As a non-KR-owner, I can only contribute to this thread from a lawyer/pilot's general perspective:
1. Any airport, even public, has the right to set the conditions for planes based there, as long as the conditions are applied equally, including requiring reasonable liability insurance. 2. The states shouldn't be able to require insurance on airplanes, like they do on cars, since aviation has been held to be so "inherently Federal in nature" that states can't even interfere in it (for example, by requiring an additional state pilot's license). I don't know of any state that does so. 3. Many airports do require liability insurance, but this is usually enforced by merely having a statement on the rental form that the owner has it and will keep it. I have never been asked to produce a copy of the policy or binder. 4. A statement on the rental agreement that you have insurance doesn't affect your liability to whomever you injure or damage subsequently at that airport, but it does give the airport a contractual action against you in addition to the victim's lawsuit. I cannot imagine why an airport would sue under this clause. I would stress, however, that if there were an accident involving a mechanical malfunction in an experimental aircraft--something laymen would find quite foreseeable--and it were shown that the owner/pilot had lied on his application about having insurance, it wouldn't look so good. This would be especially true if an innocent victim were to sustain great pain and disfigurement and a million dollars in medical bills, and is now faced with a cash-strapped owner and no insurance company. 5. Although this is a little off-topic, I would recommend to any owner of an uninsured aircraft that he put the plane's record (FAA) ownership in the name of a corporation. Although there are some simple things--primarily regarding registering the company and keeping corporate accounts separate--that the corporation must do, this affords strong protection against personal lawsuits AS OWNER OF THE AIRCRAFT. This doesn't help a negligent pilot, who can always be sued for his own negligence, but it does help to protect an owner and non-negligent pilot. Negligence can be hard to prove in aviation cases, so corporate ownership is well worth the money. There is nothing improper about placing an airplane under corporate ownership, but of course the corporation has to be formed properly BEFORE a claim arises. The internet is full of advice on how to do it--some states charge as little as $60. Above is not legal advice--an aircraft owner should talk to a lawyer in his jurisdiction regarding whether he needs or should have insurance. Max Hardberger
