Insurance vs. Hull Value

What % of your hull value is your annual insurance premium?

  • 0-1%

    Votes: 7 13.0%

  • 1-2%

    Votes: 22 40.7%

  • 2-3%

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • 3-4%

    Votes: 4 7.4%

  • 4-5%

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • 5-10%

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • 10-15%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 15%+

    Votes: 2 3.7%
  • Total voters
    54
M

Mtns2Skies

Final Approach
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,631
Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Spin-off from the other insurance thread. I'm curious what others are seeing as their insurance premiums as a % of their hull value. Assuming full hull coverage of the aircraft. At what percentage of your hull value does it make sense to go liability only or naked?

Despite increased hours in make and model and more hours flown in the prior 12 & 3 months then I've ever had, my insurance went up 10% at my latest renewal, which now puts me at 2.5% of my hull value. It's starting to become a real factor in plane ownership where it didn't used to be this bad. It's also really eating into the possibility of there being a plane #2.
 
Would be helpful to consider the difference between liability only and Hull insurance.

How many years would you have to fly before you could buy another airplane with the money you save?
Could you handle losing the airplane during the 1st 1/4, or 1/2 of that time frame? If you set the saved money aside.

We have club locally operating 7 Cessnas, (152, 3 172s, 3 182s). The club has been around for 50 years or more. With 7 airplanes the math seemed to make more sense in the time to save enough money to buy another airplane was only a few years. They went for a 20 or 30 year stretch (maybe more) self insuring, essentially putting the money they saved by buying liability only into a savings fund. In that time frame they had a number of losses, probably not any more than statistically expected with a 100 pilots flying 7 airplanes. They essentially broke even and eventually decided to just pay for full coverage For the planes as it didn’t cost them any more and was less risky.

One can argue about going with no liability, but unless you have no assets that is pretty much not a good idea. And even then can be a bad idea.

Brian
 
It has been my experience that pilots and airplanes on wheels that are of average risk will see full coverage premiums around the 1-1.5% range for recreational use. Inexperienced pilots, uncommon aircraft types, and/or airplane types with a higher than normal accident rate will often net a higher than normal premium.

Floats will drive the premiums up. Amphibious floats even more. I want to say our PA18 on amphibious floats was around 4% of hull last year. We couldn't even get that aircraft insured for close to its actual value, which would have pushed the premium even higher.

Our helicopter is about 8% of hull value.

We have two airplanes that there were so few of them made that they are almost uninsurable at any cost.
 
There's option #3: Underinsure the hull to retain price parity to the amount you're happy with.
 
Under-insuring didn’t make sense for me. Avemco’s limit for my Cub was approx 60% of investment. If it was damaged at 75% of insured value they pay the loss and take the airplane. I’d get a check for less than half what the plane cost me to build. If I bend it and keep the plane? There’s almost nothing I can’t repair or rebuild for a cost I can afford out of pocket. I do carry liability on it. That’s a requirement for other coverages I have, like my personal and professional umbrella policies. Liability for a $300K plus airplane is $765 per year. I’m okay with that.
 
rickgn said:
I insure my hull for what I have invested in it, not the replacement cost. If I wreck it, I'm done flying.
Click to expand...

Yup, and there's a good clip of folks on that unassuming boat, some who have already piped in on the thread. I was as well, insuring for initial investment+CPI only. Loss occurs, though in my case the loss was not insurance-covered. In a way it worked out, given I would have been out the additional premiums over 10 years had I insured for full replacement value.

BL, asset inflation isn't the windfall some people think it is.
 
I'm right at 2%. If I lost my plane and was uninsured, it wouldn't bankrupt me, but it would certainly hurt and I wouldn't be able to replace it. If I go 50 years without a claim, ill be ecstatic. Insurance on my cars isn't too far off that 2% mark, which makes airplane insurance seem less crazy. I backed my hull value down this year partly to control the premium increase, but also because I think the market is cooling, at least for p32r's. It'd have to be close to 5% to get me to consider going liability and not-in-motion only.

Seems like 2.5% isn't that far off for a taildragger. I wonder if the backcountry craze hasn't also jacked up insurance on 180's in particular.
 
Maybe change the options to 0.5% intervals? I’m around 1.6% I forgot, and if I lost the aircraft I would have a profit on todays hull value.

IIRC, newer to aircraft I was around 3.5%, that decreased to around 2.5% and then to around 1.6% on the third renewal.
 
Jim K said:
Seems like 2.5% isn't that far off for a taildragger. I wonder if the backcountry craze hasn't also jacked up insurance on 180's in particular.
Click to expand...
180's are said to be more challenging than some other taildraggers, which may be reflected in loss rates and premiums. I pay 2% for my Decathlon, which has a reputation for being easy to handle.
 
I insure for what I have invested in the airplane plus some updates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top