Insurance claim question

[74657]

As some of you may know the left main gear collapsed on me back in February.  The plane is almost back in service and the insurance company and I are about ready to settle up.  I have 2 questions. 

1- The prop needed to be replaced.  There were no used props available so I had to order one brand new.  I am being charged ~1 AMU for "betterment".  Is this right?

2- The insurance company covered the teardown/inspection of the engine ONLY.  They did not credit me or help offset the costs towards overhaul by pro-rating the life left in the engine.  Is this right?

Thanks.

[jetdriven]

Prop I have no idea.  Engine wise, from what I have learned, yes.  If the engine has 1900 SMOH, for example, you actually benefit from the teardown and overhaul.  They pay for whatever it costs to remove the engine,  split the case, inspect parts, and reassemble. ~8-10k?  Anything above that is yours.    Parker will be along here in a few with the finer points.

 

Why did the gear collapse?  Improper preload?

[N601RX]

There is also a list of mandatory engine replacement parts any time they are removed.  The insurance company should pay for all of them.

I would argue that they have the responsibility to put your aircraft back in airworthy condition.  If a used part is not availble then they should have to buy new.  I personally belive they should pay for new parts anyway.  If their prop claim is true then they could make the same claim for paint jobs or any other part.

[74657]

Cause was never determined.  The engine was within 200 hours of overhaul.  Good news is that they found 3 cracked cylinders (in the head area) and 1 with an AD.  The 2 that were replaced by the previous owner were ok.

From what the mechanics can tell the left main never made over center so when we landed all of the load was transmitted to the pushrod.  

Everything happens for a reason....  I now have a fresh engine, brand new prop and an EDM 830 upgrade.  The plane should be finished in a week or so.  It has only been since Feb. 19th.

[Shadrach]

I dont' know how many hours were on the prop, however it sounds like you were treated very fairly. One can hardly expect to trash an old prop that is past or near OH and expect it to be replaced with new.  $1000 is nothing for a new Hartzell full feathering 3 blade...

[Parker_Woodruff]

Hi Brandon -

In answer to question #1: Insurance is designed to indemnify you (make you whole again).  I would want to know how many hours were on the propeller a) since new and since overhaul/repair in order to determine if being charged $1000 was a reasonable amount.  My guess is that it is reasonable.

In answer to question #2: In order to indemnify you, the insurance company will get you back to your previous flying status up to the point of prop-strike.  In this case, being indemnified will get you back to the ---- hours SMOH/SNEW that you were and have you with an operating engine of course.  And of course the insurance company will use that teardown cost towards whatever you want to do...teardown to get to flying status once again or use the cost towards your wishes of an overhaul. I would not expect them to pro-rate through the rest of the life of the engine as it is your decision to overhaul early.  If you had reason to overhaul, that's on  you.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Parker

[74657]

1600 SNEW on prop, 1600 SFOH on engine.  If a used prop were available I would have been all over it.  Thats the trouble with high ticket STC parts - no inventory.

[74657]

The AMU's keep adding up.  It seems they kick me in the pants every other day!  2AMU's extra for the 830 (in addition to the "initial" 2AMU acquisition cost, 6 for the crank, 1 for the prop.......

[PTK]

Who is the insurance underwriter?  

[Parker_Woodruff]

It depends if the Crank was damaged as a result of the incident or not  or if it needed replacement anyway to constitute an overhaul.

Example: You get an oil leak in flight.  Engine destroyed.  You make a safe landing on a runway.  If the aircraft is not damaged, there is no coverage for mechanical breakdown.  On the other hand, if that caused a gear up in a cornfield, the damage that resulted after the obvious damage due to mechanical breakdown would be covered.

The 830 seems unrelated to insurance.  I would take that $1000 for the prop.  It was probably getting due for repair/overhaul, which would cost significantly more than $1000.  I think you made out well there.

I assume the crank needed repair to constitute an overhaul...unfortunately they are not cheap.

I think you made a good move by overhauling at a time such as this.

[74657]

The 830 was a get well soon gift for my plane.....

The crank had some pitting near the oil slinger area that did not come out when turned .010".  The cause of the pitting was likely due to "inactivity" at some point by the previous owner(s).

[Parker_Woodruff]

Yeah; unfortunately for your wallet, you're gonna get dinged on the crank.

[jetdriven]

Either way I bet it would have ran for 2300 hours or till 74657 got tired of it, and when it came apart for overhaul, the crank would be tagged as bad then.  It was working fine until discovered, it just can't go back inside an overhauled engine.

 

Still, an unexpected 10-12 grand hurts.

[N601RX]

The AMU's keep adding up.  It seems they kick me in the pants every other day!  2AMU's extra for the 830 (in addition to the "initial" 2AMU acquisition cost, 6 for the crank, 1 for the prop.......

I would push back on the prop.  They have an obligation to make your plane airworthy again.  IF they can't locate you a used prop that is in at least in as good of condition as the one that was damaged then they should have to buy a new one.   

If this "betterment" crap they are comming up with is true then they could use the same logic to make you pay for part of the other repairs also.  They could say the new landing gear, cowl bottom, belly pan, paint ect is also "betterment" and ask you to pay for part of that.  That is what your deductable is for.

 

 

[74657]

The plane damage to the belly was minimal.  2 1/2 wheel landing kept the damage off the belly.  The extent of the damage included a new left flap (runway light), new sheet metal on the horizontal stabilizer (after the runway light snapped the top half tagged the tail), and damage to the rear bulkhead when the tailhook snagged the edge of the intersecting runway.  Oddly enough, between Lasar and Mooney all of the parts required were in stock.  I will post some pics of the damage and repair.

 

[KSMooniac]

I think it sounds fair from what has been described.  You got a really "steal" on the prop in my opinion, and 1 AMU is peanuts compared to the alternative IMO.  The crank hurts, but really the only problem is you are having to buy that now (unexpectedly) then 200 hours later (or whenever you would have overhauled) and that would have been unexpected as well.  You're getting almost all of the labor going into the overhaul for free, and at the end of the day the value increase of your hull will be much greater than your out-of-pocket costs for the prop and crank.  It might be offset somewhat by the damage history, but I wouldn't sweat it if you're gonna keep flying.

If I were you, I would read up on modern engine break-in procedures recommended by the APS crowd since they've broken-in countless numbers of IO-550s.