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 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?
I don't think your broker tried hard enough.I was perplexed that I could not get a policy with a deductible. What is the logic of that?
I didn't try that hard. I was just surprised that it wasn't common practice.I don't think your broker tried hard enough.
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 ....
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.I didn't try that hard. I was just surprised that it wasn't common practice.
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.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.
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.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.
That's cheap for an experimental. I was quoted 10k for my Velocity, which only had a hull value of 99k (estimated).$7k a year for an RV aircraft?? Yikes, what is your TT?
My C170 is $1300/yr. 3000+ tt, 300 in model
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.But the principle is still informative to those who never heard of it.
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.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.
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.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.
Or for experimental owner pilots who are allowed/capable of fixing their planes, like me.Liability is a good option for older pilots that can afford to replace their airplane.
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.That's cheap for an experimental. I was quoted 10k for my Velocity, which only had a hull value of 99k (estimated).
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.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.
indeed it would be, as post 19 highlights.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.
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 was perplexed that I could not get a policy with a deductible. What is the logic of that?
$7k a year for an RV aircraft?? Yikes, what is your TT?
My C170 is $1300/yr. 3000+ tt, 300 in model
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.Liability is a good option for older pilots that can afford to replace their airplane.
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.
If my wife were 30 years younger than me, I’d fly naked as well!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.
If my wife were 30 years younger than me I'd be arrested.If my wife were 30 years younger than me, I’d fly naked as well!![]()
My RV-6 is under a thousand. 2,000 pic hours, ppsel. Airplane is hangared.That's cheap for an experimental. I was quoted 10k for my Velocity, which only had a hull value of 99k (estimated).
Not saying to fly without liability coverage. That is what pays for damage to other peoples property.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?