HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
An operational scenario
A ground handler moves a jet using a tug provided by another company. Damage occurs near a hangar door, raising questions about operator training, equipment condition, customer instructions and contractual responsibility.
Illustrative example only; this is not a Montridge client or reported claim.
The insurance distinction
Damage to an aircraft in custody, injury to a third party and damage to the handler’s own tug may belong under different policy sections. An airport vehicle permit does not establish coverage for airside use.
What to examine
Review the aircraft types handled, maximum values, vehicle use, service contracts and foreign object debris controls. Compare leased equipment responsibilities and training records with the insurer’s submitted description.
Evidence to gather
- Ground handling agreements
- Aircraft handling and value schedule
- Tug and vehicle schedule
- Training, inspection and incident records
Questions for your review
- When is the aircraft considered in the handler’s custody?
- Are borrowed or leased tugs included?
- Do liability limits reflect a plausible multi-aircraft event?
References and review status
- USAIG airport liability coverage areas
Separate coverage areas, not universal policy terms or evidence of Montridge access - USAIG airport insurance application
Submission inputs, not a coverage grant
References support the indicated background topic. Review questions are educational analysis; no specific policy specimen has been supplied. Source checks: November 12, 2026.