How do you insure?

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
Do you insure your airplane for the full purchase price and then continually upgrade the hull value each year as you add avionics or repaint, etc...? Historically I just insured for purchase price and then considered anything I added after that lost. Any general rule of thumb for how much each additional $10k in hull would cost a person per year or would it vary widely?
 
I insure it for what I think I could sell it for.
 
I insure for what it would cost us to replace the aircraft with something comparable. Keep in mind that may be above what it would sell for as in some cases you have an aircraft that is not readily available on the market. For example, something older and generally of a lower resale value that you've put a very nice panel in. In that case, you may need to include enough money to buy an airplane and then upgrade it to be like what you had.

You can update the hull value of your aircraft anytime throughout the year. So if you make a major change/upgrade, it's important to tell your broker immediately. For example, after I put the MT props on the 414 I increased the hull value by $40k and was able to do that immediately. Had I not and geared up the plane prior to upping it at renewal, I wouldn't have been made whole for that damage.

One friend had a total loss on his 310 when the hangar it was in caught fire. It was an older 310B, but a very nice one, insured for well above resale value but at a price that made him whole again financially. He replaced it with a 310Q and is happy.
 
Pick a number ,that your comfortable with. Then insure the airplane for agreed upon value.
 
I agree with insuring for estimated replacement cost. Especially if you have made significant improvements to an owned airplane over the years. Most planes on the market will not have the quality of improvements that a long-term owner has lavished on it, and such well-maintained, low-time, well-appointed planes are available, they cost a pretty penny.
 
Yeah I figure what it would cost me to replace my plane with one that's at least as good factoring in stuff like pre-buys, ferry/fuel to get it home, the first higher $ annual, and the fact that the odds of finding two airplanes equipped the same exact way and of the same exact value are pretty much nil. I added about $10,000 to my purchase price. It's not an exact science after all.
 
I insured for what I figured was a reasonable sales price. It kept the premiums low.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I insure for what it would cost us to replace the aircraft with something comparable. Keep in mind that may be above what it would sell for as in some cases you have an aircraft that is not readily available on the market. For example, something older and generally of a lower resale value that you've put a very nice panel in. In that case, you may need to include enough money to buy an airplane and then upgrade it to be like what you had.

You can update the hull value of your aircraft anytime throughout the year. So if you make a major change/upgrade, it's important to tell your broker immediately. For example, after I put the MT props on the 414 I increased the hull value by $40k and was able to do that immediately. Had I not and geared up the plane prior to upping it at renewal, I wouldn't have been made whole for that damage.

One friend had a total loss on his 310 when the hangar it was in caught fire. It was an older 310B, but a very nice one, insured for well above resale value but at a price that made him whole again financially. He replaced it with a 310Q and is happy.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
At least on a new purchase, many underwriters will not write a hull value in excess of the purchase price. Increases must be documented. Read your application and policy.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
At least on a new purchase, many underwriters will not write a hull value in excess of the purchase price. Increases must be documented. Read your application and policy.
Click to expand...
Worse yet, insurers may increase rates when hull value is held steady while the market drops. The concept of being made whole again is not embraced.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
At least on a new purchase, many underwriters will not write a hull value in excess of the purchase price. Increases must be documented. Read your application and policy.
Click to expand...

Clark1961 said:
Worse yet, insurers may increase rates when hull value is held steady while the market drops. The concept of being made whole again is not embraced.
Click to expand...

I’ve never had that issue in 9 years and4 airplanes. Find a new broker.
 
i take liability only and pocket the difference.
 
Isosceles said:
i take liability only and pocket the difference.
Click to expand...
There comes a point where that's the best answer...I had hull on one airplane for the entire time I owned it, dropped hull during ownership of one, and didn't put hull on one at all.

The one I had hull on the entire time (based on what it would cost to build up an identical airplane) proved to be well worth the investment.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
At least on a new purchase, many underwriters will not write a hull value in excess of the purchase price. Increases must be documented. Read your application and policy.
Click to expand...

How does the underwriter know what you paid for the airplane? I've never been asked.
 
I self-insure with my billions.

Oh wait, no I don't. I pick a number I'd be fine getting if something happened to the airplane and dream of self-insuring. :)
 
Clark1961 said:
LOL. Ted has all encompassing experience and perspective....not.
Click to expand...

Never said that. But I've seen lots of people who think they do, when what they really have is a bad broker or a bad insurance company.

"I've used Avemco for years" means "I haven't shopped around at all and have a terrible insurance company."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Never said that. But I've seen lots of people who think they do, when what they really have is a bad broker or a bad insurance company.

"I've used Avemco for years" means "I haven't shopped around at all and have a terrible insurance company."
Click to expand...
So? You made a claim that I needed a different broker. You have no basis for that claim since you don't know which broker I was using or the circumstances of the quote.
 
Clark1961 said:
So? You made a claim that I needed a different broker. You have no basis for that claim since you don't know which broker I was using or the circumstances of the quote.
Click to expand...

I did make that claim, and I still think it's true. If I was getting the results you are, that's what I'd do and as I said, I haven't had that problem. I really couldn't care less what you pay for insurance.

Insurance is ultimately driven by markets. The past year following the hurricanes that produced significant damages in Houston and the Caribbean, insurance as a whole went up. Still, I was able to find reasonable rates transitioning to a hard-to-insure aircraft. Much of that had to do with previous experience, but much of that also had to do with a good broker.
 
When I first insured I took the average of what thought were good planes on the market, throwing out the junk and the ones the owner thought were platinum, and came up with a number. Insurance broker never asked, we just went with that number. That number, btw, was above what I paid for the plane. It was all about replacement cost to me...:yes:
 
Twin_Flyer said:
When I first insured I took the average of what thought were good planes on the market, throwing out the junk and the ones the owner thought were platinum, and came up with a number. Insurance broker never asked, we just went with that number. That number, btw, was above what I paid for the plane. It was all about replacement cost to me...:yes:
Click to expand...

I've never been asked what I paid for a plane, nor have I been asked to justify an initial request for hull coverage. Whenever I have requested an increase in hull coverage they do ask for a reason which I provide and I've never been questioned. MT props adding $40k to hull value, no issue. Avionics upgrades and engine overhauls are usually the other things that I use to add to the hull value.

I have friends who have their planes way, way overinsured, and they don't have an issue getting coverage, either.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
At least on a new purchase, many underwriters will not write a hull value in excess of the purchase price. Increases must be documented. Read your application and policy.
Click to expand...

Depends on a lot of factors. Underwriters, of course, have access to valuation data. If you want to insure your airplane for a number that is far outside the "range" of values for your aircraft model/year (for example, you want to insure your 1963 Cessna 172 for $500k), they start to ask questions. If you want to insure it at a value that fits within the underwriter's range of value, seems they usually just say "ok."
 
From my experience with autos, most insurance companies are more than happy to charge you higher premiums to over insure your property. That is especially true with antique or unique cars that book values are hard to ascertain.
 
In an 'agreed value' policy, the only interest the company has in not over-insuring an item, is that they dont want to create an incentive for a fraudulent claim. With the premium calculated as a percentage of hull value, they are just a-ok with a customer insuring on the high end of the value range.

There is some downside to having a an abnormally high insured value. The point where insurance 'totals' an aircraft is based on percentage of the claim vs. agreed value. If you just added up all your avionics purchases, the new propeller etc. and decide that your 172 is worth $80,000, you may be able to get it insured at that value. If you now taxi into a hangar corner and mash a a wing leading edge to the tune of $37,000, the insurance will send your plane to a metal shop to get the wing repaired or replaced. You'll be out of a plane for 6 months and when you get it back, you now have a plane with major damage history and a couple of extra rivet lines to prove it. Had you insured the plane at its actual replacement value for $60,000, the insurance would have written you a check on friday for a boboo that happened on monday.
 
weilke said:
There is some downside to having a an abnormally high insured value. The point where insurance 'totals' an aircraft is based on percentage of the claim vs. agreed value. If you just added up all your avionics purchases, the new propeller etc. and decide that your 172 is worth $80,000, you may be able to get it insured at that value. If you now taxi into a hangar corner and mash a a wing leading edge to the tune of $37,000, the insurance will send your plane to a metal shop to get the wing repaired or replaced. You'll be out of a plane for 6 months and when you get it back, you now have a plane with major damage history and a couple of extra rivet lines to prove it. Had you insured the plane at its actual replacement value for $60,000, the insurance would have written you a check on friday for a boboo that happened on monday.
Click to expand...

That can also be a downside to being under valued. I've seen good aircraft at insurance auctions that are "totaled", with relatively minor damage. The owner of the aircraft got a check from the insurance company that didn't cover the actual cost to replace with a like aircraft, and the bidders at the auction just got a hell of a deal. I knew a guy (A/P and IA) that was paying for his retirement by buying lightly damaged "totaled" aircraft, repairing them and selling them.
 
bradg33 said:
Depends on a lot of factors. Underwriters, of course, have access to valuation data. If you want to insure your airplane for a number that is far outside the "range" of values for your aircraft model/year (for example, you want to insure your 1963 Cessna 172 for $500k), they start to ask questions. If you want to insure it at a value that fits within the underwriter's range of value, seems they usually just say "ok."
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing what brokers "usually do", or what is accepted common practice. I'm saying look at the fine print of your next renewal form. IIRC, it was Starr's that clearly said they will insure no more than the purchase price. This stuck with me because I got a pretty good below market deal on my airplane, and it took a few renewal cycles to get an agreed value I am comfortable with. I understand they are trying to control fraud claims and "unjust enrichment", nevertheless, the language may be there and they may attempt to enforce it in the event of a loss, especially in the first year of ownership.
Always read carefully. If it ain't in the contract, it ain't. If it is, it is, regardless of what the broker/salesman says.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Never said that. But I've seen lots of people who think they do, when what they really have is a bad broker or a bad insurance company.

"I've used Avemco for years" means "I haven't shopped around at all and have a terrible insurance company."
Click to expand...

That's not fair Ted. They may be expensive, and like to write split limits, but the claims service is pretty darn good.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
That's not fair Ted. They may be expensive, and like to write split limits, but the claims service is pretty darn good.
Click to expand...

You make a fair point, Chip. Having never had to make a claim on any aircraft, I can't say how Avemco or any other company I've dealt with is from a claims perspective first hand, and there is more to insurance than lowest cost.

However I've observed Avemco's rates (if they'll even quote) on a lot of aircraft to be way out of line with the rest of the industry, and I've seen plenty of successful claims from companies that are more reasonably priced.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I'm not arguing what brokers "usually do", or what is accepted common practice. I'm saying look at the fine print of your next renewal form. IIRC, it was Starr's that clearly said they will insure no more than the purchase price. This stuck with me because I got a pretty good below market deal on my airplane, and it took a few renewal cycles to get an agreed value I am comfortable with. I understand they are trying to control fraud claims and "unjust enrichment", nevertheless, the language may be there and they may attempt to enforce it in the event of a loss, especially in the first year of ownership.
Always read carefully. If it ain't in the contract, it ain't. If it is, it is, regardless of what the broker/salesman says.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that application. I've filled out several insurance applications over the years for several companies, and (a) I've never seen that limitation and (b) I've never been asked what I paid for the airplane (either by my broker or on an application).
 
I followed @Ted DuPuis' advice and insure for what I would need to replace the aircraft. Considering 180 values have skyrocketed the past 6 months I've already increased my hull value on that premise alone with no issue. Of course we also have the same broker so YMMV.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You make a fair point, Chip. Having never had to make a claim on any aircraft, I can't say how Avemco or any other company I've dealt with is from a claims perspective first hand, and there is more to insurance than lowest cost.

However I've observed Avemco's rates (if they'll even quote) on a lot of aircraft to be way out of line with the rest of the industry, and I've seen plenty of successful claims from companies that are more reasonably priced.
Click to expand...

I've had the same experience with Avemco. Their rates tend to be comically high (they seem to target the folks who don't shop around at all) and their training requirements laughable. Just for fun, I got Avemco to quote my Twin Bonanza. The rate was more than 4x what I was quoted by several other companies, and Avemco insisted that I go to formal "type school" for the airplane (ignoring the fact that no such thing exists for the Twin Bonanza).
 
bradg33 said:
I've had the same experience with Avemco. Their rates tend to be comically high (they seem to target the folks who don't shop around at all) and their training requirements laughable. Just for fun, I got Avemco to quote my Twin Bonanza. The rate was more than 4x what I was quoted by several other companies, and Avemco insisted that I go to formal "type school" for the airplane (ignoring the fact that no such thing exists for the Twin Bonanza).
Click to expand...

Back in the day I talked to them about my Aztec when I first got it and insurance in general. The experience was not a positive one, and I didn't go back.

I think their business model is that they get $100 hamburger customers who don't shop around. I don't know anyone who uses them for a serious go-places airplane. That doesn't mean they don't have those customers, I'm sure they do, but it seems their standard customers don't fall in that category.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Back in the day I talked to them about my Aztec when I first got it and insurance in general. The experience was not a positive one, and I didn't go back.

I think their business model is that they get $100 hamburger customers who don't shop around. I don't know anyone who uses them for a serious go-places airplane. That doesn't mean they don't have those customers, I'm sure they do, but it seems their standard customers don't fall in that category.
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on. They target Cessna, Piper, Beech single engine fixed tricycle gear owners with massive advertising, and the rates for split limits are pretty competitive. Smooth limits and complex airplanes are not what they want to cover. But they honor their contracts generally without much grief.

I'm an AVEMCO Corp alum from the 90's. I don't think much has changed under HCC, and now Tokio Fire and Marine.
 
Last edited:
+1 on avemco being absurd. Quoted me ~2x what anyone else was on the 180.
 
I ditched Avemco 30+ years ago. Maybe they are better now, but they have never come in competitive with my broker. First year I owned my AA1A my premium was $600. At renewal, with 100+ hours in type under my belt, I was quoted $1200. Dropped them like a hot rock, and insured through my type club for less than I paid in year one. I have never paid more than about $800 since then, including for a well insured AA-5 now. Rates go up and down a bit with national claims history. A major WX disaster can inflate rates for a year or two. It pays to shop. If you have a type club with a good safety record, you can get good rates.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
However I've observed Avemco's rates (if they'll even quote) on a lot of aircraft to be way out of line with the rest of the industry, and I've seen plenty of successful claims from companies that are more reasonably priced.
Click to expand...
That’s been my experience as well.

Avemco seems to do a good job of providing competitive/reasonable coverage for the entry level 2-4 seat fixed gear singles and non-owned. But as you move up to the higher performance airplanes and twins, Avemco’s quotes tend to be at least 2-3 times what everyone else is.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I followed @Ted DuPuis' advice and insure for what I would need to replace the aircraft. Considering 180 values have skyrocketed the past 6 months I've already increased my hull value on that premise alone with no issue. Of course we also have the same broker so YMMV.
Click to expand...
You guys both use TJ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top