Covers theft, loss, damage beyond repair. Granted I've haven't had to file a claim so I can't be sure on how much they would challenge a claim. It is $0 deductible, I would have to check on liability, I don't believe it does.
I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "remote area" show up in any of the FAA regulations or publications I've seen. So, not it doesn't make sense.
Exactly. There is no mention of "remote area" in regs, and on another tack, even "sparsely populated" is never defined (not that I know that was the intent). Today, I have reached out via phone and have spoken with the AMA, with their Safety staff member, and their Insurance staff member--the latter will pursue the issue of the wording of the requirement, and see if it can be more clearly defined and even changed by the Broker. Turns out the the outside insurance contact is a broker, who is an intermediary with the insurance company. I hope this improves for those who follow. My concern is that the broker stated that the restiction to fly in "remote area," was somehow required for compliance with FAA rules, which do my knowledge as Part 107 rPIC, is not true.
It's FNIC. I just went thru an independent agent for FNIC (Patt Pierce) FNIC is just one of the companies she reps . . .
They wrote the policy, but a problem might arise if you had a claim while you were flying in Buckhead or Midtown and the claims adjustor decided that those weren't "remote places."
Thank you sir! This has opened my eyes. pchaps has posted some info I will follow up on. I read the application and since it did not say: "agree to fly ONLY in remote areas". . . then later 'agree to fly per CFR 14 Part 107' (those rules would apply and supersede).
Thank you pchaps . . . I will be contacting AMA and getting this clarified. I'll post the results here (seeing how expensive and incredibly vital this coverage is).
