Liability Only Insurance

Jim F

Jim F

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
Has anyone pursued liability only insurance coverage with either of the brokers listed on the AOPA announcement on August 15? Any positive results?

Jim F
 
Was thinking about it as rates keep climbing despite no issues in over 20 years:(

Called Avemco as they said they could be competitive via a mailing. Their website asked for info., but apparently wasn't enough ... got quoted for $7000 for the RV (paying $1100 now, started at $600 on the previous Tiger and the first few years with the RV). Will probably start liability only next year ....
 
AFAIK, it's always been available. A friend had liability-only insurance back in 2005.

Unless you have "smooth" liability coverage, it will result in a significantly smaller premium. It will still be smaller with smooth, but not quite as dramatic as on a policy with sub-limits.
 
I have 12 personal vehicles including a plane, not one of them covered by hull insurance. I was a bit confused by the AOPA announcement, I haven't purchased aircraft in-flight hull coverage for a long time and had no idea buying only the coverage you want may be an issue with some companies. Is that a self-promoting AOPA fabrication or a real situation?
 
Tusayan said:
I have 12 personal vehicles including a plane, not one of them covered by hull insurance. I was a bit confused by the AOPA announcement, I haven't purchased aircraft in-flight hull coverage for a long time and had no idea buying only the coverage you want may be an issue with some companies. Is that a self-promoting AOPA fabrication or a real situation?
Click to expand...
I think the AOPA announcement was about letting people know that such a thing exists. I bet most would not think of it by themselves.
 
I was perplexed that I could not get a policy with a deductible. What is the logic of that?
 
danhagan said:
Was thinking about it as rates keep climbing despite no issues in over 20 years:(

Called Avemco as they said they could be competitive via a mailing. Their website asked for info., but apparently wasn't enough ... got quoted for $7000 for the RV (paying $1100 now, started at $600 on the previous Tiger and the first few years with the RV). Will probably start liability only next year ....
Click to expand...

$7k a year for an RV aircraft?? Yikes, what is your TT?

My C170 is $1300/yr. 3000+ tt, 300 in model
 
When you're accepting the liability of paying for a prop strike and other 'comprehensive' type coverage events then of course the premium is way less.

Just like car insurance, liability costs less because the insurer off the hook for many more common events that can total an AC.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I didn't try that hard. I was just surprised that it wasn't common practice.
Click to expand...
During the 12-year soft market, carriers were forced to give up everything they could to compete - which entailed giving up deductibles. Most of the lower-cost carriers are mostly software driven and their systems are programmed for nil ($0) deductibles. No reason to change it unless it isn't working.
 
midlifeflyer said:
AFAIK, it's always been available. A friend had liability-only insurance back in 2005.

Unless you have "smooth" liability coverage, it will result in a significantly smaller premium. It will still be smaller with smooth, but not quite as dramatic as on a policy with sub-limits.
Click to expand...
AOPA announcement indicated that liability only coverage was becoming more widely available to 70+ year old pilots. Indicated there would be new policy criteria. Policies would be issued by Global.
 
Jim F said:
AOPA announcement indicated that liability only coverage was becoming more widely available to 70+ year old pilots. Indicated there would be new policy criteria. Policies would be issued by Global.
Click to expand...
Sure, AOPA is going to tout the services of their partner. But the principle is still informative to those who never heard of it. I would expect different underwriting decisions when the primary insurance risk is removed.
 
Finding more and more older guys who CANNOT even get liability only…. At any cost.
 
texasclouds said:
$7k a year for an RV aircraft?? Yikes, what is your TT?

My C170 is $1300/yr. 3000+ tt, 300 in model
Click to expand...
That's cheap for an experimental. I was quoted 10k for my Velocity, which only had a hull value of 99k (estimated).
 
midlifeflyer said:
But the principle is still informative to those who never heard of it.
Click to expand...
That honestly surprises me that a significant number of people have never heard of liability only coverage, but it kind of makes sense if I think about it.
 
Wow, EAB must have a substantial premium bump. I was just quoted $1700 a year on my Decathlon with $100K hull value. That is for an aerobatic taildragger at a grass strip. I turn 60 in a few days.
 
nope, that's velocities, not experimentals as a cohort. some Lancairs also fall in that category. RVs are considered ho hum and cheaper to insure by comparison. Paging @Velocity173 , he can provide context on this topic, as he provided me the data in confidence, I won't speak on his behalf in public.
 
I have Assured Partners and pay around $1,200 a yr for the Velocity and around $1,000 a yr for the Glasair. Liability ($1 mil, $100K) only. If I had to guess, I’ve saved around $3K a year over the last 12 yrs that I dropped hull on them. That’s easily paid for my little $6,500 scrape I had on vacation last year.
 
I would suggest at least getting hull not in motion insurance and not just liability only unless you can afford to replace or repair your airplane should a storm or something else take it out while parked on the ramp.
 
Last edited:
kmacht said:
I would suggest at least getting hulk not in motion insurance and not just liability only unless you can afford to replace or repair your airplane should a storm or something else take it out while parked on the ramp.
Click to expand...
in my anecdotal experience, ground not-in-motion coverage wasn't significantly cheaper than "full hull", which is the cost being complained about. Liability only does provide significant savings, as posted in anecdotes above. That kind [grnd not in mot] of coverage would make sense for a hangar queen of course.
 
hindsight2020 said:
in my anecdotal experience, ground not-in-motion coverage wasn't significantly cheaper than "full hull", which is the cost being complained about. Liability only does provide significant savings, as posted in anecdotes above. That kind [grnd not in mot] of coverage would make sense for a hangar queen of course.
Click to expand...
It does make a big difference if you are a low time pilot or have minimal hours in the type. One size clearly doesn’t fit all though. Personally if I screw something up I’m ok with eating the cost of my plane as long as everyone else involved is covered through liability but I am not sure I would feel the same if my plane was taken out by hail or some piece of flying debris in a thunderstorm or even another airplane like happened to many at sun and fun a few years back.
 
Liability is a good option for older pilots that can afford to replace their airplane.
 
I pay $500 for liability and hull combined; I asked about liability-only but it wasn’t much of a savings and over 30 years the hull portion has paid out pretty well: hail damage, a fire, bent engine mount, and recently a smashed wingtip.
 
Datadriver said:
That's cheap for an experimental. I was quoted 10k for my Velocity, which only had a hull value of 99k (estimated).
Click to expand...
they don't want your business, that's why. Also you wanted hull (aka comprehensive) which opens the insurer up to all sorts of possible liabilities. I'm sure liability only would be significantly less.
 
Jim F said:
AOPA announcement indicated that liability only coverage was becoming more widely available to 70+ year old pilots. Indicated there would be new policy criteria. Policies would be issued by Global.
Click to expand...
Did some research because insurance is a huge problem for me. This AOPA “announcement “ is NOTHING new. Liability only has been available for a long time. And regardless Global won’t cover twins at all which is where the big issue is for us 70+ pilots. AOPA has done absolutely nothing to help. They should be embarrassed promoting this BS.
 
pfarber said:
they don't want your business, that's why. Also you wanted hull (aka comprehensive) which opens the insurer up to all sorts of possible liabilities. I'm sure liability only would be significantly less.
Click to expand...
indeed it would be, as post 19 highlights.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I was perplexed that I could not get a policy with a deductible. What is the logic of that?
Click to expand...
I discussed this with my broker. It seems in the aircraft insurance world, it is not common, and results in very little difference in price.

I know on my cars, it saved a lot to raise my deductible to $1000
 
frfly172 said:
Liability is a good option for older pilots that can afford to replace their airplane.
Click to expand...
At my age and length of being a pilot, if and when I go to liability only, if I can not pay to repair the plane, I’ll be ready to quit ownership, sell off the parts to recoup what I can (plane is fully paid for), and either stop flying or join a club.
 
I'm 70. have two planes insured, a 2007 Skyarrow SLSA, and a C175b. The LSA, factory built, carbon fibre insured for $70K hull cost me about $2300 annually. The Skylark, with O-360 CS and naming my wife as a student pilot is a little over $700 same hull amount. I don't get it, can't wrap my head around it, I just send a check. If my wife (30 years younger) wasn't a student, I would fly naked. Damn the subterfuge.
 
To me, the big issue is being underinsured. No insure, you cry and walk away. Full coverage, the insurance company either repairs your plane or gives you a nice check to buy a new one.

Underinsured, they give you a small check, take the plane, sell it surplus and make money on the deal. And you are stuck.
 
Pinecone said:
To me, the big issue is being underinsured. No insure, you cry and walk away. Full coverage, the insurance company either repairs your plane or gives you a nice check to buy a new one.

Underinsured, they give you a small check, take the plane, sell it surplus and make money on the deal. And you are stuck.
Click to expand...

If no insurance, do you really walk away?
If you damage others property you will be responsible for that?
Even if you don’t, don’t you have pick up the recovery costs?
 
RangeRider said:
I'm 70. have two planes insured, a 2007 Skyarrow SLSA, and a C175b. The LSA, factory built, carbon fibre insured for $70K hull cost me about $2300 annually. The Skylark, with O-360 CS and naming my wife as a student pilot is a little over $700 same hull amount. I don't get it, can't wrap my head around it, I just send a check. If my wife (30 years younger) wasn't a student, I would fly naked. Damn the subterfuge.
Click to expand...
If my wife were 30 years younger than me, I’d fly naked as well! ;)
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
If no insurance, do you really walk away?
If you damage others property you will be responsible for that?
Even if you don’t, don’t you have pick up the recovery costs?
Click to expand...
Not saying to fly without liability coverage. That is what pays for damage to other peoples property.

If no hull insurance the airplane is destroyed, yes, you will walk away. Maybe crying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top