I have been pricing insurance for my Tundra. It is a four place bush plane in the experimental category, based on the farm and flown off a 14' wide dirt road or the adjacent, flat (sort of) grassed ditch. I've had three different planes over thirty years with no insurance but this one, besides representing a large investment, can get out and go somewhere so I'm checking into insurance. I have read the policy and it states: no coverage unless it is a standard category airworthiness certificate. Mine is experimental with a special airworthiness certificate. The company is offering this as a policy for my experimental. I questioned them on this and they still offered it to me. The agent is sure that the "Declaration of Policy" for this specific aircraft by the company having full knowledge of the type aircraft insured will guarantee the coverage. Any one else have experience with this? Seems to be the cheapest policy I have found with no " off airport" use restrictions as long as the aircraft is operated legally. They have offered it at the same rate as standard certificated aircraft. When I asked about this they replied that they were more interested in the number of hours experience I had in the type. Any experience with this situation?

I don't care what they say verbally, if the paperwork sez "must have standard category A/W certificate" then you gotta have it. If it was me I'd contact EAA, they work with underwirters or at least agents who can write you an experimental policy. You might still have a problem with off-airport coverage. keep shopping until you;re satisfied you have the coverage you need and want. Good luck,

Eric

A friend just bought a used RV-9. I suggested to insure with who I got my insurance with, Gustafson, and/or EAA.

He got his insurance with

National Aircraft Finance Company
3907 Aero Place Suite 1
Lakeland, FL. 33811
863.644.8463

because they were mentioned on the Van's web site and seem to know all about experimentals.

I believe if the paperwork doesn't match, the insurance would be worthless.

Good luck

Any questions you have just put them down in the form of a leter and have you agent sign it. If things go wrong then his errors and omisions insurance will cover it.

Tim

qmdv wrote:Any questions you have just put them down in the form of a leter and have you agent sign it. If things go wrong then his errors and omisions insurance will cover it.

Tim

Don't automatically assume his E&O will cover anything. They would probably deny, resulting in the necessity of a lawsuit to obtain coverage. Also, hopefully the E&Olimits would be enough if liability is found. As for the definition in the policy. I don't care what anyone says, even what the agent says in writing, the insurance company will try to deny coverage in a disparate situation like is described. The policy definition is clear and the bird doesn't fit in the definition.....ergo no coverage. They will argue that the agent was acting beyond his or her capacity and that he or she certainly had no authority to attempt to bind the company for anything. Now if the insurance company issues a written statement, that is a bird of any entirely different nature. I don''t know if they write experimental, but I use Avemco and have been very happy with them, including the way they handled a claim 1 1/2 years ago.

BTW as an after thought, I wonder how fast the agent would run if you asked him or her to state in writing that you should not worry about the definition as there was coverage, and then you asked what their E&O coverage limits were versus the possibility of a loss.

rjb wrote:A friend just bought a used RV-9. I suggested to insure with who I got my insurance with, Gustafson, and/or EAA.

He got his insurance with

National Aircraft Finance Company
3907 Aero Place Suite 1
Lakeland, FL. 33811
863.644.8463

because they were mentioned on the Van's web site and seem to know all about experimentals.

I believe if the paperwork doesn't match, the insurance would be worthless.

Good luck

I didn't know NAFC did insurance? That is where I financed my Sportsman. I'll have to look into that. I went with Avemco for insurance.

Is insurance generally more expensive for amateur-built experimentals for Part 91-only opps? If so, is it the liability, or hull, or both that is more expensive?

I would assume that the insurance companies err on the side of higher premiums due to the lack of historical safety/accident actuarial data for non-certified craft.

For me the cost was driven up by all the factors! I'am just sol! Low time, experimental with a high hull value. Cha-ching Almost as much as my plane payment

very worth the $ for sure, tons of reasons why, as said before, be sure it is in writing...
i've had the best luck and service with regal aviation, heather, they work hard for u on getting a great price. especially if u flip one over, they were instrumental in getting it done as affordable as possible, and thru their recomendations, led me to the best back-country instructors to get the prices back again. i now insure 150K for about $100 per month...regal is based in portland, or.

Wow, 100 a month for 150K coverage. Sign me up. I have no quote even close to that. Agents tell me every time I answer " Based on the farm, flown off dirt road and grass, it makes a difference in the rate quoted to me. If I could restrict takeoff and landings to airports on the sectional I can really cut cost but I am based on my farm and it is off airport and that jacks the rate. Experimental vs. Standard category so far has not been a factor in the quote. I ask each company and the reply is the same. Experimental makes no difference in the rate. The amount of flying time you have in that type does and whether it is off airport use. That seems to be the two big items.
I checked the Regal Aviation site and the online quote button does not work, maybe your low- quote post flooded their server. I will call them monday and check them out. Thanks for the lead.
My plane is a new engined, experimental four place tailwheel bush plane, hangared. The test time is flown off. It has 54 hrs TT. I built it but I am insuring for what this new plane would cost to buy back "Ready to fly" so that I could jump in and fly without building it again myself. In other words its replacement value. The same plane as mine sold for 140K 7 months ago. The original owner is a friend of mine, so I know the number is good.

Here is where I am today with Avemco....6060/yr
Specialty Aviation Underwriters (SAU)......3800/yr.

Coverage is 140K hull value with 250.00 deductible if stationary and 2500.00 deductible if in motion.
1,000,000 liability limit, 100,000/passenger / ocurrence
SAU main restriction................. Must be flown legally. ( That means a lot of things.)
Avemco................................Did not send a sample policy to read. They claim no restriction such as
above.

I think a everyone with a plane regardless of make and model will be interested so I will post back what I find for my situation after getting the numbers from Regal.

I suppose I should throw my two cents in here. Why? Standard reason. (because I can). I do have an insurance agency. It is mostly home, auto, life, and health. I do have a small book of airplane business and I have insurance on my Maule. That qualifies me for two cents worth of opinion.

The question is; "is insurance worth the money?' Aside from any statutes, that is a personal question. Insurance is just a form of risk management. The amount of risk we can each tolerate varies from person to person. We also manage risk by; where we land, our maintenance program, hangaring, etc..

Then there is the question of being responsible if we caused someone else a loss. Can you handle that without insurance.
When I bought my Maule, I planned on not insuring it. I wanted to keep my costs as low as possible. Then I thought I should have liability to cover this very point. Well, my engine went out, now it is financed and insured.

One more point. As far as asking an agent to put something in writing. Most times this will not happen. The only thing that should be in writing is the policy. Agents don't have the privilege of adding any of their own promises or interpretations to the policy. The policy is a written contract, which by the way is not a standard contract like a family auto policy. They are as unique as airplanes and usages are. They are not hard to read. Take time to read it and see what you have. If you don't like it, have the agent check with the company to see if it can be endorsed to meet your need.
Have fun,
Mark

Insurance is one of the pitfalls of where I live. There are only 2 companies to my knowledge that will write for Alaska.
Avemco...because they don't use an Underwriter and London Aviation Underwriters. Everyone but Avemco uses London, so you will get the same quote from everyone who is licensed for Alaska.
They really have us over a barrel up here.

skymaule wrote:One more point. As far as asking an agent to put something in writing. Most times this will not happen. The only thing that should be in writing is the policy. Agents don't have the privilege of adding any of their own promises or interpretations to the policy. The policy is a written contract, which by the way is not a standard contract like a family auto policy. They are as unique as airplanes and usages are. They are not hard to read. Take time to read it and see what you have. If you don't like it, have the agent check with the company to see if it can be endorsed to meet your need.

My point exactly. The agent cannot, in any way alter the terms of the contract to bind the insurance company. That's why I said to also inquire about his or her E&O limits if they say they will put it in writing. That second request will prove that they are not about to stick their neck out like that and rightfully so. As a insured customer, you have to know what the agent can and cannot do. The only binding effect they can have is to bind coverage temporarily until the insurance company accepts the risk formally with an issued policy, and even then, their binding effect is only valid if done in accordance with the insurer's terms. Otherwise, the insurance agency will not issue the policy and will refute the alleged binder.

dirtstrip wrote:........My plane is a new engined, experimental four place tailwheel bush plane, hangared. The test time is flown off. It has 54 hrs TT. I built it but I am insuring for what this new plane would cost to buy back "Ready to fly" so that I could jump in and fly without building it again myself. In other words its replacement value. The same plane as mine sold for 140K 7 months ago. .............

Whatcha flying? I'm guessing a Bearhawk or GlasStar Sportsman, or maybe a Bushmaster? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Eric

I wont get into all the ins and outs of aviation insurance, but to answer the original question...if the policy states STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS and is not endorsed to show "experimental airworthiness" then the company can deny a claim even if the aircraft is listed correctly on the Dec. Page. The insurance angent should know this and as has been mentioned does not have the authority to amend the policy in any way.. I would bet you are dealing with an agent that is not an aviation specialist which can often lead to issues such as this. I have run accross this issue many times with the Smith, Legend, and Turbine Cubs being listed as Piper Supercubs with "standard" certificates...these issues must be corrected on the policy or there can be problems if a claim arrises. This is no different than having a Harmon or F-1 Rocket insured as a RV-4...its not the same aircraft...

And yes, there is a difference in the premium for Experimenatal aircraft compared to Standard catagory, but the majority of the premium is based on the pilots qualifications.

One more thing...contrary to popular belief, most all light aircraft policies DO NOT exclude off airport landings...I have only seen a handfull that actually exclude them.

-Chris

1SeventyZ wrote:Is insurance generally more expensive for amateur-built experimentals for Part 91-only opps?

Amateur built experimentals cannot be used for flight schools, carriage for hire, etc., if that is what you are refering to so there are not any insurance rates other than part 91 only for those aircraft.

Hot Rod 150, I just posted a photo of my plane in the photo gallery. I can't believe I was able to do that, I am somewhat electron challenged.

I just re-read your opening post and realized you have a Tundra. Good thing, as what I saw in your photo gallery was a 170, a Pacer, etc. Awesome "snake on a stick" photo- I wouldn't wanna meet that ugly bastartd in a dark alley.
Or the snake either

I don't know how those pics got to my user gallery. I was able to get the Tundra to the Photo Gallery at the top right hand of this page between View Latest Topics and Live Chat. Click on that for the red Dream Aircraft Tundra. If it keeps snowing here and I can't get to my bean harvest I will play with the instructions for posting pictures, avatars etc. from the How To section. I almost require the Large Print version of instructions, or I could have some one just shout them at me. Its a struggle. Kids are gone now and I have to do this myself. They told me one day I would be on my own!

dirtstrip wrote:I don't know how those pics got to my user gallery. I was able to get the Tundra to the Photo Gallery at the top right hand of this page between View Latest Topics and Live Chat. Click on that for the red Dream Aircraft Tundra. If it keeps snowing here and I can't get to my bean harvest I will play with the instructions for posting pictures, avatars etc. from the How To section. I almost require the Large Print version of instructions, or I could have some one just shout them at me. Its a struggle. Kids are gone now and I have to do this myself. They told me one day I would be on my own!

That's because you didn't add your uploads to your User Gallery, you put them in Experimentals, which is a general gallery. Many other user's photos are in that album as well. Remember that your User galleries have an asterisk next to them in the list of albums just after the upload step. This will allow you to retain control over your images, without needing approval after upload.

Here's the tutorial on embedding images in posts.