HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
An operational scenario
An aircraft leaves a maintenance facility and later suffers damage allegedly connected to installed equipment. The customer also claims lost charter revenue while repairs are investigated.
Illustrative example only; this is not a Montridge client or reported claim.
The insurance distinction
Hangarkeepers, products or completed operations, and the cost of correcting defective work can be treated differently. A liability policy is not automatically a warranty of workmanship. Consequential loss and loss-of-use allegations need specific review.
What to examine
Describe work by aircraft type, component and service, including mobile activity and subcontracted work. FAA repair-station certification describes authorized functions; it does not establish the insurance grant or prove that all maintenance businesses are Part 145 stations.
Evidence to gather
- Work orders and standard customer contract
- Approved functions where certificated
- Peak aircraft values and locations
- Parts traceability, quality records and loss history
Questions for your review
- When does custody begin and end?
- How does the form treat the work itself versus resulting damage?
- Are mobile services and subcontractors described?
Watch the related explanation
Aircraft Maintenance Insurance for MROs: Gaps to Check Before Renewal
Select the thumbnail to load YouTube. Third-party privacy terms apply.
References and review status
- FAA repair station operators Part 145
Certification and approved functions, not insurance - USAIG airport liability coverage areas
Coverage differentiation only
References support the indicated background topic. Review questions are educational analysis; no specific policy specimen has been supplied. Source checks: November 12, 2026.