Insurance, fly with or without?

John Baker

John Baker

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
7,471
Location
San Diego, California
Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
I know it is probably up near the top of the stupid scale if a person who has a great deal of assets, other than their airplane, to fly without insurance, but what about the folks who have little to lose?

During good financial times, what percentage of pilots do you think fly without insurance?

During this severe downturn, do you think more people are flying without it?

What about renters of aircraft, do they assume they are covered or do they get their own coverage, such as that offered by AOPA?

John
 
I know a couple of people that self-insure for their hull, but I don't know anyone flying without any liability coverage.

My guess is that someone having not so good financial times now is probably just not flying at all, rather than dumping their coverage and still flying...


Trapper John
 
Even if you have insurance and THINK you are covered, you may not be.:nonod::frown2: :sad:
 
I remember during some serious hanger flying, someone a few years back making the statement that about half the people flying in Indian country, fly without insurance. This was before the downturn.

I've wondered every now and then about the validity of such a statement, which is why I'm putting it to you folks.

John
 
John Baker said:
I know it is probably up near the top of the stupid scale if a person who has a great deal of assets, other than their airplane, to fly without insurance, but what about the folks who have little to lose?
Click to expand...

Anyone who cannot afford to pay cash for another airplane just like theirs and not care, is a complete freakin' idiot if they fly without insurance.

The idea of "saving the plane" has caused many people to die in the process. Insure, and save your own butt. It's the insurance company's plane.
 
I don't have insurance. When I finished it I tried to get it with EAA
insurance. They had some requirements I couldnt meet .. like I had to
get 3 hrs of dual in it with a CFI who had 5 hrs in the same model before
I could solo it. I asked them if they understood no one else could be in
it until the Phase 1 was flown off. Not sure they understood experimental.
So .. I just flew it and have ever since.
 
Trapper John said:
I know a couple of people that self-insure for their hull, but I don't know anyone flying without any liability coverage.

My guess is that someone having not so good financial times now is probably just not flying at all, rather than dumping their coverage and still flying...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Liability insurance is required in many states and I don't know if you could get in trouble for not having any if you fly in a state where it's mandatory when you're from a state that doesn't require it. In any case IMO flying without any liability coverage (unless you have enough assets to "self insure") is awfully self-serving.

The value of hull insurance is a more personal matter. Coverage in most cases cost's 1-2% of the stated value so you're betting you won't total the plane more often than 50-100 years. I was glad I had hull coverage the two times I needed to make a claim. In both cases I was completely not at fault. The first time an (illegally) uninsured pilot hand propped his homebuilt airplane which proceeded to chew holes in my Bonanza's cowling and wing. Ultimately he paid for mos of the repairs out of his own pocket but that was touch and go for a while. The other incident involved someone sabotaging several twin engined airplanes including my Baron while it was in a FBO's hangar undergoing an annual inspection. The FBO's insurance carrier insisted it wasn't their problem and my underwriter paid for the repairs. In both cases the repair costs were in the $20k range. The point of all this is that even if you never have an accident on your own you may need to pay for expensive repairs if you have no hull coverage.
 
Last edited:
Insurance doesn't make sense for some things. A 10K glider at $600 a year, eh maybe not. Seaplanes are often worse for the price of a couple of years premiums you could buy a replacement. So whatever. Liability is good, but hey if ya got nothing and no insurance them bloodsucking bottom dwellers are likely pass on by regardless of fault. Being insured can be a sucker's bet.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Insurance doesn't make sense for some things. A 10K glider at $600 a year, eh maybe not.
Click to expand...

Im paying $340ish for my $7000 glider ($6000 for the glider, $1000 for the trailer). It was very comforting to have the insurance when the wind blew my trailer over this spring (thankfully there was only damage to the trailer). Also, since I often fly my glider cross country, and land off airport a lot, i think its acceptable.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Insurance doesn't make sense for some things. A 10K glider at $600 a year, eh maybe not. Seaplanes are often worse for the price of a couple of years premiums you could buy a replacement. So whatever. Liability is good, but hey if ya got nothing and no insurance them bloodsucking bottom dwellers are likely pass on by regardless of fault. Being insured can be a sucker's bet.
Click to expand...
You say bottom dwellers, but if someone's plane or car is severely damaged by the person with no assets and no insurance, then it's the poor soul who got hit that is suffering, and that just ain't right. If someone chooses not to carry liability insurance because they have no assets and then causes damage to someone else's property, they should be made to pay an arm and a leg. Preferably severed at the joint with a hacksaw and no anesthesia.
 
gprellwitz said:
You say bottom dwellers, but if someone's plane or car is severely damaged by the person with no assets and no insurance, then it's the poor soul who got hit that is suffering, and that just ain't right. If someone chooses not to carry liability insurance because they have no assets and then causes damage to someone else's property, they should be made to pay an arm and a leg. Preferably severed at the joint with a hacksaw and no anesthesia.
Click to expand...

+1 (except I'd probably be satisfied with just pulling the arm off without a saw).
 
Aviation is every man for himself. Cover yourself as you see fit.
Tony, Costello was $600 a year for a 1-26 @ 10K don't know if they are more expensive to repair or perhaps it is a tie down vs. trailer storage difference.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Aviation is every man for himself. Cover yourself as you see fit.
Click to expand...
I agree that one covers oneself as one sees fit. But liability insurance covers others for one's own F-ups. One needs to take responsibility for one's actions. If one doesn't have the financial wherewithal to make others right, then liability insurance is in order.




(Sorry for all the awkward "one's," but I don't want this to be construed as a personal attack.)
 
tonycondon said:
Im paying $340ish for my $7000 glider ($6000 for the glider, $1000 for the trailer). It was very comforting to have the insurance when the wind blew my trailer over this spring (thankfully there was only damage to the trailer). Also, since I often fly my glider cross country, and land off airport a lot, i think its acceptable.
Click to expand...

Mine is about $440/year $16,000 on the glider. I much more concerned about theft or vandlism or someone crashing their car into the plane while I am towing it in the trailer, than I am of actually crashing the airplane. I don't insure the trailer at $1000-1500 replacement value I could replace it it I had to.

I did fly with liabilty a couple year when I wasn't flying much and the budget was especially tight, A couple years ago they raised the minimum charge to where It only costs me a bit more for full coverage than it does for Liablity.

Brian
 
ClimbnSink said:
Aviation is every man for himself. Cover yourself as you see fit.
Tony, Costello was $600 a year for a 1-26 @ 10K don't know if they are more expensive to repair or perhaps it is a tie down vs. trailer storage difference.
Click to expand...

tie down must be the difference.
 
I currently (and have always) carried both hull and liability on my plane.

I like the idea of hull insurance b/c in theory (other than a deductible) I never have to worry about the plane: in flight, in the hangar, avionics theft, and so on...

Liability. I carry this coverage - but have wondered if it is really adding value, or is a placebo to make me feel better or to meet insurance requirements in the states where insurance is mandatory.

In my case, I believe my exposure to outside parties with the plane is limited as I almost never give rides to anyone outside of my wife and kids.

Now of course, in a forced landing - there is always the chance of injuring someone on the ground.

So - what say you...? Make me feel better about the premiums I paid a few months ago !
 
The moment you file a claim, your insurance company will do everything it can to prove you have invalidated your insurance. Your records will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Stay current on all certificates you checked on your renewal form.

Your insurance money is the best money you will ever throw away, except for maybe your kids college tuition. :)

John
 
John Baker said:
The moment you file a claim, your insurance company will do everything it can to prove you have invalidated your insurance. Your records will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Stay current on all certificates you checked on your renewal form.

Your insurance money is the best money you will ever throw away, except for maybe your kids college tuition. :)

John
Click to expand...

The one and only claim I filed was a bit unusual as the damage occurred on the ground in a FBO's hangar while the airplane was undergoing an annual, but the adjuster was very pleasant to work with and never asked for anything except to see the damage himself and to get a copy of the repair estimates before the work began.
 
gprellwitz said:
I agree that one covers oneself as one sees fit. But liability insurance covers others for one's own F-ups. One needs to take responsibility for one's actions. If one doesn't have the financial wherewithal to make others right, then liability insurance is in order.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. It actually makes me feel better about paying liability insurance premiums in general. (Seriously.)

(Sorry for all the awkward "one's," but I don't want this to be construed as a personal attack.)
Click to expand...

At least you knew that the possessive form of "one" is spelled with an apostrophe. (I still haven't figured out why it's that way with "one," but not with "it," but I guess expecting English to be logical is not a high percentage bet!)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
That you for that. It actually makes me feel better about paying liability insurance premiums in general. (Seriously.)



At least you knew that the possessive form of "one" is spelled with an apostrophe. (I still haven't figured out why it's that way with "one," but not with "it," but I guess expecting English to be logical is not a high percentage bet!)
Click to expand...
I presume you meant "thank you."

And I knew how to spell "F-ups!" :)
 
Corrected.

I guess I need to avoid typing at the end of the day!
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Give it time and enough of the insurance lobby's will convince the government that aviation insurance "should be required".
Click to expand...

And why not? It's required for cars in most states. It's not just about the aircraft owner's losses. It more about taking responsibility for the harm caused to others. Liability insurance SHOULD be required.

And BTW...if you can't afford the insurance, or you've cancelled it as a budget balancing move...you shouldn't be flying at all.
 
Insurance should be mandatory- single payer government run comprehensive insurance for aircraft. That will take care of everything.
 
ggroves said:
And why not? It's required for cars in most states. It's not just about the aircraft owner's losses. It more about taking responsibility for the harm caused to others. Liability insurance SHOULD be required.

And BTW...if you can't afford the insurance, or you've cancelled it as a budget balancing move...you shouldn't be flying at all.
Click to expand...

I can afford the insurance and I do insure my plane, but that's my choice and shouldn't be mandated by the government.

So using your "logic" let's take it a step further. Bicycles should have MANDATORY liability insurance. How about PWC's? Boats? Motorcycles? Dirt Bikes? Radio Controlled airplanes? Model Rocketry? The kid mowing the yard next door to me once hit a rock with his mower and broke one of my home windows, maybe he should be REQUIRED to have liability insurance.

So where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:
Travel Air, Fully insured.

Ag Cat, uninsured though operated under the liability/drift insurance policy of the Operator I was contracting to.

Midget Mustang, when I called around and told them it had 235hp, they all laughed at me except one who wanted over half the value of the plane, so I was completely uninsured there.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Anyone who cannot afford to pay cash for another airplane just like theirs and not care, is a complete freakin' idiot if they fly without insurance.

The idea of "saving the plane" has caused many people to die in the process. Insure, and save your own butt. It's the insurance company's plane.
Click to expand...

Even without hull coverage, it never crossed my mind. Money is replaceable, I'm not. I never operated any differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top