Microlighters

Does anyone know what the recommended procedure should be in the case of taking friends, business colleagues, etc for flips in terms of indemnity forms having to be signed to avoid possible claims against ones estate. What weight would a signed indemnity form actually carry in a court of law??

Advantage of being fat and flying a Gemini

No forms

D

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Example - Indemnity Form (Word 2003 doc)

You need to be careful about getting indemnity forms signed. They will not assist you in the event of a loss arising from gross negligence. Nor will they prevent a legal actiion against you (which you will need to defend, probably at huge expense) in an attempt to get the indemnity set aside.

Also, understand what the expression "indemnity" actually means.

What it says is "if I injure or kill you, and someone else claims compensation from me, you agree to repay me whatever I have to pay that person".

What it usually means is that the estate of the passenger will have to pay you whatever you were ordered by a court to pay in compensation.

Assuming, of course, that the passenger's estate has enough money to do so!

So, take the case of a husband/father who is killed in a microlight crash, as a result of which a patrimonial compensation claim is made against the pilot (or the pilot's estate, if the pilot died as well).

The claim might be, say, proved at an amount of R2,500,000 (loss of future support, etc.) and a court may order the pilot (or the pilot's estate) to cough up.

At that point, the indemnity form is produced with a flourish and the pilot's representatives say "Ah, but we have one of these and, if we have to pay R2,500,000 to the wife/child of the passenger, the passenger's estate must repay it to us".

Problem is, the passenger's estate has precisely R50,000 in it (because the passenger cleverly arranged his affairs so he didn't have assets of his own and, tragically, the small print in his personal insurance coverage excludes death arising from flying in NTCAs).

Which leaves the pilot on the hook, without the ability to obtain the protection of the indemnity, simply because the passenger who gave the indemnity was not in a (financial) position to fulfil it.

The indemnity may assist to block/deflect a claim made by the passenger's estate itself...but not if the claim comes from the passenger's dependants (wife, children, elderly parents, etc.).

I would rather decline to carry a passenger than have to rely on an indemnnity undertaking. Even if it worked, I may be faced with HUGE legal costs in trying to enforce it while the passenger's familiy and estate are trying to get it set aside.

It'd be far better to arrange proper insurance whilst, at the same time, warning the passenger to check his/her personal insurances to ensure that they will continue to apply.

I'm an insurance broker, not a lawyer, so I'd be interested to hear the views of any legal beagles out there.

Hi Graham,

Give us a ballpark passenger indemnity cover, for 2.5mill, 100 hour trike pilot, 100 hours per year.

Such cover also obviously exclude all negligence and cowboy antics, in which case, the cover wouldnt help anyway.

In the event of a genuine accident i.e. from engine out / crappy crosswind landing, would costs be awardered to beneficiaries regardless if he knowingly signed a generic form advising him of the risk, purely because they have lost a provider?

Thanks,

Hey, Leon

If you're buying Hull coverage as well, you'd probably get that level of passenger liability coverage for an extra R2,500/annum. If you're looking for the passenger liability coverage on its own, the price would go up a bit and some Insurers wouldn't offer liaibity coverage without the supporting Hull coverage.

Bear in mind it's a holiday and I'm not in the office, so I'm taking a bit of a flier! Could be less, depending on the type of aircraft, mood of the Insurer at the time of quoting, etc.

Coverage would include liability arising from the pilot's ordinary negligence i.e. errors of judgement, making a mistake, etc.

If, by "cowboy antics", you mean wilful misconduct, recklessness, doing something knowing that a loss could probably result, or deliberately breaking the law, then you may find yourself on your own: liaiblity arising from "wilful misconduct" is excluded, as is a deliberate breach of ANRs, etc.

But if you just did something stoopid, made a bad decision or had some finger trouble, that's fundamentally what legal liability insurance is for.

In general terms, SA law does not allow a breadwinner to sign away the rights of his dependants. He can sign away his own rights all day long - if he's that dumb - but he cannot do so on behalf of those who depend upon him.

So, whilst an indemnity undertaking is different - he's not signing away the rights of his dependents: he's just agreeing that he will repay anything his dependents are awarded - it really amounts to the same thing and courts are, as far as I am aware, more likely to assist claimants to have indemnities put aside than they are likely to enforce them.

Now, as I said, I am NOT a lawyer, so a lawyer may take exception to the suggestion that a court would tend to lean towards a claimant - rather than strictly apply the law - but that's what I believe and I would be interested to hear the views of any lawyers who are also microlighters.

Have a blessed Easter.

Graham Speller