Alex wrote: Do I understand you correctly: Are you saying "per person" is better (broader) than "per passenger"? (If, for instance, you hurt someone on the ground?) Or, are you saying, if the limit is 300k "per passenger", and you hurt someone on the ground, that person on the ground is covered by the overall limit of $1M? Therefore, "per passenger" is better? Anyone...anyone...
Alex
Yes & No...you have them backwards and correct at the same time. This is a limitation so it takes away coverage from the overall limit of $1,000,000 (or whatever the policy states). A "per passenger" limit is very defined whereas a "per person"limit is very broad...you were correct in that part, however, you want a limit to be very defined and not broad. With a per person limit the coverage does not exceed X for anyone who is injured whether they are on board or on the ground so your overall limit is greatly reduced for bodily injury. With a per passenger limit the coverage does not exceed X, only for passangers who are injured. In this scenario a person injured on the ground could receive the full policy limit if needed. If you have to choose, you want the person on the ground to have the least limitation as you have the greatest duty of care owed to them.
Here is an example: A plane goes down and hits a house...2 fatalities on board and 1 serious on the ground. In a per person policy each could receive no more than $100,000 (or whatever the sub limit is). On a per passenger policy there would be $100,000 for each person on board and up to $800,000 for the person on the ground.
The best option is a "smooth" limit which only has a limitation for the overall policy. The overall limit can be split up or used in total, whichever is needed. This policy type is more expensive and not always offered.