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Everyone,
    My name is Dee Williams I was a commercial advertising photographer for years in the bay area and rented many air-frames to photograph from but now I have multirotors and have been reading your old thread and has any thing changed. My buddy says he is getting commercial insurance to cover him flying real estate.. I don't believe it will cover him? Can someone shed some lite on the subject for me please.
     
  7. Steve Maller

    Steve Maller UAV Grief Counselor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,961
    Likes Received:
    801
    Selling insurance is one thing. Paying claims is another. Caveat emptor.
     
  8. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    441
    Insurance has been available from at least 2 companies in the US. Costello Aviation Insurance is one of those. http://www.aviationi.com/DroneUAVHome.htm Generally they seem to do liability insurance and I have heard, but have no direct knowledge, that there have been folks that also got 'hull and equipment' insurance. I've only seen one post that someone crashed and got paid. No posts that someone had an incident while covered and did not get paid. Still very much in it's infancy. So your buddy very well might have insurance for what the FAA would deem a commercial operation.
     
  9. Chris Odom

    Chris Odom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    5
    I can affirm that liability and hull/equipment insurance is well worth the investment. Terry and Transport Risk are a class operation and legit. If anyone has any questions, I am willing to discuss my personal experience via DM.
     
  10. Tim Gould

    Tim Gould New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    My policy through AerialPak is getting close to renewal time. I was wondering if any of you have found worthwhile policies within the last year. The policy I have appears to provide general liability coverage of $1M/ occurrence and $50K hazard for non flying equipment.

    I have received pricing from Transport Risk Management and their pricing seemed fine until I told them I had four aircraft to cover. Even though I would only be flying one at a time, the price quadrupled.

    Any recommendations?
     
  11. Gary Haynes

    Gary Haynes Administrator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    441
  12. Tim Gould

    Tim Gould New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the suggestion Gary.
     
  13. MIke Magee

    MIke Magee Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    102
    FWIW, I agree with Chris. Been with them 2-3 years now. Excellent service and integrity at Transport Risk.

    -m
     
  14. Carl Lim

    Carl Lim New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I prefer using EasyCover,it covers professional indemnity and commercial general liability,its affordable than the other one that I have googled and has a great services and reliable advice, if you're interested I'll drop the site: Professional Liability Insurance | EasyCover Canada - https://www.easycover.ca/
     

Share This Page