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

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.

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.

Another classic case of "headline journalism"

Right.

There is no court ruling in this matter yet.

Indeed

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

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

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.