What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Are you NOT INSURED?

Do you have insurance?

  • Yes, I have insurance on the RV

    Votes: 243 86.2%

  • No, I do not have insurance on the RV

    Votes: 39 13.8%
  • Total voters
    282
Captain_John

Captain_John

Well Known Member
Hey guys, I know a guy at my airport who carries NO insurance policy whatsoever. He flies regularly and just does his thing.

I have no insurance on my boat but would and will have it on my plane.

The six that I fly has insurance and I do also have my own policy for flying friends airplanes.

With all that said, does anyone here go al fresco with no insurance at all?

If you want to chime in with comments, please do but I set up a poll for anonymity.

...just wondering?

:confused: CJ
 
Insurance

Seems like it would be pretty irresponsible and inconsiderate not to have liability at the least. If you have an accident for which you are to blame and you hurt others (passenger, someone on the ground or in another plane) you should be responsible enough to have provided some amount of money for that eventuality.

If you don't care about losing your plane if you have an accident, then don't bother with the hull insurance. That doesn't seem like a good financial decision, but to each his own.

As you can see from the above I plan on insurance ;)
 
IMO, insurance is an ABSOLUTE must! Unless you are a millionaire its a no-brainer. But then again, if you were a millionaire, you would definately want to protect yourself against possible law suits. Also, you probably wouldnt fly an RV if you were a millionaire, so we're back to ABSOLUTE must!
 
tkatc said:
IMO, insurance is an ABSOLUTE must! Unless you are a millionaire its a no-brainer. But then again, if you were a millionaire, you would definately want to protect yourself against possible law suits. Also, you probably wouldnt fly an RV if you were a millionaire, so we're back to ABSOLUTE must!
Click to expand...

Circular logic at its best:D
 
It looks like this "research" excercise is going to be corrupted by the airing of strong opinion. While flying without insurance is inconceivable to many, I'll bet it is a lot more common than many of us realize.

We must remember there's generally no law requiring it, so it comes down to a personal assessment of risk.
 
RV3, no passengers ever. No hull insurance because I can afford to replace it. No liability because it only flies a few hours a year . The risk is very small in my opinion.
 
I believe that most airports require tenants to carry liability insurance, with the airport entity as one of the insured. So if your poll is trying to find out if people voluntarily carry insurance, you might need to reword it.

On my Sonex I carried only liability, on my RV-4 I carry liability and hull coverage.
 
Last edited:
Look At This From The Perspective Of Fairness and The Potential Harm To Aviation

John invited comments on the topic, so I took him up on the invitation. I think this is an important issue to the flying community, so I am hoping to convince others to give it some careful thought. Don't you think it would be a terrible black eye for general aviation and experimental in particular if one of us crashed into a house, destroying it, and it came out that we didn't have insurance to compensate the owners for the damage? That's the kind of incident that spawns legislation.

Again, it's just my opinion, but I hope to at least create an awareness of the consequences of your choices.

Deciding against hull insurance is your assessment of the financial risk you pose to yourself/family. Like I said, to each his own on that. I can see where it may be a reasonable bet -- like an inexpensively built and equipped plane.

Deciding against liability insurance is your assessment of the risk you pose to others and your ability and willingness to compensate them without insurance. Assuming the risk you pose to others is "0" is not fair or responsible in my opinion. Things go wrong in aviation that are not predictable. I can see where you may choose to "self insure" if you have the means (i.e. you are a millionaire - still not sure why you would risk your hard earned fortune when insurance is relatively cheap). That said, if you don't have the means to self insure and you don't cover yourself, you are de facto saying you don't care what happens if you cause loss to someone else. That's an unfortunate lack of concern for others in my opinion.

To further belabor the point, if you have an accident that harms others, how can you say that you shouldn't compensate them for that harm? It also seems logical that you would want to try and put some reasonable limit on that to avoid a jury verdict that isn't commensurate to the loss. Let's say you have an off field landing and go through the roof of someone's house. Shouldn't you be responsible for compensating them for their loss? After all, you caused the damage. That could cost thousands to millions of dollars depending on the house. Suppose in that same scenario you crash through the roof and kill the primary earner of the family. Let's add to that that he/she is a successful business person who earns several million a year. The magnitude of the loss you caused that person and his/her family just increased exponentially. Those of you who are willing to accept that risk may say, "I will make darn sure I miss houses/people, etc. if I crash," to which I respond it may not be in your control. Remember Galloping Ghost or the multiple accident reports we have seen about people having heart attacks while flying.

All I am saying is we enjoy the privilege of flight, but it comes with certain responsibilities; and some of those are to others who may suffer from our accidents.
 
Last edited:
BruceEicher said:
The more money you spend on insurance, any type, the more money you are risking in hopes of recovery with a problem. Seems backwards to me for my dollar. I'll think and invest in the positive.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this way of thinking about insurance. I NEVER want to collect on insurance. I have no "hopes of recovery" at all. I am not risking a penny when I buy insurance and I really hope the insurance company keeps it all. I pay that cost so someone else takes on the risk.

It seems like we get these insurance threads every few months. Insurance isn't a bet. It is a fee paid for a service given. Insurance is all about transferring risk. If you do not have insurance you can save money, but you have greater risk. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand it for what it is.

Liability insurance transfers the risk that my estate would be devastated by a claim. The more money you have (up to a point) the more you NEED liability coverage. If you have nothing, there isn't much need for liability coverage. I you have a million dollars, you will be sued for a million dollars. If you are a multi-millionaire then maybe you can self insure, but why bother for a measly two or three hundred dollars a year. I carry liability.

Imagine a crash. Imagine a widow and/or remaining owners getting hit with the bill from the energy company that had to deal with the downed power lines, and the entity dealing with the fires, and the recovery company that had to transport the wreckage. No widow, no estate and no co-owner? Then, no liability seems fine.

Liability coverage transfers financial risk.

Hull insurance covers plane replacement, and that decision is more nuanced, because there probably isn't a NEED to replace the plane. I carry hull insurance partly due to financial risk, but I could recover from a $70K loss. The reason I carry hull is because it is easier to pay an annual amount of ~$1000 then it is to talk my wife into another new $70K purchase. If my plane burned down (as one did as seen in posts on VAF this year) there is no way I could say "Honey, I want a new one" if I did not have hull insurance. For me, hull insurance protects my ability to own a plane if my current plane somehow becomes a total loss.
 
Passenger limit?

Most of the policies have a 100K per seat limit. In the event of a major injury to a passenger, this policy isn't much better than nothing at all. For those preaching about social responsibility, you might want to consider raising your limits to a minimum of 1M smooth.

I say to each his own.
 
My choice

Interesting question. In fact I personally feel strongly enough about the need for both hull and liability, that my plane has not yet made a first flight, though it is ready. Until I have heard back from the insurance company that my not in motion policy has been elevated to cover us, we wait on the ground...
 
I flew my own airplane for many many years with no insurance whatsoever. I was single then, and considered that if I did much damage, I would be dead anyway.
Somehow having saved like over a quarter of a million dollars by not paying premiums, it almost seems "right" to continue the practice
That said, I have no coverage on my project yet since it is not flying, will probably put some on it when it becomes an aircraft, have not decided yet.
 
I agree that insurance is better than wise ...

I did not insure my RV until the day before I moved it from my garage to the airport. Now that I'm flying, I would not - under any circumstance - fly w/o liability insurance. Understand that I never want to pay out a penny unless absolutely necessary ... I have a reputation for moths in my wallet. But after my teenage daughter was in a serious car accident .... And seeing how the lawsuits flew ... Liability is a must in my life. Were it not for the umbrella policy I carried with my car and home insurance, I would likely be penniless today as a result of that accident and concomitant lawsuits.

It only takes one serious incident ...
 
If you taxi your uninsured plane into my plane you will not be getting a Christmas card from me this year................

25a.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would venture a guess that the majority of pilots, including myself, who carry passengers do not have sufficient liabilty coverage to pay out a jury award against them. I aked Nationaire about limits higher than $100K per passenger; she said no one will offer it (except, I guess, Lloyds of London).
 
My last insurance cost me $60 per hour, $1200 for 20 hours. Seems insurance companies should be able to sell policies by the hour. Remember insurance companies are gambling nothing will happen to you. When you do have a policy even million smooth, you have enough there to encourage attorneys. Ever hear of settlements for less these days. How much of a settlement exceeding this limit would do you in?
 
DonFromTX said:
I flew my own airplane for many many years with no insurance whatsoever. I was single then, and considered that if I did much damage, I would be dead anyway.
Somehow having saved like over a quarter of a million dollars by not paying premiums, it almost seems "right" to continue the practice
That said, I have no coverage on my project yet since it is not flying, will probably put some on it when it becomes an aircraft, have not decided yet.
Click to expand...

I guess that might be true if you started flying at age 20, and paid an annual premium of $4,545.00 for the past 55 years.

But I don't think so.
 
Whoops, I just got caught with some very sloppy math. You are correct, I never "saved" that much, probably more like 10% of that amount, insurance did not cost that much earlier like back in the 50's, and aircraft were far less expensive to replace..
gasman said:
I guess that might be true if you started flying at age 20, and paid an annual premium of $4,545.00 for the past 55 years.

But I don't think so.
Click to expand...
 
how do we define....'insured'

BobTurner said:
I would venture a guess that the majority of pilots, including myself, who carry passengers do not have sufficient liabilty coverage to pay out a jury award against them. I aked Nationaire about limits higher than $100K per passenger; she said no one will offer it (except, I guess, Lloyds of London).
Click to expand...

$100k passenger limit; ditto with all my policies. Notice that 'insure' has the word 'sue' built right in!
PRotection??? ....at the very least I'd like to have my passengers sign a waiver, whether these ever hold up is another question.
You can bet that once the $100,000 policy is paid out, any legal representative is going after your house, homeowner's policy, spouse's earnings, etc etc.

I agree that sometimes it seems almost futile to pay insurance; it cost me $220 an hour last year. ..went flying by myself on sunny days, around the patch a few times.....I vote for some kind of reform in their risk assessment!
 
We insured ours with hull/liability the day before the move to the airport. If money was real tight then we would fly with liabilty only, but never less. My old truck and suv have had liabilty only from their 4th year on. We are very safe drivers and save the money back that we save on full coverage. Our insurance cost $25/hr last year. Another reason to fly more.:rolleyes:
 
BobTurner said:
I would venture a guess that the majority of pilots, including myself, who carry passengers do not have sufficient liabilty coverage to pay out a jury award against them. I aked Nationaire about limits higher than $100K per passenger; she said no one will offer it (except, I guess, Lloyds of London).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I noticed that when I finally went for insurance. The low values made me feel the premiums were a waste of money since I would be whacked with anything over and above the 100K anyway.
 
I carry no insurance at all. Aircraft insurance is just a invitation to be sued. A lawyer sees that million dollar policy as a paycheck for him and will file at the drop of a hat. Then if there is a judgement, the insurance company pays the million, and you are on the hook for the other multi million dollars. No insurance coupled with no assets, good luck finding a lawyer to file that case. Bottom line is if you have an accident, insurance is only going to reduce the excessive amount that you will be sued for.

Bob burns
 
This poll need two options regarding insurance. 1). Liability only and 2). Liability plus hull. I think that would make in more meaningful.

Jim
 
we're ignoring a whole class of pilots who fly without insurance because they fly without something required by part 65 or part 91. lots of people fly RV's without a medical and prefer not to fly light sport. (er...slower). we forget how self-regulating this flying endeavor is. if you are flying illegally, why buy insurance? why get flight reviews? why do annuals? etc. the only time it gets sticky is if you have an accident and you don't plan of doing that either. My assumption, right or wrong, is that pilots do the same things drivers of cars do...they carry on conversations while they fly, they fly drunk, they run of out gas etc. and of course they don't all buy insurance.
 
We’ve covered hull and liability, but if we had a good crash, that probably wouldn’t be the biggest expense if we survived it. What does your policy list as maximum per occupant on medical? $5,000, $10,000 or more? How long would that last us in the hospital? Maybe a day, or a few hours? Chances are you have other health insurance. Has your policy provider ever asked you if you’re an active GA pilot? If so, it is more? And God forbid they ask us what kind of plane we fly, and we say Experimental. I imagine this is the look we'll get! :eek: Hope they don't start treating us as test pilots and giving us their rates.
 
I called for a quote, from "A" prominent insurance co. years ago, and provided my hours of flight time, as requested. The quote came back with my fight time 50 hours higher than I stated. The insurance company wrote a quote that they would never pay out on, as I did not have the hours in my log that were written into the policy.
When one looks at insurance (with all the policy exclusions) with a mathematical mind, they see that many pay a bit so the few can be covered. If you bet on the odds, and yourself, you would never give them a penny.
Over your lifetime, you will likely never have an incident. Out go thousands of dollars on the fear that you might eventually have an event like you read about in the news.
When you realize that insurance companies would write a quote with the intention that they never pay out, or the cost of your airplane is consumed in a few year's premium, you might get a sour taste.
What if you own a few aircraft? Insurance should be offered to the pilot, not the airframe. They really stick it to you if you have a few, after all, how many hours a year do you fly? Instead of 100 hours on one plane, if it is devided between a Cessna, an RV and a piper or something, you pay full on each plane.
yes, I have, but it sucks.
 
Is that true, that liability insurance is not compulsory in USA?
In Italy, we believe that it is paramount to grant protection to a citizen from hazardous activities as road, air and firearms (i.e. hunting) activities.
 
Agree that the number of hours flown per year should enter into the risk assessment. Turns out that I only paid $7.90/hour last year and that included extra coverage for commercial use, formation, aerobatics and an airshow endorsement. ($2194/277.7 hours=$7.90). At some point NationAir may break even on the team coverage after paying out for two totaled and five damaged aircraft after the 2011 Sun-n-Fun tornado event. Of course, foregoing insurance is not an issue with the team as we are a commercial enterprise and the thought of changing insurance brokers never enters our heads.
 
Self insure

I am just curious if it is possible to self insure like we can with autos. Can someone post a bond with an insurance company instead of paying premimums or soemthing? Will $1M normal umbrella coverage in connection with a homeowners policy be applicable for the liability portion? Just curious.

(I am paying my 2013 dues as I write, anyone else want to join me?)
 
Another consideration ??

Referencing a previous point, I have two single place airplanes and fly from a low traffic rural field. So statistical probability says insurance is a poor INVESTMENT. However, I carry liability out of respect for my wife's financial security in the event a litigation. Her is my delimma that you all face regardless of # of seats, pax, traffic volume, whatever. I am told that insurance is not available until you have X-HOURS in type. Where do I get X-hours in an RV3 prior to flight ??? I have 800 tail dragger hours and that apparently does not count. Does anyone have helpful information for me ????
 
IMO, insurance is an ABSOLUTE must! Unless you are a millionaire its a no-brainer. But then again, if you were a millionaire, you would definately want to protect yourself against possible law suits. Also, you probably wouldnt fly an RV if you were a millionaire, so we're back to ABSOLUTE must!
Click to expand...

John Walton, heir to the the Walmart fortune, flew (and died in) an ultralight.

He was ranked No. 7 on the Forbes magazine list of the 400 wealthiest Americans in 2004, with a fortune estimated at $20 billion.

Protect your assets and limit liability.
 
Larry DeCamp said:
. I am told that insurance is not available until you have X-HOURS in type. Where do I get X-hours in an RV3 prior to flight ??? I have 800 tail dragger hours and that apparently does not count. Does anyone have helpful information for me ????
Click to expand...

Shop around. Not all policies are so draconian. I have far less TW time than you and never had to demonstrate "time in type" for several RV's, my Hiperbipe, and a Rocket that I've been PIC.
 
ronschreck said:
Agree that the number of hours flown per year should enter into the risk assessment. Turns out that I only paid $7.90/hour last year and that included extra coverage for commercial use, formation, aerobatics and an airshow endorsement. ($2194/277.7 hours=$7.90).
Click to expand...

I like the $/hr idea as it gets less the more I fly. Or you can rationalize you purchase the insurance is for X hours of flying, and after you achieve X, then your insurance is free for the rest of the year. Little things to help justify the cost and increase my flying. Not a accident lawyer so maybe smoking something thinking this, but do not want the rest of my assets at risk if I do have an incident.
 
n82rb said:
I carry no insurance at all. Aircraft insurance is just a invitation to be sued. A lawyer sees that million dollar policy as a paycheck for him and will file at the drop of a hat. Then if there is a judgement, the insurance company pays the million, and you are on the hook for the other multi million dollars. No insurance coupled with no assets, good luck finding a lawyer to file that case. Bottom line is if you have an accident, insurance is only going to reduce the excessive amount that you will be sued for.

Bob burns
Click to expand...

Bob ? not trying to pick on you personally, but I find the attitude of ?no insurance ? no assets ? no lawsuits ? no problems? incredibly irresponsible.

Let?s say that you are taxiing your plane and have a brake failure, and happen to taxi into my parked plane (like the pictures above). So now because of your unwillingness to pay for even liability insurance, I (or my insurance company) am supposed to pay for the repairs which were caused by no fault of my own. I can?t get my brain around this logic. I don?t care if you have in motion coverage, but liability insurance is just the price you need to pay to have a plane.

Maybe I am just a spiteful person, but if that happened to me, I would be willing go to the ends of the earth to get every possible dime out of the person who damaged my plane. If you have no assets and are living in a cardboard box, I will find a way to get the box.

Just my opinion,
Jason
 
Jason,

How do you know that Bob won't simply write you a check for the damage to your airplane?

Insurance is simply ONE way to be responsible - not the ONLY way.

Other ways to be responsible include making sure the bolts in your control pushrods are tight before you fly, you have enough gas in the tanks, and you are in fact even competent to handle your machine throughout the flight envelope.

Funny how often we so casually inflict these maintenance, operational and skill deficiencies to the poor unsuspecting public, but the minute something like insurance comes up, THAT'S where we draw the line in the sand!
 
I guess I took the line where he said "no insurance coupled with no assets" to mean that the goal was to avoid any payouts, either by the reponsible party or an insurance company.

I have no problem if someone has the ability and will to self-insure. What gets me wound up is when someone decides to put others at siginficant risk in order to save a few bucks.

Jason
 
A few months ago I was stopped at a traffic light when a distracted uninsured driver with no assets plowed straight into the back of my car. The fact that he saves money by not buying insurance does not make me feel better about it.
 
WOW! I can't believe how much bandwidth this thread has garnered!

I was simply just curious and there are lots of others very interested in this topic with some very interesting comments!

I don't have the lead to replace my plane if I stove it all up, so I will certainly have a policy.

Thanks for all the comments guys!

:) CJ
 
Time in type

Larry DeCamp said:
Referencing a previous point, I have two single place airplanes and fly from a low traffic rural field. So statistical probability says insurance is a poor INVESTMENT. However, I carry liability out of respect for my wife's financial security in the event a litigation. Her is my delimma that you all face regardless of # of seats, pax, traffic volume, whatever. I am told that insurance is not available until you have X-HOURS in type. Where do I get X-hours in an RV3 prior to flight ??? I have 800 tail dragger hours and that apparently does not count. Does anyone have helpful information for me ????
Click to expand...

Hi Larry,
My experience was that insurance companies consider time in any tailwheel
RV as "time in type" for an RV-3. I had no trouble getting insurance for
my -3B after 10 hours of dual in RV-6's. A sign-off from a reputable RV
transition trainer also helps. I had very low tailwheel time, but high time
in nosewheel RV's. My first year premium was a little high, but it was
cut almost in half by the second year.

- Dan Benua
RV-3B (and others...)
 
I have no problem with cheap skates or politely called "frugal people".
What I can't stand is someone being cheap at my expense.
That would involve someone uninsured trash my plane with his uninsured plane.
I have always carried liability for my 8 and now carry full insurance for my 10.
It has been my understanding that you should insure yourself for at least the total value of your assets.
Unless you have committed an egregious willful act of stupidity involving your airplane you can reasonably expect to have your insurance company cover your ***ets.
Bottom line: Liability is an absolute must, Hull, whatever you can stomach.
 
SHIPCHIEF said:
When one looks at insurance (with all the policy exclusions) with a mathematical mind, they see that many pay a bit so the few can be covered. If you bet on the odds, and yourself, you would never give them a penny.
Click to expand...

Airplane insurance is not a bet or an investment. Bets and investments have the DESIRED outcome of the return of principal plus some gain. Insurance is the cost of protecting assets. The desired outcome for everyone involved is no insurance claim. If there is a claim, all parties lose. The deductible means you are not made completely whole with the payout. There is no "gain," just a smaller loss then you would have had otherwise.

SHIPCHIEF said:
Over your lifetime, you will likely never have an incident. Out go thousands of dollars on the fear that you might eventually have an event like you read about in the news.

When you realize that insurance companies would write a quote with the intention that they never pay out, or the cost of your airplane is consumed in a few year's premium, you might get a sour taste.
Click to expand...

Over the last several years I have received checks from two different airplane insurance companies totaling about $70K. There was no gain, but it sure as heck limited my losses. In all cases, the level of service I received from the insurance companies was outstanding. Because some will wonder...I was not PIC.

Insurance won't protect you from every eventuality, but it will certainly offer better financial protection than nothing at all. My annual premium for liability and hull is still just one fiftieth (2%) of the insured value. That is a bargain for the level of protection you receive, and I'll have to fly to 100 years old before the Insurance companies end up in the black on me.

One last thought. My opinion is that money used to buy insurance is not a bet, but the decision NOT to buy insurance is most certainly a gamble.
 
Last edited:
A few questions I have not seen addressed:

Most homeowners policies will not cover aviation.
CA does not require insurance on aircraft so yes you can self insure.
Hour-driven charges: an agent told me once that they consider pilots who fly very little per year as riskier than 100 hour per year pilots, because they "must" be rusty. At the other end if you fly more than, say, 500 hours a year your exposure is increasing. They do ask you, every year, how many hours you have flown the past year, and quote accordingly.
Buying aviation insurance is like buying term life insurance if you have a family. You certainly hope you never use it, but if it is needed you are glad to have it.
Finally, question from Italy, in the US most states require liability insurance or an equivalent bond for cars, but not for aircraft. But the limits are very low. The US is a very capitalist society, where you are on your own. If injured by a poor person you are out of luck unless you take care of yourself (for cars, most of us carry "uninsured motorist coverage"). If injured by a rich person you yourself can become rich for life.
 
homeowners liability policy

Our homeowners liability policy does not cover aviation (we live in a flyin community and it was specifically excluded).
Insurers used to discount if you had multiple airplanes because you cannot be flying more than one aircraft at the same time, but they no longer do that.
WE carry full coverage on our aircraft including a builders policy on a/c under construction.
 
Last edited:
I've often wondered how many people in the aviation insurance business, such as brokers, underwriters etc., actually carry insurance or do they have another take on it when not selling it. Many insurance salesmen in other fields do not.
 
I carry full coverage on my Yak. And Full on the company plane too.
And Full coverage on all my cars (except the POS Rat-rod is liabs only).
I do all my own aircraft coverage, but USAA does my car and houses... that stuff bores me and I'd rather pay them to do it properly.

We have some larger fleet accounts that are billed monthly on what is flown, but they are thousand$ a month in premium. Hourly billing would be neat, but too much work for me. And remember the State Insurance Depts are "all over" the insurance companies with heavy oversight of forms and rates. Perhaps if it wasn't regulated there would be more options.

A lot of discussion about liability side here. Its for sure that just having insurance makes the claims come. But frankly having been through hundreds of claims and over 100 with fatalities, I can't think of any that ever went to trial (most were "Sub $100k Pax). Typically they are settled quickly and efficiently and the NOK signs a release of future liability so the whole thing is done. Over.

I'd guess 1/3 of my accounts are Liabs only. Many municipalities require A/I on the Premises Liability for a hangar lease. Liability coverage can pay for a fuel spill if you crash on the runway ($10k+ invoice from the City), or pay for a fancy FAA runway sign you might plow through. Or another airplane you accidently smack into while texting and taxi-ing.

Liability coverage does help with a lot of other things people don't always think of. For a couple hundred bucks it seems worthwhile to let somebody else put up the legal defense.

tj
 
I would like to make a couple of additional points for clarity:

1. Just because one does not carry insurance does not mean that if one had an accident and damaged another person's property or person, those damages would not necessarily be uncompensated for. Those costs can be paid directly by the person causing the damage, assuming he had assets. Which some do. For example if I taxied into something, I could just pay for the damage out of pocket. Insurance and/or a lawsuit is not required before payment can be made.

2. Buying insurance equal to the amount of assets one has is not a good way to plan either. If one had assets of say, $1 million, and the same amount of liability insurance, a lawsuit could easily go after $2 million.

3. This has been said, but most airplane policies limit liability payments to passengers to $100,000. Some limit payments to any person to $100,000. This is not very much insurance anyway; but the insurance company will provide a legal defense if there is a lawsuit. As a pilot , that defense may or may not be the one you really want for yourself, but it is better than none.

4. I have a handful of airplanes, some fly often, some fly rarely. It makes little sense to insure those that fly little. The cost per year for insurance would be more than all the other costs combined. The risk is low, so i pass on insurance.

It would be more sensible to buy liability insurance on the pilot in my opinion. This is almost what you do when you buy renters insurance, but does not cover you in airplanes you own. Similar problem with cars. If you have a bunch of cars, only one driver, each vehicle drives very little per year, but you have to buy insurance on all of them separately. Sure, you get the multi car discount, and they rate you for low mileage, but it still costs way too much in my opinion.
 
LIke someone said earlier ...

This is one of the most interesting - and provocative - threads I've seen in a long time. And about a very important issue. It's amazing to me that someone would have $50k to $150k tied up in an airplane, not to mention recurring costs for hangar fees and fuel, and yet be unwilling to pay relatively few $100/yr for insurance. "To each his own."
 
Well to be fair, a few 100 bucks for Liability Only.
For full coverage we are still talking 1500 to 3000 or more per year.

Pricing is going up too. Sorry guys. Britt Paulks exit has allowed competition to hold the line and just about all the aircraft are seeing slight increaeses. Nature of the beast after a long and protracted series of price reductions.

Its a good / bad for us as brokers. Tougher sell and many will just go away. But the truth is people are spending money differently than they did 3 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top