PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE CHARTING NEW HORIZONS
AGENT/BROKER DIVISION E&O RISKS EVERY AVIATION INSURANCE BROKER MUST AVOID CLAIMS DIVISION WHEN LEFT TO THE JURY
REINSURANCE DIVISION PFAS IN AVIATION SAFETY REPORT THE GROWING RISK OF RUNWAY INCURSIONS
FALL HIGHLIGHTS AIA OPEN & LONDON SYMPOSIUM
Hello everyone,
As we approach the end of another year, it’s a natural time to reflect on the past — our highlights, challenges, achievements, and even those moments we wish we had done differently.
In this spirit, I’d like to share some insights from the recent AIA Board of Directors meeting held in Orlando. The meeting took place at the Omni Orlando at ChampionsGate, which will also host the AIA 2025 conference. The Omni graciously provided accommodations and meeting space, giving us a preview of the fantastic venue for next year’s event.
But the primary purpose of our trip was the Board of Directors meeting. The November meeting is crucial as we review the past year, assess our performance, and plan for the future. By the time the meeting rolls around, we’ve already spent months preparing the budget, reviewing new ideas, and setting priorities
so we can focus on those areas at the meeting.
One highlight for me is the increasing engagement from our committees, which was particularly evident at this meeting.
The Omni and Florida did not disappoint. The weather was perfect, allowing directors to enjoy the Omni’s beautiful outdoor spaces, lush landscaping, and naturally lit meeting rooms.
We were joined virtually by representatives from the Education, Safety, and Membership Committees. You can learn more about the chairs of these committees on page 12.
The Education Committee updated us on the sessions being developed for the 2025 conference. The committee members work to identify topics that touch on all aspects of the industry, so there’s a valuable takeaway for everyone. Next year’s topics include workers’ comp, flight schools vs. flying clubs, fire foam suppression and strangest claims — always a crowd favorite. The Technology sub-committee is working on standardizing identifiers for aircraft, meeting bi-weekly to keep this significant project on track. I look forward to seeing the final product and hope it will be widely adopted in the aviation industry.
membership category. There’s been much confusion about this category, as “young” refers to years in the industry rather than age.
Several committee representatives joined the Board meeting virtually to report on their progress.
The committee is working to clarify the description, benefits, and possibly rename the category. We thank the committee for taking on this task. If you have any suggestions, please share them — it’s more challenging than it sounds!
The Safety Committee, which contributes to every issue of The Binder, shared their plans for future articles and their session for the conference. They are also organizing another joint event with the NBAA in January 2025 in Dallas, following the success of their first event in Atlanta earlier this year. They have secured a venue and are now developing roundtable topics and identifying moderators. Registration opens in early December, so stay tuned.
The Membership Committee, revived as part of our strategic planning, has been focusing on the Young Professional
With all this in mind, I couldn’t be more pleased with the current state of our association. It feels like we’re on the brink of something great, ready to elevate our membership value and industry engagement to new heights. I hope you share this sense of excitement and optimism for the future.
Chris Morin is the managing Shareholder at Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A., with offices in Tampa and Miami, Florida. Chris is Board Certified in Aviation Law by the Florida Bar and has defended aviation matters for over two decades, regularly counseling local, regional and international clients in the defense of aviation accidents and disputed civil matters.
He has tried both civil and criminal cases, including numerous bench trials and jury trials. A licensed pilot, Chris has owned and operated several aircraft, the last being an A-36 Bonanza. He assumed the role of AIA President in May 2023.
Kristen Suarez, Executive Manager, BWI Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc.
Director, Agent/Broker Division
Aviation insurance brokers play a crucial role in guiding clients through the complexities of aviation insurance. They advise on policy selection, coverage needs, and risk management strategies to ensure clients are adequately protected. However, this responsibility exposes brokers to errors and omissions (E&O) risks, which can lead to severe financial and reputational damage if not managed carefully.
Common scenarios leading to E&O claims include:
If a broker doesn’t correctly assess a client’s risks and insurance needs, resulting in underinsurance, the client may face significant out-of-pocket expenses after a loss and pursue litigation against the broker.
Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance safeguards professionals against claims of negligence or mistakes in their services. For aviation insurance brokers, E&O exposure arises when clients allege that the broker made an error, omitted essential information, or failed to provide adequate advice, resulting in a financial loss. Given the high-value assets and liabilities in aviation, such claims can be especially costly.
Inaccurate Policy Information:
Providing incomplete or incorrect information about policy terms or conditions can expose clients to unrecognized risks, potentially leading to disputes when claims arise.
Failing to notify clients about policy renewals or allowing coverage to lapse could leave clients uninsured, exposing brokers to liability if an incident occurs.
Brokers must communicate policy exclusions or limitations clearly. If a claim is denied based on an undisclosed exclusion, the client may blame the broker for not providing proper information.
If brokers fail to match the client’s needs with the right coverage, clients may face financial losses due to inadequate insurance, leading to E&O claims against the broker.
The aviation insurance market is intricate and constantly evolving, with several factors heightening E&O exposure:
Aircraft and aviation equipment are often extremely valuable, and any coverage mistakes can result in large financial losses, leading to significant E&O claims.
The aviation industry is subject to strict and frequently changing regulations. Brokers must stay updated to ensure clients remain compliant, as failure to do so can lead to negligence claims.
Aviation insurance is a niche area requiring in-depth industry knowledge. Brokers without sufficient expertise are more likely to make errors, increasing E&O exposure.
Many aviation clients operate internationally, meaning brokers need to understand insurance regulations across multiple jurisdictions. Failing to provide accurate advice or coverage for international operations can result in E&O claims.
While E&O exposure is an inherent risk for aviation insurance brokers, implementing the following strategies can reduce this risk:
Thorough Risk Assessment:
Conduct comprehensive assessments of each client’s operations, aircraft use, and potential liabilities to recommend appropriate coverage. This helps minimize gaps in coverage and potential disputes.
Clear Communication:
Ensure transparent communication about policy terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions. Documenting these conversations helps protect brokers if disputes arise.
Regular Policy Reviews:
Aviation operations and risks change over time. Regularly reviewing policies with clients ensures that their coverage remains adequate and up to date, reducing the chances of underinsurance.
Continuous Education:
Given the evolving nature of aviation insurance, brokers should invest in ongoing education and training to stay informed about industry changes, regulations, and emerging risks.
E&O Insurance Coverage:
Despite taking precautions, mistakes can happen. Having robust E&O insurance provides financial protection for brokers, covering legal fees, settlements, or judgments associated with E&O claims.
Errors and Omissions (E&O) exposure is a significant risk for aviation insurance brokers due to the industry’s complexity and high-value assets. By understanding potential E&O claim sources and adopting proactive risk management strategies, brokers can minimize their exposure and protect their business from costly litigation. Implementing clear communication, thorough risk assessments, ongoing education, and maintaining E&O insurance are all essential to mitigate these risks. In an industry where even minor mistakes can lead to substantial financial consequences, aviation insurance brokers must remain vigilant, informed, and diligent to protect themselves and maintain client trust.
Kristen Suarez has been serving the aviation industry for eight years as of May 2024. She is currently the executive manager of BWI Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc., and a proud AIA member since 2018. She currently serves as AIA’s Director of the Agent/Broker Division.
Jeff Sheets, Vice President, Regional Claims Manager, Applied Underwriters Aviation AIA Director, Claims Division
A recent New York US$100 million verdict involving a single helicopter fatality yielded a collective sigh in the world of aviation insurance. I am reminded when I see these results that if I cannot resolve the issues, then a judge and/or jurors will negotiate for everyone. This means all parties face the reality that duty, breach, causation and damages will be murky before being handed to the panel of well-intentioned but untrained people. Though the above verdict is one I know little about, it reminded me of my own investigations and evaluations, and I wanted to share some that you may find helpful.
What is ultimately determined to be “fair” can be shocking to the audience, and even the plaintiff and defendant, but not to the juror(s). If a large loss progresses to litigation, I must remember that our collective experiences may not line up with a juror’s.
It is difficult for me not to bring my personal agenda of right and wrong, win/lose, or what is “fair” into my investigations and assessments. As a result, I have to be sure to catch myself regularly. I have to stop and remember the challenges of handling a significant loss include keeping my mind as open as I can.
One of my favorite expressions is “being right is expensive.”
As a juror, I heard statements made by attorneys and witnesses that at the time probably appealed more to my emotions than my intellect. I admit, I had been (and even wanted to be) swayed by the prosecutor’s presentation. My decision, however, came down to a single photograph — the only evidence the defense submitted.
It was all any of us jurors needed. Without the photo we would have made an entirely different decision.
I wish there was a blinking red warning light with a blaring siren for some of these mental traps that snare me. One of my favorite expressions is “being right is expensive.” Another reminder to stop and ask (whenever possible), “What would it take to settle the claim today?”
Even if it isn’t what I would pay, I need to know what my range is and why it doesn’t include the settlement number. And finally, what else do I need to know, and how do I get that information?
My goal here is not to comment on any verdict, but to encourage the fearless evaluation of a loss in the broadest sense. I use the term “fearless” because keeping a big loss on track requires collaboration and frankly what seems to be over communication. Consider the differences between landing a Cessna 172 RG and a Boeing 747. Both follow the physics of flight, and both have operating envelopes, retractable landing gear, and an engine. However, they each require different levels of training, communication and coordination to be successfully landed by the pilot. As the adjuster, I have to be the early warning sensor that keeps everyone aware of the exposure, even if someone else ultimately makes the final decision.
“I hope” is generally not a phrase welcome in any claim report. Financial authority is rarely given on the basis of a hope. My job is to know all the stakeholders and what they need to make an informed decision. I need to ensure they are either on notice or buyin to the claim evaluation I am presenting. Stakeholders include underwriters, claim leadership, insurers, reinsurers, insureds, brokers, and even claimants if I truly expect to manage everyone’s expectations.
The list can be long and complicated by worries about the proverbial future armchair quarterbacking, second guessing, microscopes, missing details, late information, and the fear of being labeled as the “chicken little” of the office. Everyone wants to “win,” but a win is a bit subjective at times, as rarely does the claimant tell you their bottom line.
Catastrophe losses and large verdicts are part of our reality today, even if they are relatively isolated events. The cool head of the proactive adjuster gives ample warning about exposures early, and allows leadership and customers the ability to make the best decisions before those decisions are taken from them. I cannot be complacent in this industry. I need to know where the quicksand areas are, keep them up on the map of my claim inventory, and report often so that I don’t miss the opportunity to settle a claim at the best point in time.
Jeff Sheets is vice president and claims manager with Applied Aviation. A private pilot, Jeff has been in the insurance industry since 2003 and he has spent the past 17 years in a management capacity. Jeff was elected as Director-Elect of the Claims Division in May 2023 and began his two-year term as Director of the Claims Division in May 2024.
With nine simulators, four locations, and 20+ experienced instructors, Executive Flight Training is proud to be expanding while ensuring individualized, custom instruction for our clients.
Compiled by Kim Rosenlof, Editor, AIA Binder
Membership organizations are all about people and AIA is no exception. While our members share the commonality of working in aviation insurance, each member brings a different mix of interests, experiences, and motivations to AIA, enhancing and enriching our interactions.
These interactions wouldn’t occur without the volunteering spirit of members who step forward to lead on our board, divisions and committees. We’re proud to introduce you to the outstanding members who have volunteered to chair three AIA committees: Education, Membership, and Safety.
Britt Kral began her career in Chicago in 2009, serving as an agent in an aviation insurance agency near her hometown of Lake Forest, Illinois. After four years as an agent, she relocated to Dallas, Texas, joining the underwriting team at Hallmark Aerospace and the AIA soon after. Britt says that her role at Hallmark allowed her to also gain invaluable experience in Los Angeles, where she mentored under a seasoned underwriter whose guidance provided her with many of the tools she still relies on today.
After ten years at Hallmark, Britt took “a leap of faith” and joined a new division at Florida-based Beacon Aviation. Now serving as assistant vice president, Britt says it’s been rewarding to be part of the company’s growth “from the ground up.”
Britt has been an active member of the AIA for more than ten years, speaking at the AIA Conference in Asheville, North Carolina, in 2019 and joining the Education Committee in 2020.
Currently residing in Draper, Utah, with her husband, two sons and two dogs, Britt is an avid hiker and trail runner. She recently completed the Dead Horse Ultra trail race in Moab, Utah, and is training for an extensive hiking trip in Ecuador climbing three volcanic peaks of more than 18,900 feet each (one topping out at 20,546 feet) in 14 days. Of this journey Britt writes, “It’s not just about reaching new heights — it’s about pushing your limits, embracing the thrill of the unknown, and immersing yourself in the raw beauty of nature.
I am training for more than just a climb; preparing to be a part of something magical, where every step brings you closer to the sky and the best version of yourself. Having an adventurous spirit, a love for travel, wine,
Camille Knight currently serves as Account Executive/Principal at Epic Insurance Brokers. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from Centre College and started her aviation insurance in 2012 as an assistant broker at Arlington/Roe. Camille was promoted to a full broker position in 2016 and earned her CAIP designation in 2017.
Camille previously served as the carrier representative for the Emerging Leaders Committee of the Big I Kentucky Association. She is now a member of the Asian American Insurance Network and will be involved with their Mentorship and Women’s committees.
In 2021, Camille joined CRC and led their aviation practice for three and a half years. She recently transitioned into
music, and food, and an eagerness to explore new horizons, I am about to write an unforgettable chapter in my mountaineering story that I can’t wait to share with everyone involved with AIA.”
her current role as Account Executive/Principal at Epic Insurance Brokers and is excited to learn and grow on the retail agency side.
Outside of work, Camille enjoys spending time with her husband Mitchell and daughters Lily and Luna. She also enjoys traveling, hand embroidery and baking. Camille is heavily involved in the Parent Teacher Organization of her daughters’ school and has co-chaired the annual Christmas event for the past three years. This includes baking more than 200 sugar cookies for the children to decorate. Camille also enjoys doing embroidery by hand and recreated a version of the Middle Ages’ “Unicorn in Captivity” tapestry while pregnant with her second daughter.
Steve Bruneau grew up in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1990.
He followed that with a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering from Penn State in 1992 before embarking on a career in technology that included sales and engineering of aerospace controls, leading three successful cloud computing and IT startup companies, and co-authoring a patent for Internet-based product design methodologies.
Steve’s foray into aviation insurance began in 2014 when he joined Pulsar Informatics as chief operating officer, providing strategic and tactical leadership for the company and delivering
Fatigue Risk Management systems to the aviation, trucking, and mission-critical workforces markets.
Five years later Steve became the vice president of aviation at Polaris Aero where he is responsible for expanding the company’s suite of safety management solutions.
Having moved to Edgewater Park, New Jersey, in 1995, Steve and his wife Lara Bruneau M.D. raised their two children there and still remain to enjoy boating, road cycling and other outdoor sports.
In addition to Steve’s volunteer work with the AIA, he is currently secretary of the NBAA Safety Committee and routinely speaks on safety topics at various aviation events.
In contrast with his committee co-chair, Christopher Fostiak has been in aviation insurance for nearly all his professional life. Growing up in Barlett, Illinois, he began his career 25 years ago as an aviation insurance underwriter for USAIG in Chicago, though he earned his commercial pilot certificate six years before that! Having earned the CAIP designation in 2004, Christopher became an active member of AIA that year. He became involved with the AIA Education Committee in 2014, then joined the Safety Committee in 2019. Last year he was inducted into the AIA Eagle Society.
Meanwhile, in his work life, Christopher joined Hays Companies as assistant vice president in 2007, serving in this capacity through the company’s acquisition by Brown & Brown in 2018 and being promoted to vice president in 2020. He currently lives in St. Charles, Illinois, with his wife Sara, son Tyler, and two dogs.
An avid pilot with commercial and instrument ratings, Christopher has reached Advanced Airman Phase VI in the FAA WINGS program. He also serves as a Boy Scout Aviation Explorer volunteer, an advanced ground instructor, and has an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Remote Pilot Airman certificate.
Raffaella Basile, Head Aviation, Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd AIA Director, Reinsurance Division
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively abbreviated as PFAS) are a growing concern not only in the U.S. but across the globe. They are known as the “Forever Chemical” and some industry experts question whether PFAS could be the next asbestos.
Edwin currently manages the actuarial and reinsurance departments. He is also involved in analyzing underwriting and claims data across the General Aviation, Products, and Airline books of business.
To help with my better understanding on the topic and the possible future implications of PFAS in the aviation industry, Edwin Marin and Steve Zarzecki of USAIG shared their expertise with me.
Edwin is USAIG’s chief underwriting officer and executive vice president. He has been with USAIG since 1994 and has had increasing responsibilities over his career.
Steve has been an in-house claims attorney for USAIG for more than 20 years specializing in environmental claims including PFAS and AFFF litigation, asbestos claims, premises liability, and toxic torts. His expertise covers complex personal injury and property damage cases stemming from hazardous wastes generated by oil and gas activities, as well as exposure to benzene and asbestos.
Can you share a little more context as to the origins of PFAS in Aviation?
PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances) were/are used in Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for fire suppression as mandated by the Dept. of Defense and the FAA. As a result of AFFF being used at airports for training, simulation or actual suppression of aircraft fires, PFAS are being identified as primary source contributors. More specifically, the fire training pits on airport properties are in the “bullseye” of both state and federal governmental bodies.
Understanding the impact for aviation, should we be concerned?
Yes, we should be concerned as PFAS have probable links to both kidney and testicular cancer in addition to other negative health impacts as thyroid disease, obesity, high cholesterol, decreased vaccine response in children and increased risk of high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnant women. PFAS exposure is ubiquitous; almost everyone in the U.S. has PFAS in their bloodstream.
PFAs have also been used since the 1950s as a mist suppressant added to metal plating, finishing baths to prevent air emissions, and as an anti-erosion additive in aviation hydraulic fluids.
Because of recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) legislation, airports are increasingly being identified as potentially responsible parties (PRP’s) for PFAS contamination due to its impact on residential wells beyond airport properties and to nearby lakes, streams and rivers.
Fish have been found to have PFAS in their bloodstreams; since PFAS do not naturally break-down, they bioaccumulate, moving their way up the ecological food chain and eventually to humans. This is why PFAS are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” Even water treatment facilities are finding PFAS in their systems.
More specific to general aviation is the 2019 Bradley B-17 bomber claim where the AFFF spilled into local waterways. The biggest concern is that post pollution exclusion clauses are associated with postaccident use. We specifically cover that scenario and there is no solution currently for the entire market.
Another area of concern is closed years where local jurisdictions would reopen claim files to address pollution issues pertaining to PFAS exposures. An airline example would be the 2013 Asiana Airlines accident in San Francisco where tens of thousands of gallons of AFFF spread on the runway and surrounding areas. If that were to seep into any waterways, the allegations alone would require an expensive response.
Aviation policies include AVN46B, which is an exclusion clause for noise and pollution. Would this clause hold against PFAS claims?
Although there are noise and pollution exclusions in insurance policies, that does not necessarily infer that there is no coverage for PFAS. The caselaw at this point is unsettled and there is no clear precedent on how the noise and pollution exclusions will hold up in different jurisdictions across the country.
For example, many companies have commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies that exclude professional indemnity (PI) or environmental damage claims from PFAS claims. These policies typically have broad insuring agreements that cover amounts an insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of business interruption (BI) or property damage (PD). If based on an “occurrence” form, CGL policies cover BI or PD that occurred during the policy period, even if the liability giving rise to a claim does not arise until decades later.
damages.” Depending on the applicable state law, a single policy may obligate the insurer to shoulder the entire defense.
There have been few reported court decisions on coverage for PFAS-related liability. As mentioned earlier, those opinions show that coverage for actions alleging liability from PFAS will be highly dependent on the relevant state’s interpretation of such pollution exclusion language. From 1973 to 1985, most insurers had pollution exclusions offering coverage for “sudden and accidental” pollution.
Such policies generally will trigger an insurer to provide a legal defense once its insured is sued or receives the equivalent of a suit (i.e., a mandate by a regulatory authority to pay for cleanup/removal). Each triggered policy separately imposes on the insurer the “right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking [covered]
And then around 1985 most insurance carriers began including “absolute” or “total” pollution exclusions. It should be noted that in nearly half of the country, policies containing this type of pollution exclusion were determined to be ambiguous and therefore had to offer coverage for pollution that was not expected or intended.
At the same time — around 1970 to about 1985 — the insurance industry started including “qualified” pollution exclusions to many general liability insurance policies. These asserted that coverage was not applicable due to BI or PD that arose out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water; however this exclusion would not be applicable if the discharge, dispersal, release or escape was sudden and accidental.
despite the policies’ pollution exclusion, due to the “sudden and accidental” exception (Wolverine case). It was the carrier’s position that that each version of the policies’ pollution exclusions barred coverage, but the court ruled otherwise. Of interest is the fact that this court viewed the duty to defend policies to be “litigation insurance,” that is, the insured is protected from litigation costs if the action could fall within coverage. And in Michigan, insurers owe a duty to defend “until the claims against the policyholder are confined to those theories outside the scope of coverage under the policy.”
However, even with this exclusionary language, PFAS may still be covered as seen in the following Michigan court’s ruling on PFAS liability coverage.
In Michigan, a federal court held that the insurance carrier had a duty to defend
In this specific case the court opined that the allegations against Wolverine fit within “regulatory and class actions” and were “silent, uncertain and/or unclear as to whether any of the alleged polluting events were ‘sudden and accidental’ or ‘unexpected or unintended,’” and
thus “arguably include[d] damage from intentional and unintentional or accidental contamination.” In the end the court held that the insurers had to defend their insured — Wolverine — until there was “sufficient factual development” to reflect that PFAS were intentionally discharged by Wolverine.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, a New York state appellate court held in the Tonoga, Inc., case that a pollution exclusion containing a “sudden and accidental” exclusion was applicable and permitted coverage to be precluded for similar claims asserted in Wolverine. In Tonoga, the insured manufactured coated textiles around 1961. These textiles were dipped in PFAS-containing chemicals and placed in high temperature ovens that vaporized the solution. The PFAS-containing vapors were captured and then buried on Tonoga’s property; eventually the PFAS-containing compounds made their way to underground water aquifers.
The NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation then classified the property as a Superfund site, resulting in a consent agreement forcing Tonoga to remediate the property. Years later, Tonoga was sued in New York for negligently causing PI and PD for PFAS exposure. Tonoga had insurance for the time frame in question, but its earlier policies contained pollution exclusions with the “sudden and accidental” exception.
It would appear the Tonoga facts are almost identical to Wolverine, but in this instance the court held that there was no duty to defend by the insurers. The court did not interpret the allegations broadly to fit within the exception, but instead placed the burden on the plaintiff to “demonstrate a reasonable interpretation” of the claims as affirmatively alleging sudden and accidental pollution, or to come forward with extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the discharge was “in fact” sudden and accidental.
More specifically, the court opined that voluntary long-term discharge of a substance cannot be viewed as unintended or unexpected, and the court found the allegations of years of dumping “suggest the opposite of suddenness.” The court ultimately held that the exception to the pollution exclusion was inapplicable, and as a result the insurers were not required to defend the policyholder.
As you can see there are clear disparities by various courts and there is a “grey area” on whether such exclusions will/ will not be enforceable because the applicable law and pertinent facts will dictate the final coverage outcome under various policies including AVN46B.
Is it fair to say that airports, FBOs and hangar owners are the biggest group of potential defendants, and could potentially face a legacy of contamination claims from PFAS?
Yes. It is definitely fair to say that airports, FBOs and hangar owners will be the
biggest group of potential defendants and in all likelihood will face a legacy of contamination claims from PFAS in the near future. As of now there are more than 6,000 cases filed in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina (USDC SC) against the PFAS AFFF manufacturers; D.I DuPont de Nemours settled $1.185B, 3M settled $12.5B, and Johnson Controls subsidiary Tyco Fire Products settled for $750M for contamination in public water systems.
Likely once these sources are no longer financially viable due to bankruptcy, dissolution etc., plaintiffs will look to other deep pockets.
It would not be surprising if this trend mimicked what happened when asbestos manufacturers were at one point the main targets of litigation, and once their financial resources were depleted, the plaintiffs commenced lawsuits against other entities including but not limited to suppliers, component part manufacturers, etc.
Is there any legislation in place to protect insureds from PFAS liability claims?
At the current time, there really is not any legislation to protect insureds from PFAS liability claims. Instead, the current administration is moving the other way. The EPA is implementing much stricter policies as evidenced by its enforcement of the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, which includes some of the following significant changes:
If a site is designated as a “Superfund” site due to an actual or potential release of PFAS, the EPA can respond to such releases without making an imminent and substantial danger finding, resulting in requiring PRPs to address the releases and allow the EPA to recover cleanup costs from PRPs. It will also allow private parties to seek contribution from PRPs as well as recover cleanup costs from PRPs.
PFAS are now classified as “hazardous substances.”
As a result of this new classification under CERCLA (Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, a.k.a. Superfund), these substances will require monitoring and reporting of all releases to the EPA.
Liable parties of CERCLA/Superfund sites will include current and past owners (airports, FBO/maintenance facilities on airport properties, fire training pits located on airports, etc.), generators and transporters.
PRPs will be held strictly and joint and severally liable for cleanup costs, damages to natural resources, and health assessment costs (i.e., medical monitoring).
If there is any “protection” for insureds, it would be for any federal or state grants appropriated either by local, state or the federal government tied to PFAS cleanups that could alleviate the costs being imposed upon insurance carriers.
facts can
employ to mitigate potential PFAS related exposures?
A few ways policyholders can mitigate PFAS related exposures is to be proactive. For example, start by building a historical policy research plan that includes reviewing their corporate history (a predecessor organization may be a key to relevant coverage); identifying policy limits and possible erosion of various policies; and inquiring about past settlement agreements that may include full and complete pollution-related releases being agreed to at the site in question. In addition, insureds should determine whether PFAS is/was used on their premise(s) by them or tenants/other FBOs etc., and if so, find alternative fireretardant chemicals as soon as possible. For any hangar owners, avoid the use of AFFF with PFOS or PFOA. Shift to PFAS-free firefighting foam (“F3”).
Insurers can mitigate PFAS exposure by being proactive and cooperative as well. For example, as soon as an insurer is notified of PFAS exposure, they should immediately work with the assigned local/ state/federal environmental regulatory agency to identify when and where the contamination on the property occurred. Identifying the specific time period(s) when the contamination took place is critical as it will show what was being used when the policy(ies) were issued. And there may be coverage issues to consider, locating missing policies and gaps in coverage, and identification of other insurers to “spread the risk,” which will be beneficial as it increases the pro rata allocation schemes.
Last, a determination will need to be made as to whether a duty to defend exists or if timely notice is an issue.
Raffaella Basile is Head of Aviation with Swiss Reinsurance Company in Zurich, Switzerland. An aviation expert in both insurance and reinsurance whose career spans twenty-seven years in various roles, she assumed the position of AIA Director of Reinsurance in 2022.
On September 16, the AIA hosted its 4th AIA Open at Bear’s Best in Atlanta.
Over 70 golfers – the most ever – as well as sponsors and volunteers participated in this year’s event. See highlights from the day of golf, networking, and fun below with the full photo gallery available on our website here.
Missed this year’s golf scramble? Mark your calendars for AIA’s next scramble on Saturday, April 26, at the 2025 AIA Annual Conference in Orlando, FL. Registration will open in early 2025.
The 2024 AIA Open was made possible thanks to the generous support of our sponsors.
congratulations to our winning teams
This year, the AIA reaffirmed its dedication to educating the aviation insurance industry. The event held on October 29 in London illustrated this commitment.
In recent years, the AIA hosted networking receptions in London, but in 2024, they significantly expanded the event with excellent results. With support from several directors on the AIA Board, they organized a half-day of educational programming covering timely topics. Special thanks to the aviation experts who shared their knowledge on the following subjects:
Is the Hull Claims Trend the Inverse of the Safety Graph? — John Bayley, McLarens Aviation
EU Tandem Regulations: ECGT (EMPCO) Directive and Green Claims Directive — Sybille Rexer, Arnecke
Sibeth Dabelstein
Wordings Updates: Amendment to AVN52 E/G Clauses — Jette Varnals, AXA XL
Common Issues in UK Russian Leasing Claims — Mark Meyer, HFW
State of the Industry — Andy Trundle, Starr Aviation
The London Symposium attracted over 120 industry professionals from the US, Mexico, Canada, and across Europe. Plans are already underway for a similar AIA event in London in 2025!
Thank You to our Sponsors
Bryan Toma, Underwriter, Sompo/W. Brown & Associates Insurance Services
From an early age, I was fascinated with how aircraft were able to break the bonds of earth and appear to effortlessly glide through the open skies. Anytime I heard that heavy vibrating sound from above, I would find myself looking upwards to see if I could spot a medevac twin turbine helicopter flying on its way to save lives.
I often recall going to my father’s best friend’s hangar, where he would take us up in his 1977 Cessna Cardinal 177 — it was exhilarating! One summer while in high school, I boarded a Boeing 747 aircraft destined for Europe on a family vacation. The feeling of it taking off from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and the thrill I got from the four turbine engines spooling up to V1 speed was enough to inspire me to pursue a degree in Aviation Operations at San Jose State University.
During my senior year in college while contemplating the role I wanted to play within aviation, I began working as a ramp agent for Hawaiian Airlines at San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC). I also obtained my private pilot certificate during that time.
From an early age, I was fascinated with how aircraft were able to break the bonds of earth and appear to effortlessly glide through the open skies.
After graduation, I worked at a Part 61 flight school near San Francisco International Airport (SFO) focusing on planning, coordinating, and leading fly-out group events for local Bay Area pilots. This allowed me to fully utilize my pilot’s certification and the aviation experience I’d gathered to date. Notably, one of my favorite memories from working at the flight school was coordinating a monthly full moon dinner that provided crystal clear visibility to pilots flying above our candle lit event.
After a year of working at the flight school, I knew I wanted to gain more experience on the business side of the aviation industry and took a position with an aviation brokerage firm. Here I spent the next five and a half years learning as much about the aviation insurance business as I could.
I started out as a customer service representative and was then promoted to account manager. From there I advanced to senior account manager and eventually became a support team lead, where I spearheaded training overseas staff. That role taught me a lot about the aviation insurance industry and how to build systems and procedures, and more effectively lead/train associates in the company. As a result of my operating style, I naturally wanted to learn more and grow in the space of aviation insurance. I was always interested in understanding the perspective of insurance carriers and curious about how underwriters approach their decision making. Understanding how underwriters mitigated certain risks and how they were able to pinpoint/ set a premium for a policy fascinated the meticulous and analytical side of me. That curiosity brought me to where I am now as an aviation underwriter.
In January of 2023, I made the leap that many in our industry do – from broker to underwriter. I accepted a position with leading global (re)insurance organization Sompo’s (W. Brown & Associates) aviation team.
Joining a great company that is a pillar in the aviation insurance industry is one of the best decisions I’ve made in my career thus far.
The transition from the broker side to the underwriting side has been an incredibly fulfilling experience. I’m exposed to various lines of the aviation insurance business such as aircraft hull and liability (both owner-flown and pro flown), corporate non-owned, products, commercial use, charter, instruction & rental, commercial general liability, quota-share, and even excess coverages.
Underwriting has brought a new sense of excitement to my work where every month has been challenging, interesting and yes, fun. From building and maintaining relationships with brokers and insureds to going out into the field and visiting a variety of aircraft operators, when you can see how an operation works and speak with the owners, you get the necessary perspective into the insurance coverage they need.
From there, I take what I’ve seen and heard from our brokers and clients back to Sompo’s team of experienced actuaries, claims professionals, and risk control specialists. Together we discuss the important underwriting elements to build a solid program that meets the clients’ specific needs.
I have been very fortunate to learn from the best in the industry. This included a six-month training course in basic underwriting knowledge, the products we offer, how to properly underwrite different lines of aviation insurance, and an indepth look at our underwriting guidelines and appetite selection. Sompo has given me the tools and resources to become the best underwriter I can be, and I look forward to a long and successful career with this organization.
Little did I know this would be my career when I was a freshman in college, but I am very grateful to be part of such an amazing industry. A career in aviation insurance has helped me to hone my communication and leadership skills in addition to developing stronger analytical skills – all while creating new friendships along the way — again, not a bad career choice!
As I continue to look for new ways to expand my skillset, I am working towards obtaining my Certified Aviation Insurance Professional (CAIP) designation. Completing this certification will further enhance my knowledge of the business and enable me to build upon the solid foundation of aviation experience that began so many years ago when I first looked up at those beautiful mechanical birds in the sky.
I have been very fortunate to learn from the best in the industry.
The aviation insurance industry has given me an extraordinary career path that I will continue to nurture, and I am very fortunate to have had some knowledgeable and experienced mentors to help guide me as I continue to develop my skills as an aviation insurance professional.
Bryan Toma is an underwriter with Sompo/W. Brown & Associates Insurance Services.
He has been serving the aviation insurance industry for seven years as of May 2024 and has been a proud member of the AIA since 2017. He also holds an active role within the leadership committee for the Southern California Aviation Association. Bryan holds both FAA Private Pilot and Remote Pilot Certificates.
Lyndsay Garnica, Insurance Consultant
During the 2024 Aviation Insurance Association Conference we had the privilege of receiving masterclass training from pilots who flew the aircraft during the filming of Top Gun: Maverick, that is, the real-life top guns. Captain Brian “Ferg” Ferguson, pilot Kevin “K2” Larosa, and Commander Frank “Walleye” Weisser guided us through safety rules, risk mitigation, training, execution, and implications for the insurance sector. As I have always believed that knowledge is more valuable when shared, below are a few of the reflections I garnered from this session.
The insurance market needs new business models. It is no longer enough to execute the same projects with the same analog strategy, asking the same discovery questions, and competing solely on price.
The recent global Microsoft outage, related to an issue with CrowdStrike update files, shows how emerging risks no longer fit into the traditional insurance sector model.
Continuous training and education are essential for the success of missions in all sectors, especially for those revolving around risk like the insurance sector. Therefore, staff training should be promoted throughout the entire value chain. Human factor-related failures are among the main causes of accidents in virtually any industry and any area across the insurance sector.
I have always believed that knowledge is more valuable when shared.
Today we know, according to the global risk agenda, that the main problems to face from now on are extreme natural phenomena, the climate crisis, geopolitical threats, social polarization and cyber risks. However, few in the sector are investing time in the ultra-specialized training required to manage these risks, which, in the long run, will result in very costly outcomes for our industry if not corrected.
Conservatism — reflected in old customs, strategies, few advances, and few hypothetical drills —has proven insufficient to address the new challenges of the sector.
COVID-19, the collapse of the Baltimore bridge, and the Microsoft outage have shown that organizations must be flexible, respond quickly, and adapt to unforeseen events.
More than 30 years have passed between the 1986 Top Gun movie (renamed Top Gun: Passion and Glory) and Top Gun: Maverick. This is evident in the video quality and special effects. If it would be absurd to film a movie in 2020 with 1980s technology, why are we still using almost the same sales techniques, remuneration policies, and insurance sector structures from that decade? The commercial strategy must adapt to the current reality to compete in a much more technological, modern, and complex market. All professionals in the insurance sector must be much better prepared. Since our profession is very technical and technological, reducing training and remuneration expenses often leads to costly mistakes.
Artificial intelligence is evolving but far from stable and reliable. While it can help make human work more efficient, it still requires close and constant supervision by highly trained people to detect failures.
A team that is demotivated and under poor leadership decreases its performance and is more susceptible to making mistakes. The success of the mission depends on the loyalty and commitment of the team.
It is not very difficult to recognize in some insurers the non-compliances that lead to catastrophes.
It is not very difficult to recognize in some insurers the non-compliances that lead to catastrophes. Fortunately, this does not happen in most insurers, but we cannot fail to mention the lack of integrity and ethics in the decision-making of some sector officials who forgot to resolve according to the law and not just numbers.
Some branches frequently employ shortterm commercial decisions to relax certain underwriting criteria to stay in the market.
Examples include inducing the client to acquire unnecessary coverages that provide an extra profit to the insurer, taking advantage of the policyholder’s lack of risk knowledge and resulting in a situation resembling a minefield; migrations to new ICT tools for different reasons, often economic, to do the above with the excuse of change; the lack of explanation of coverages that will never take effect due to absurd deductibles and unattainable coinsurance; poor claims resolution due to lack of training and knowledge of the claims team; and impositions on producers, which can solve the problem in the short term but become a time bomb by creating precedents that affect both the insured and the insurer and by creating payment expectations outside the contract conditions.
Professionals in the insurance sector require constant, adequate, and timely professionalization and training to become the top guns of our field and stay that way.
Lyndsay Garnica currently works as a specialized insurance consultant for claims and crisis in aviation, space, maritime and other complex insurance areas for the Mexican government and private entities. Her expertise also includes disaster law, defense and national security. An active online content creator, Lyndsay posts regularly on Tik Tok and other platforms about aviation insurance, aerospace, military technology, defense and related topics. She is also the proud co-creator of the “Mujeres a Todo Riesgo” (All Risk Women) podcast along with insurance professionals Ana Clemente and Joana Diaz.
Andrew Karas, Director, IS-BAO Programme, International Business Aviation Council Safety Committee Member
Business aviation, which operates over 22,000 aircraft globally and accounts for approximately 15% of all aircraft operations, faces unique challenges, with runway incursions among the most critical. This industry sector includes a wide range of aircraft, from large-cabin jets to helicopters and remotely piloted systems.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ranks runway incursions among the top five threats to aviation safety. A runway incursion occurs when an aircraft, vehicle, or person is incorrectly present in an area reserved for the landing or takeoff of aircraft. Recent incidents, such as the collision between a Japan Airlines A350 and a Japan Coast Guard Dash-8 at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport in January 2024 and a 2023 crash in Houston between a Hawker 850XP and a Cessna Citation, highlight the increasing frequency of these events. Collisions with ground vehicles, such as the LATAM Airlines A320’s collision with a fire truck in 2022 in Lima, Peru, further underscore the danger.
records that 70% of runway incursions involve general aviation aircraft, a category that includes much of business aviation.
Runway incursions are increasing in frequency and pose severe consequences. ICAO data and statistics from the United States indicate a rising trend in incursions, with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reporting 1,574 incursions in 2021; 1,730 in 2022; and 1,760 in 2023. Roughly 20% of these incidents involve general and business aviation aircraft.
While safety improvements in commercial aviation have been well-documented, a recent study by Flight Safety Foundation
The primary causes of runway incursions are often traced back to miscommunication and coordination failures between air traffic controllers (ATC) and flight crews. A recent report published by the Flight Safety Foundation emphasized human error as a significant contributor to these incidents. This challenge is particularly concerning as global air traffic is expected to increase in the coming years, which will heighten risks for business aviation due to factors like smaller crew sizes, varied operating environments, and inconsistent implementation of standardized safety procedures and Safety Management Systems (SMS).
A two-year study conducted by the Flight Safety Foundation published the Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (GAPPRI) in August 2024, which brought together over 200 experts from 80 organizations to analyze these risks. The study revealed several high-level findings, including:
Pilots, ATC personnel, and vehicle operators must constantly adapt to operational pressures. While adaptability is essential, it can lead to errors such as distraction, miscommunication, or procedural misapplication, which can result in runway incursions.
Unlike airborne collision avoidance systems like TCAS, no universal technology is in place to prevent runway collisions. While there are several groundbased systems that are effective, most are often prohibitively expensive for widespread deployment, leaving many airports without adequate defenses against runway incursions.
Miscommunication and Coordination:
Communication breakdowns between ATC, pilots, and vehicle operators are common culprits in runway incursions. These incidents often involve misunderstood instructions, simultaneous clearances, or poor coordination with ground vehicle operators due to language barriers or incompatible communication channels, all of which diminish situational awareness.
Given the diversity of skills and the complex operational environment of aviation, addressing runway incursions requires the collective effort of all stakeholders. The GAPPRI report outlines several recommendations for mitigating these risks:
The report highlighted casual factors such as communication breakdowns, loss of situational awareness, and inadequate training. Many occurred at smaller airports, where a good portion of business aviation operates. The need for enhanced ATC, pilot, and vehicle operator communication — including clearer phraseology coupled with datalink systems — would vastly improve awareness and communication.
Existing runway safety systems are effective but expensive. To make runway safety more accessible, the aviation industry must embrace innovative, costeffective technologies. For instance, smartphones and other mobile technologies have real-time tracking ability of persons and vehicles, are costeffective, and are in the palm of your hand. Improving awareness for ATC, pilots, and ground personnel is key, but widespread adoption can only be achieved if the tools are cost effective and distributable across the wider airport network.
Fostering a Safety-Oriented Organizational Culture:
Encouraging personnel to speak up when they feel uncertain or when procedures are unclear is key to reducing communication-related errors.
Establishing a strong SMS fosters a culture of safety in business aviation by empowering staff to raise concerns without fear of punitive consequences, significantly reducing the likelihood of miscommunication and human error.
With its diverse fleet and operations, business aviation faces unique runway safety challenges, and we all need to play our part in reducing the rising frequency of
runway incursions. Flight crews, air traffic controllers, and airport operators need to remain vigilant, invest in technology, enhance training, and cultivate a strong safety culture. Through these proactive measures, business aviation operators can reduce the risk of runway incursions, protecting aircraft and passengers who support a versatile aviation sector with unique capabilities and missions.
Andrew Karas is the IS-BAO Programme Director at the International Business Aviation Council.
A licensed Airline Transport Pilot and Certified Flight Instructor, he has over 25 years of experience in aviation, specializing in safety management, compliance, and flight operations.
President
Christopher S. Morin
Murray, Morin & Herman, PA Tampa, FL cmorin@mmhlaw.com
Vice President
Ian Wrigglesworth
Guy Carpenter London, United Kingdom ian.wrigglesworth@guycarp.com
Secretary Luke Uithoven
Kimmel Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc. Greenwood, MS luke@kimmelinsurance.com
Treasurer
Nicole Wolfe Stout Strawinski & Stout, P.C. Atlanta, GA nws@strawlaw.com
Director, Agent/Broker Division
Kristen Suarez
BWI Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc. Canyon Lake, CA kristen.suarez@bwifly.com
Director, Attorney Division
Michael McGrory
Amundsen Davis, LLC Chicago, IL mmcgrory@amundsendavislaw.com
Director-elect, attorney Division
Mark Meyer HFW London, United Kingdom mark.meyer@hfw.com
Director, Claims Division
Jeff Sheets
Applied Underwriters Aviation Los Angeles, CA jdsheets@auw.com
Director, Reinsurance Division
Raffaella Basile
Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd Zurich, Switzerland raffaella_basile@swissre.com
Director, Underwriter Division
Jeffrey t. Sutton
London Aviation Underwriters, Inc.
Federal Way, WA jtsutton@londonaviation.net
Director-Elect, Underwriter Division
Meghan Griffin
W. Brown & Associates Alpharetta, GA megriffin@wbais.com
International Director
Andy Trundle
Starr Aviation London, United Kingdom andy.trundle@starrcompanies.com
Director-at-Large wes collier
Old Republic Aerospace Kennesaw, GA wcollier@ORaero.com
Director-at-Large
david hampson
Schrager Hampson Aviation Insurance Agency Bedford, MA david@planeinsurance.com
International Director-at-Large
David Watts
Old Republic Canada Ontario, Canada dwatts@ORaero.com
AIA General Counsel
Bob Williams
Victor Rane PLC Pittsburgh, PA rwilliams@victorrane.com
Executive Director
Mary Gratzer
Aviation Insurance Association Lexington, KY mary.gratzer@aiaweb.org
AIA — Aviation Insurance Association
AOPA — Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ASAP — Aviation Safety Action Program (FAA)
ASIAS — Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing system (FAA)
ASRS — Aviation Safety Reporting System (FAA)
CASA — Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia)
CAAC — Civil Aviation Administration of China
COPA — Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
EAA — Experimental Aircraft Association
EASA — European Union Aviation Safety Agency
E6B — A type of manual or electronic flight computer
ESG — Environmental, Social, and Governance
EVTOL — Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Vehicle
FAA — Federal Aviation Administration (U.S.)
FBO — Fixed base operator (service station for aircraft and pilots)
FDM/FOQA — Flight Data Monitoring / Flight Operations Quality Assurance
GA — General Aviation
GAMA — General Aviation Manufacturers Association
GHSP — Ground Handling Service Providers
HUD — Heads Up Display
IATA — International Air Transport Association
IBAC — International Business Aviation Council
ICAO — International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR — Instrument Flight Rules
IMC — Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IS-BAO — International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations
IS-BAH — International Standard for Business Aircraft Handling
MRO — Maintenance Repair Organization
NBAA — National Business Aviation Association
NTSB — National Transportation Safety Board (U.S.)
P&C — Property and Casualty
SMS — Safety Management System
UAM — Urban Air Mobility
UAV — Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (also known as a drone)
VFR — Visual Flight Rules
VR — Virtual Reality
WAI — Women in Aviation International
This is an abridged list of aviation insurance terms that appear in current and previous editions of the AIA’s The Binder.