Jericho79

It is not really a case of the insurance company being liable. They are insuring you as the driver, so the question is are you, the owner/operator, liable. If you are liable, the insurer has to pay out. If you are not liable, the driver of the other vehicle pays out (or the municipality, land owner, etc).
It would be slightly different in a no-fault state, where your insurance would pay out regardless.

The child is an innocent third party, and they'd be covered.

The law doesn't really allow for insurance companies to "get out" of liability claims, particularly for mandatory insurance like Auto. Wordings are set with very few but specific exclusions- such as racing or carrying passengers for hire. Special endorsements/coverage are available for these.

Pulaski

I have no doubt you're correct, but you're arguing a different point, I think. ........ Would an insurance company payout on a car insurance policy if a child was injured after being seated in a cardboard box secured to the back seat using duct tape? Or would they say the child suffered his/her injuries because of the inadequacy of the seating arrangements and not pay out?

Jericho79

There is no provision, in any auto liability policy, that allows an insurer to avoid claims for this type of incident. As mentioned, this is the same as there is no provision for insurers to avoid claims for driving whilst drunk, exceeding the speed limit, driving with your feet whilst fully reclined, etc etc.
The wording is very clear on the type of events that are excluded- carrying passengers for hire, racing, etc.

Driving a car which has been modified from its original condition is a different matter. This is specifically asked at the time of quoting, so if you tell the insurer there are no modifications, untruthfully, the insurer is entitled to void the policy completely. This is whats called "misrepresentation", and there are provisions in the policy to deal with this.
However, in the event of an accident, the courts would expect the insurer to prove that a) the change in risk contributed to the accident/injury, and b) if they'd known about the change in risk, they would not have accepted the policy.

mrken30

Just got back from the UK and my Diono latch seat worked without issue on a 3 point isofix car in the UK. The system appears to be the same. I am not sure of the weight limits on the isofix system.

LonelyCloud

We needed a seat for my last trip, so we bought a US one (partly because of the FAA approved sticker). On returning to the UK we noted that the ONLY difference between the UK and US version of this seat was the FAA approved sticker.

On a slightly comical side note, we transferred via Canada and because of another different set of 'rules' we couldn't use the FAA & UK approved seat on the plane as it wasn't Canadian approved lol

mrken30

The FAR/AIM states that you can use car seats approved by other civil airline authorities. This is probably also true in Canada, but not everyone knows the rules. I know the Cares harness is only technicaly approved by the FAA

LonelyCloud

Tried that, but the steward looked at me like I had a third nipple growing out of my forehead, so it wasn't worth the hassle. It was only an hour transfer, so my 18mth old had a nice big seat all to himself.

mrken30

The information to take next time is here http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/...NT_SYSTEMS.pdf . Sometimes its easier to take the paperwork to show the aircraft personnel. It looks like they accept use of the CARES system. I am not usre if that is approved in Europe.

LonelyCloud

Europe is a whole different game. They don't want seats on planes and would rather you had your screaming, uncontrollably manic child in a lap belt attached to your belt, than have a nice safe secure child seat.

Fortunately, on my next flight, I'll have a toddler and a newborn, so neither will require seats and I can just throw it in the hold (the seats, not the toddler, although...)