And imagine the thousands of vehicles, homes and boats in this country that are uninsured as well ..... its endemic

The hand of God working again -- no insurance.

The media could have had this information from the start because it is a matter of public record, but I suppose that means the media would have had to do the work of the media...

Aircraft insurance is VERY specific...unlike some homeowners or car insurance policies where they will auto-renew in most cases, if you don't specifically say YES PLEASE RENEW to aircraft insurance, that's it...it is not renewed. Very strict guidelines when it comes to aircraft insurance...and this scenario here is probably why.

Correct.

“We understand that XL agreed to provide coverage under the policy unless it provided written notice of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy consistent with the requirements of the policy.

“Further we understand that if XL intended to renew the policy, XL would provide written notice of renewal terms and a statement of the premium whether actual or estimated, not less than 30 days prior to policy expiration.

“Our client received no notices falling within the requirements of the policy, which would initiate cancellation or non-renewal of the policy before November 9, 2014,” the letter from Diplomat Aviation’s lawyers added.

The so-called editorial license that the Tribune and other media houses take in this country never ceases to amaze. In order for this headline not to be biased or libelous, the Tribune should have put in the headline the person or entity that claims the plane was uninsured, since right now the insurance status is in legal dispute. For example, headline should read 'Insurance Company: Munroe Plane "Was Uninsured"' or a variation of the same. To only run the headline 'Plane "was uninsured"' without also stating in the headline who is making the claim gives the appearance to readers that the Tribune itself is making this determination as a statement of fact, or siding with the same.

Comrades most flights leaving Nassau for Freeport land with happy endings. This doomed flight is not one of them.
As for the plane actually being declared "uninsured" this is not a clear-cut case for the insurance company to obtain the favourable decision they seek from the courts. I see nothing so far to indicate that Dr. Myles was not either in a position to not afford the insurance premiums or had not expressed intentions to renew. Insurance companies are quick accept your premiums but slow on paying out your claims. This being not only a “constructive total loss” of the plane but the untimely ending of 9 lives and structural damages private property. It can get costly.

How much money is the church in debt? Wasn't it an $8M dollar figure I saw being thrown around?

A tabloid claimed it was $3M, but there is no confirmation of the veracity

It was stated previously that the Myles Munroe Int'l Ministry was financially successful but Bahamas Faith Ministries was a financial drain.

BFMI and MMI are two seperate entities. I would not assume that because BFMI may be in debt that MMI is also.

Whether he could afford to pay or not is not the issue before the courts. And the insurance company claims that renewal was not requested and/or initiated, which is generally an industry standard requirement for airplane insurance; so not sure why you believe he did what the insurance company claims he did not do. If he had initiated the renewal process, surely his attorneys would have presented evidence of that as part of their case.

Comrade, it is not the insurance industries standard policy to automatically cancel a policy on the day of its stated termination.date.

Airplane insurance typically does not automatically renew. I said nothing about "policy" as in regulatory policy. I said it is a standard feature of such insurances, and it is.

The court rulings saying, it ain't so.

There is no court ruling in this matter yet.

Judge Cote will giver her ruling pretty quickly. She is known as no nonsense having delivered verdict in number major cases.

Just one more example of short cutting taken by people, companies etc that think they don't have to pay dues/fees on time....the short of it is that the families who lost relatives will not be seeing any monies due to the incompetence of the airline company....but that's typical for Bahamas.....

@Publius. I must agree with you that the standard of journalism in both of our daily newspapers does leave a lot to be desired. It seems as though little investigative work is done by the younger journalists, and many leading stories are always incomplete. Not only is the headline in this particular story slightly misleading, but the story itself seems to have come about solely from court filings. No attempt is reported to have been made to obtain factual verifications from either parties.

Another classic case of "headline journalism"

Alot of people walked away from that headline saying "wow the plane wasnt insured", when that has yet to be determined. Fault of the newspaper for engaging in headline journalism

If pilot error is the final outcome, will the families file claims against Diplomat Aviation?

Any lawyer worth their beans would be advising them, most certainly.

If the insurance did indeed lapse and there will be no insurance payout, civil suits will be the only recourse of sorts. NOW...If Diplomat Aviation is just a holding company for the registration of the aircraft and was not actually 'operating' the aircraft, but maybe 'leasing' the aircraft to Munroe ministries or similar, it gets even foggier..it was no fault of the planes that the pilots flew it into a crane. Now, if Diplomat Aviation was 'chartering' and the whole flight was done up part and parcel, flight billed out by Diplomat to Munroe, and pilots paid by Diplomat, that's a completely different ballgame. Also...Diplomat Aviation according to THIS article is Bahamian entity...I thought I saw where it was a US Entity...I could be wrong...if it was a Bahamian entity doing charters, were they actually legally licensed to do charters in the Bahamas through the CAD?

Perhaps the media can look into these questions...not!

Nah...too much like work...

Indeed

The case will most likely burn down to reasonable expectation and past history. If Diplomat Aviation has a history of paying late and not receiving notice of cancellation then they have a reasonable expectation that they are covered. This is especially so if the insurance company in question renew the policy from the date the policy ends versus the date the payment is made. I am quite sure there are numerous past case studies to draw legal argument from.

Unfortunately we don't know most of the salient details of the case; from this article anyway.

Most Aviation policies I have dealt with do not renew...they expire, and you start up a new policy, many times all new forms and applications need to be put in for the next years insurance quote, things such as pilot hours through the year, pilot training that took place through the year, copies of medical records on the primary pilots, etc, etc, etc...it's not as simple or automatic as renewing your car insurance, it expires on that day, and unless a fresh policy is in the works and agreed upon, then you can argue if payment was late or not, but you need all that paperwork already on the go prior to expiration of the previous policy.

Right.

Had the pilot in charge of Dr. Myles private Lear flown into any US or Canadian airport, without possessing a certificate of insurance liability, they would be turned way upon landing.

Is it a coincidence that the insurance expired 4 days before the crash or is the insurance company pulling a fast one. Where are the papers for the airplane ? Did it go down with it? Where are the copies ? Did the copies just vanish?.............2 B Continued!

Did anyone notice who the defendant is in this case? Diplomat Aviation. In order to be a defendant, a claim has been made against you or a charge has been laid against you. So, the insurance company is the entity that filed suit in this case then. If Diplomat Aviation was suing the insurance company, the insurance company would be the defendant, but it is the plaintiff according to this article. So this suggests then that the insurance company made the first move of the two judicially, claiming before a court of law that Diplomat Aviation is liable for the crash and not them. Their suit would then be that Diplomat Aviation failed to meet its obligation to initiate renewal of its policy and is thus liable in any payouts. Is this a subrogation suit filed by the Insurance company? If so, has someone already filed suit against the Insurance company, who in turn is suing Diplomat Aviation? This information should have been provided in this article. The court's ruling will be interesting.

Insurance companies hate paying out claims especially for a huge sum of money. The initial salvo always starts in the courts and ends in a settlement between the parties.

We all know how insurance companies hate payouts, but one assumes they had a case to bring if they filed suit and the judge permitted it to proceed. I am wondering if this matter began with the insurance company or if the insurance company's suit is a subrogation suit.

Comrades long-gone are the days when you insurance company were so committed to their policyholders that they would actually show up as 'hired" fire brigades at fires. Lucky you, if your building had their metal 'fire mark' visible on outside. If not, the cruel bastards would stand by and watch your building burn itself to the ground. Oh yeah, they can still get that way, when it's time payout your insurance claim.