Finally! Liability Only Insurance for Older Pilots

rhkennerly

rhkennerly

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
555
Location
Virginia Beach, VA
Display Name
Display name:
rhkennerly
If you are an aircraft owner and need proof of liability insurance to keep your hanger but need help finding an underwriter because of your age, AOPA has worked out a solution. Of course, this policy means a total loss of your plane or repairs to your aircraft after an incident falls on you alone.

But this insurance sounds ideal for those willing to accept the hull risk but who also want to do the adult thing and make others whole because of our acts or omissions.

Details are in the podcast below.

AOPA Hanger Talk podcast #208
 
AOPA screws up again if the product is liability only. In the automotive world, you can obtain policies that provide comprehensive and collision coverage for claims that are not the fault of the insured.

Age has nothing to do with insuring against your avionics being stolen or a tornado.
 
>Age has nothing to do with insuring against your avionics being stolen or a tornado.

Clearly you’re not there yet. Once you turn 75-80, some insurers require a 2nd pilot to fly with you. Others decline all together, even if you’re flying a light sport or quick silver. You can't keep your municiple hanger if you don’t have liability.
 
Last edited:
There is sometimes available "not-in-motion" coverage available. I looked into this when my plane was down for an extended time for renovation. It was covered if the hangar fell down on it or something, but not if I was flying or even taxiing.
 
Clip4 said:
AOPA screws up again if the product is liability only. In the automotive world, you can obtain policies that provide comprehensive and collision coverage for claims that are not the fault of the insured.
Click to expand...
You’re clearly not an airplane owner, are you? I don’t suppose you bothered to listen to the podcast. If you had, you’d have learned that this liability-only policy fills a need identified by AOPA members themselves after many older pilots had to give up their municipal hangers not because they couldn’t pass a BFR but because they couldn’t prove coverage.

Aircraft insurance is based on the nautical insurance model, and it is weird: it involves an agreed-upon hull value and liability, with all kinds of time and place restrictions. It is nothing like automotive insurance.

Also, unlike auto insurance, aviation insurers look at the specific aircraft, how complex it is, trike or tailwheel, difficulty of repair & availability of parts, pilot time in type, total hours, currency, BFR status, ratings, past ownership history, is the plane hangered as well as the age of both the pilot & the plane. Also use: runway, grass, off airport, water. & number of passengers carried.

Unlike automotive insurance, pilots propose an airplane before they buy it & insurers tell them whether they can have it. There are many sad tales of pilots who bought a plane first, & found later that no carrier would insure them.
 
I'm one of those that lost their coverage, got kicked out of my hanger, and had to sell my plane because I turned 75.
Anyone actually get approved for this coverage? I'm getting tire of flying borrowed planes.
 
Already being discussed in the other thread but, legit question, is it the contention of the problem here that over-70 pilots were not being extended liability-only policies? I've heard declinations for ground in-motion or in-flight hull coverage for the over 70, but not outright liability-only refusals. The latter would certainly kick most people off the hobby. Though I kinda miss my judgement-proof days, I'm no longer so, so I'd happily walk away from it too absent liability coverage.
 
Shepherd said:
I'm one of those that lost their coverage, got kicked out of my hanger, and had to sell my plane because I turned 75.
Anyone actually get approved for this coverage? I'm getting tire of flying borrowed planes.
Click to expand...
It’s new. Listen to the podcast, find that outfit & apply.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Already being discussed in the other thread but, legit question, is it the contention of the problem here that over-70 pilots were not being extended liability-only policies? I've heard declinations for ground in-motion or in-flight hull coverage for the over 70, but not outright liability-only refusals. The latter would certainly kick most people off the hobby. Though I kinda miss my judgement-proof days, I'm no longer so, so I'd happily walk away from it too absent liability coverage.
Click to expand...
According to AOPA Members, the problem is finding anyone who would write liability only policies at all. I tried several outfits & all insisted on hull & liability combined. Financially, I was willing to walk away from a total loss or foot repairs myself as a result of my own jackassery.

Of course, You can’t do that with planes on a note. Banks will require Hull insurance & liability for the life of the loan.

Generally older pilots who’ve made their nut, launched the kids, & have the house paid down some, can often afford to eat the cost of a Champ, T-Craft, Tripacer, Luscombe, or ultalight. My Bushcat was at the far upper reaches of what i’d feel comfortable running naked with. That’s the folks this policy is aimed at. Not the Baron or PC-12 drivers.
 
We cruised a sailboat in the Caribbean for a few years. We ran naked down there, too, as live aboard hull & liability was out of reach for year-round residence down there. My motto then was, “a small boat & a suitcase full of money beats a 45-footer tied to a Bank.” it turns out that the view of paradise really is the same from every cockpit. So, i’ve tried to apply that philosophy to aircraft ownership too (in fact, this plane costs twice as much as our 32-ft sailboat). So, I’m quite happy to see this liability-only policy.
 
rhkennerly said:
You’re clearly not an airplane owner, are you? I don’t suppose you bothered to listen to the podcast. If you had, you’d have learned that this liability-only policy fills a need identified by AOPA members themselves after many older pilots had to give up their municipal hangers not because they couldn’t pass a BFR but because they couldn’t prove coverage.

Aircraft insurance is based on the nautical insurance model, and it is weird: it involves an agreed-upon hull value and liability, with all kinds of time and place restrictions. It is nothing like automotive insurance.

Also, unlike auto insurance, aviation insurers look at the specific aircraft, how complex it is, trike or tailwheel, difficulty of repair & availability of parts, pilot time in type, total hours, currency, BFR status, ratings, past ownership history, is the plane hangered as well as the age of both the pilot & the plane. Also use: runway, grass, off airport, water. & number of passengers carried.

Unlike automotive insurance, pilots propose an airplane before they buy it & insurers tell them whether they can have it. There are many sad tales of pilots who bought a plane first, & found later that no carrier would insure them
Click to expand...
I am an airplane owner and having a liability only policy on a $200k airplane would not be acceptable. Being old has nothing to do with theft or weather damage.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I am an airplane owner and having a liability only policy on a $200k airplane would not be acceptable. Being old has nothing to do with theft or weather damage.
Click to expand...
Then this policy is not for you. The cost of the airplane has little to do with your financial ability to absorb a loss, btw.
 
rhkennerly said:
According to AOPA Members, the problem is finding anyone who would write liability only policies at all. I tried several outfits & all insisted on hull & liability combined. Financially, I was willing to walk away from a total loss or foot repairs myself as a result of my own jackassery.

Of course, You can’t do that with planes on a note. Banks will require Hull insurance & liability for the life of the loan.

Generally older pilots who’ve made their nut, launched the kids, & have the house paid down some, can often afford to eat the cost of a Champ, T-Craft, Tripacer, Luscombe, or ultalight. My Bushcat was at the far upper reaches of what i’d feel comfortable running naked with. That’s the folks this policy is aimed at. Not the Baron or PC-12 drivers.
Click to expand...
I know a citation driver that runs naked…. 8-figure aircraft.

Okay dokey! If you can afford it, more power to ya!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top