In the actual newsletter of the German AOPA they write about the owners of the Piper Aztec which was damaged by the climate activists in Berlin. They expect costs of round about 72.000 €. The insurer refuses to bear their costs because the insurers consider the cause of the damage in accordance with the terms of the contract as
1) malicious act or sabotage and
2) classify strikes, unrest or work unrest, these causes of damage are excluded from liability.
Of course, that surprises a lot. The break-in of two people into an international airport in the capital of a country can’t be anything other than vandalism.
So they wan‘t to go to the court, to avoid that the insurers “get through” with this interpretation, because then similar damage to other aircraft is not covered as well.
In the photo below you will find the link to donate in order to help them and maybe ourselves in future.
I have already donated.
Done
Which insurance company provided cover for the Aztec?
Which insurance company provided cover for the Aztec?
I’d like to know that too.
Cobalt wrote:
Cobalt04-Aug-23 14:1203
Which insurance company provided cover for the Aztec?
Likewise, please share details of the unwilling insurance company – to avoid them! Cheers.
Yeager wrote:
Likewise, please share details of the unwilling insurance company – to avoid them! Cheers.
I’m not so sure if this is an unwilling insurance company, or if this is unwillingness to pay the premium for this particular damage. Visicover does not have this kind of damage as “default” in their insurance, but you can include it by paying for it. I don’t have this kind of insurance, as IMO the risk is approaching zero. Maybe they thought the same? A small risk is still a risk.
Clearly more info is needed here.
Does an airport (BER in this case) not have a duty of care for airplanes parked there? I find it absurd, that these criminals (and please stop calling them ‘activists’!!) could gain access and then proceed to spray-paint and airplane! What I’m getting at here is that maybe the airport or the airport’s insurers should be made to pay up.
Likewise, please share details of the unwilling insurance company – to avoid them! Cheers.
Don‘t know. In the article the name of the insurer is not mentioned.
I’m with @172driver here, we pay high fees at big airports for all the staff so there should be some responsibility. They should sue the airport for not having hindered the criminals, because that’s what has happened.
Guys, I took the liberty to use Deepl to translate that German text into the following, this for clarification:
The paint attack at BER Airport means an economic catastrophe for the Danish owner
Piper Aztec’s owner community an economic catastrophe. As an AOPA community, we want to stand together in solidarity and contribute with crowd-funding so that at least the legal fees can be paid, so that the question of insurance liability in such spraying actions, which is important for all of us, can be clarified. In addition, high costs have been incurred around the damage claim,
which are not covered by the insurance.
The QR code will take you to the PayPal donation page
As for myself, my charities budget being somewhat limited, other institutions supporting people who really needing help for such simple task as surviving famine, access to potable water, war victims, etc, will take precedence.
