I'm afraid I have no expertise in the conventions regarding "loss of use", but I'm a little surprised that the insurance company would be willing to pay for a teardown.  As I understand it, the requirement for a teardown after a prop strike evolved when occasional accessory drive and magneto problems surfaced after an event.  With the engine not turning, none of those problems could occur and even a crankshaft failure is almost impossible without the flange being bent.  I can understand TCM saying it was required, as it releases them from any future liability - it would go to the rebuilder.  And they're not paying for it.  And the owner would likely "require" a teardown for the same reasons - and he's not paying for it and he logically wants everything done that is possible.  I'm only a little surprised at the insurance company paying for it, as paying for the teardown helps release them from future liability.  It's all about putting up a shield against future liability claims - all just my opinion, of course :-)
Gary Casey
No law experience except on the receiving end of frivolous lawsuits
*
*
Any suggestions as to how to value loss of use of my airplane after my propeller incident?  The propeller was damaged by an FBO in Spokane.  Does any one know of some formula the insurance industry might use based on typical hourly expense multiplied by days grounded?  Would one attempt to claim the expense of planned trips on the airlines vs. expense of flying my airplane?  For example the price of three airline tickets to Reno less six hours expenses for my LNC-4.  I was at the beginning of a flying vacation when the incident happened.  During August to October I had planned to fly to Spokane (twice), Eugene, Front Range, Races at Reno, and perhaps training at Napa.  All those airline tickets would be thousands of dollars not to mention loss of use for spur of the moment purposes.

The propeller is being repaired in Seattle.  The engine is in the middle of tear down for inspection in Tulsa (Barrett).  TCM's position was that if the propeller could not be repaired on the airplane that mandatory tear down and inspection was required regardless of the results of the propeller and prop. flange inspection.

David