Once you ask for a quote from a carrier on your plane, you are tied up by that broker or agent as far as that brand insurance company is concerned. The shopping around is over. The agents carrying that same brand are not allowed to compete. The only quote you can get is from another insurance brand. I asked for a quote from one agent and she got them from six different companies but if I want to look elsewhere I will have find the other five companies that are left. Who's got the list?

dirtstrip wrote:Once you ask for a quote from a carrier on your plane, you are tied up by that broker or agent as far as that brand insurance company is concerned. The shopping around is over. The agents carrying that same brand are not allowed to compete. The only quote you can get is from another insurance brand. I asked for a quote from one agent and she got them from six different companies but if I want to look elsewhere I will have find the other five companies that are left. Who's got the list?

the list depends on your specific risk...not all companies are willing to quote each risk. With the aircraft types and uses that we fly our market is typically limited to 4 - 6 companies.

If the agent is doing their job correctly they are "shopping" the market for you...no need for you to look elsewhere. The shopping takes place between the agent (on your behalf) and the underwriter, not you and the agent. It's like choosing a lawyer to represent you in court, you tell them your goal and they have the legal licensing and knowledge to work on your behalf to obtain those goals. If you decided to switch agents then you are free to do so, but the companies will release the same numbers to the new agent. This is due to the fact that the quotes are based on the aircraft / pilot combination and not on the name of the agent presenting them. Where the agent is worth his salt comes in the form of how the risk is presented. If agent A presents a 0 time TW pilot purchasing a Maule to the underwriter with nothing further in the way of information then the company will likely pass or place a high premium on the risk. If agent B presents the same risk to the underwriter, but does so with a thought out transition plan and qualified CFI information the underwriter is more willing to write the risk and may even do so at a lower premium.

The problem comes in when an inexperienced agent is the first to present the risk and the underwriter quotes it...once the numbers are released, they are seldom changed. The new agent must present substantial new information pertinent to the risk before an underwriter will change the quote. This keeps a level playing field and prevents favoritism to the agents on the part of the underwriters and leaves the quotes given based solely on the client's risk. It also prevents agent B from coming in and "doctoring the numbers" in order to get a lower quote from the underwriter. By that I mean adding hours or training to a pilots time or forgetting to mention past loss history.

The moral of the story is, find an agent that knows not only the industry, but the aircraft world as well. Any agent with a property and casualty license (home, auto, etc.) can sell aviation insurance, but that does not mean that they understand it.

dirtstrip wrote:....
I am nearly done on my search for aircraft insurers and I have found the tail dragger not really any higher to insure than the nosewheel. ....

I disagree. I am shopping insurance for my C150/150TD since my underwriter bumped my rates up this year. I had someone quote a stock 150 by mistake (not the first time this has happened)-- easy to spot cuz the price was around $500 instead of $900 or more. I have about 2300 hours, 2,000 tailwheel, 300 in a stock 150 & 300 plus in this one. Nosedragger versus taildragger does make a big difference -- try pricing insurance for a C180 versus an equivalent-valued C182.

Eric

It's always amazing to me how much mis-information pilots banter about with reference to aircraft insurance.

Listen to LowFlyBy, folks. It's not often that you find someone who works IN that industry that'll take the time to explain things to you.

For those arguing that aviation insurance should be priced more like auto insurance, there is a world of difference, such as:

1) How many people here are flying an aircraft worth more than say, $40 K? How many of you are driving an automobile that's worth more than that? Is there anyone here driving a car that's worth $120 K???? I doubt it. I was listening to NPR this weekend and they had Billy Gibbons, guitarist from the rock band ZZ Top on. He has some very expensive hot rod type automobiles. They asked him what they were like to drive...his response: "Who can afford the insurance to drive em?" This is a rock musician, folks, with a car that's probably valued at $120 K.

2) How much different is it to drive a Ford Focus or a Cadillac Escalade? Not much. How different is operating a C-172 from operating a Maule/Cessna 180/Cessna 180 on floats, etc??? HUGE differences.

3) How many folks in aviation spend hundred thousand dollars on an airplane, but steadfastly refuse to get any training in that airplane??? Lots, and many only do so because they HAVE to to get insurance.

4) You crash your car... Tow truck comes along, scoops it up, and hauls it away. Totaled?? Pay you, and you go get another. You crash your airplane....ten miles from a road, on Forest Service land....The insurance company is REQUIRED to get the wreck out of there, even though salvage value is low. Sometimes a helicopter is required. Priced those lately??? In Alaska, the combination of THAT one factor, and the factor that people in AK do a LOT of off airport flying, resulting in a lot of accidents in remote places, makes all the difference.

5) Seaplanes. Let's see, you go to Jack Brown's in FL and after 5 hours of SES time in a J-3, you are SES Rated.....cool. Now, you buy a Maule and put it on floats.....whole different world evolves. Do you get some instruction?? Not if you can avoid it......experience is the best teacher, right?? And the accident statistics are full of low time seaplane pilots.

6) How many people are operating cars vs GA airplanes???? Market is TINY for aviation. How safe is GA?? Not very, actually. Anyone who tries to convince you that General Aviation is as safe as driving on the freeway has never actually looked at those accident rates. GA is NOT as safe as driving, not by a long shot.

You can't compare aviation insurance to automotive, folks.

Insurance of ANY kind is a very negative experience. We're buying insurance betting that we may suffer an accident.....a very negative approach, yet aviators generally are a very positive bunch.

Listen to Lowflyby....and learn something about the industry, instead of throwing out ridiculous comparisons and accusations of industry malfeasance.

MTV

I can go through all of your points and make logical counterpoints but I am not going to waste my time. You appear to have already been 'conditioned' . Insurance is just like you said... you are betting a company you will have a claim, they are betting you won't. They charge a premium of such value to cover said bet. I am sure Robs new truck costs more the 40,000. I am sure if, god forbid, he loses control of a vehicle that size and hits a minivan full of kids and kills a complete family of 8 the claim against his carrier will be huge. I bet his truck insurance is 1/4 of his planes premium.. Larger payout, smaller premium... Can someone explain the numbers to me.

Ben.

Ps. and if you think collusion and backroom deals don't exist please fasten your seat belts, put on the shoulder straps, engage the airbags, because when health care insurance reform kicks is you ain't seen nuttin yet.

I'm thankful that in my state I can choose to buy insurance or not buy insurance. If I had a 10K-50K airplane I would self insure the hull part because I could afford to eat that.

As far as liability, I like to take risk. Remember I fill my toys with a PLASTIC AHHHHHHHHHHH CANS.
So liability yes if it was $500.00 a year or less.

Stol wrote: Insurance is just like you said... you are betting a company you will have a claim, they are betting you won't. They charge a premium of such value to cover said bet.

Actually they try to find the statistical possibility that you WILL have an accident and charge a premium accordingly. If they were betting that you won't have a claim then they would be betting blindly. You don't set rates based on what you think you will gain, but what you are pretty sure you will lose.

Stol wrote: I am sure Robs new truck costs more the 40,000. I am sure if, god forbid, he loses control of a vehicle that size and hits a minivan full of kids and kills a complete family of 8 the claim against his carrier will be huge. I bet his truck insurance is 1/4 of his planes premium.. Larger payout, smaller premium... Can someone explain the numbers to me.

Mike and I have tried, but you don't seem to want to listen...and your logic is dead wrong...pardon the pun

The claim against the carrier may be huge, but there are always limits on a policy based on what you pay for. The cost to an insurance company on a truck would actually be less than that of an airplane.

If Rob's new truck cost him $40,000 new, the minute he drove it off the lot the value decreased. Auto policies are written on a "fair market value" basis which means that even though he paid $40,000 for it new and has it insured for $40,000 in the event of a total loss the underwriting company is only going to pay him what is listed in the Bluebook (or similar value reference) as the current value of his truck minus the listed deductible. God forbid he owes $38,000 on the truck and the BB lists it as a $30,000 vehicle...guess who is left holding the bag...not to mention he paid to insure it for $40,000.

Aviation insurance is written on a "Agreed Value" basis which means that the value listed on the declarations page of the policy is the amount that the underwriter will pay out in the event of a total loss minus the deductible. That is a huge difference...shall I continue?!?

With regards to the liability section...auto policies typically carry what we call 1/3/1 coverage or 300 smooth. This means that there is $100,000 for bodily injury per person / $300,000 per occurrence Limit / $100,000 for property damage. If you have $300,000 smooth then the full $300,000 can be split up any way it is needed.

Compare that to a minimum aviation policy at $1 Mil / $100,000...this means that you have up to $100,000 per PASSENGER (injured parties on the ground are not subject to this limitation) and up to $1,000,000 per occurrence. If you carry the $1,000,000 smooth limit then it can be divided up as needed. This is over 3 times the coverage of auto policies....as Mike said you cannot compare auto and aviation.

Back to your example...if Rob kills a family of 8 with is truck and has the basic 1/3/1 policy then the most that the company will pay on his behalf is $100,000 per person and no more than $300,000 TOTAL...if the first 3 individuals were each awarded $100,000 then the other 5 individuals are on Rob...hope he has an umbrella policy. If he was in an aircraft and killed 8 people on the ground then the $1,000,000 could be divided between them however it is needed...that is $700,000 worth of more coverage in case you were not keeping up.

So to recap...even IF Rob's truck insurance is 1/4 his aircraft insurance...so is his coverage.

Holy crap!!! Pedantic lectures in stereo! I hope you've learned your lesson, Stol!

The problem is that you're asking for logic to solve an emotional feeling of unfairness. Let me put it in terms that will help you understand your position in life.

The insurance industry is like a force that holds you together in times of trouble, like a giant C-clamp. To appreciate them fully, imagine that you have a splitting headache. Now,
1) Take a big C-clamp and put it on your head, from ear to ear
2) Tighten it until you start to feel a ton of pressure
3) Tighten it one more turn.
4) If you feel pain, go to step 3.

Glad I could help!

Seems really easy to blame the insurance industry. But that is just speculative whining (sorry, no offense intended). What is known, not just theorized, is that the accident database is full of bad pilot decisions. The other known factor is that the courts continue to return outrageous judgements on aviation related suits, witness the award against Lycoming the other day. Unbelievable. Even if it gets set aside, which I certainly hope it does, it illustrates the nature of the problem, along with the judgment against Cirrus/UND last year.

I think it is more amazing that insurance companies continue to offer aviation insurance at all with wild cards like these sorts of judgments in the mix, as well as the known prevalence of stupid pilot tricks.

If the cost of insurance is an issue, then you are faced with a decision like I was. I could let my airplane sit on the ramp for the privilege of insuring it, or I could fly and accept the risk myself. Which is what I did. But the nature of that choice and the costs involved in the risk are not the insurance company's fault, in my estimation. Especially up here, like mtv already said, where any accident is likely to result in helicopter assistance for getting the wreckage out.

Since I already had my two cents, I guess this makes three and four.

I fully understand the complete dynamics of insurance. I purposely state things to enact a response to see if the respondants can stay consistant.

I believe lowflyby clearly made my point by stating the auto insurance scam. They sell you a policy that shows a value of purchased price, you leave the agents office feeling all warm and fuzzy, you total the vehicle, they pay blue book, you eat the difference. The dumb masses can't figure out they got screwed, They go out and buy another vehicle and the cycle continues. Insurance guys laugh all the way to the bank. I choose to self insure for as much as I can, been doing it for 30+ years. The money I have saved has paid off for me very well. I have assets, ya know like cash I can spend on whatever I want,, not a shoebox full of cancelled checks and premium notices, which are only good for lighting the woodstove. I drive, fly and live with careful calculations based on a safe and uneventful outcome. If I did stupid things I would be the first to buy insurance. Most if not all who have chimed in in favor of insurance has either had a claim or sells insurance. For them I say good for you, you beat the odds and won a payout. For the ones of us who are careful, we are basically subsidizing your high risk planning, driving, flying and living lifestyles ,for our premuims paid are used to dilute the cost of high risk pilots, drivers,etc. I choose not to fund their bad habits.

I carry high liability coverage on my vehicles, homeowners and business. 1,000,000.00 +. The premiums for liability are cheap.With my accident free record I am paying around .13 cents per $1000.00 of coverage The gravy is the fluff in insurance policies, ie, comp, collision, uninsured motorists, etc ,on the auto side. And have you noticed they sell uninsured motorists coverage in no fault states.. What's up with that ??? Yeah the avaition, marine, classic and antique car markets will provide stated value. And you will pay alot extra for that perk. I believe MTV said he heard Billy Gibbons say on the radio his insurance is sky high.... I was at Barrett Jackson auction and just last year he was speaking highly of Haggerty classic car insurance and how cheap it is to insure a 200,000 street rod. If I remember correctly he said it was under 100 bucs a year. So, who to believe ?????????????????????????

I am headed out for a nice flight this morning. I will reduce my chance of an incident, accident ,whatever, to the best of my ability. For you guys who want to land on a gravel bar, in a taildragger, for the first time, because you are insured and someone will pay for your stupidy when you ball it up into a pile of scrap aluminum, I say ..........HAVE at it... I ain't paying for that stupid pilot trick though.

Now I am off my soapbox on this topic for good, for any reasonably person should know now know how I feel about insurance.

Tailwinds fellow pilots.

Ben.

Stol wrote:I fully understand the complete dynamics of insurance. I purposely state things to enact a response to see if the respondants can stay consistant.

Ben.

So what you're saying is that you're a troll?

Stol wrote:... the auto insurance scam. They sell you a policy that shows a value of purchased price, you leave the agents office feeling all warm and fuzzy, you total the vehicle, they pay blue book, you eat the difference. The dumb masses can't figure out they got screwed, They go out and buy another vehicle and the cycle continues. Insurance guys laugh all the way to the bank.

If the insurance company totaled that new car and paid you, say...$25,000 for what you feel is a car valued at $30,000, after having collected only $2,000 in premiums over 3 years, I'm not sure that elicits the evil cackling from these "scammers." Best case, they sell the salvage, write off the loss, but on a single case basis, they've lost the bet. The only thing they have going for them is a large pool of insured and favorable stats to balance out the loss.

1SeventyZ wrote:
So what you're saying is that you're a troll?

Sounds that way...I guess I stayed consistent enough and passed his test though...

With regard to the street rod insurance...we have quite a few clients that attend Barrett-Jackson and purchase those $250k category collector cars. I highly doubt it was under $100 per year, but I guess it could happen. There are so many variables when underwriting a risk that one cannot paint it all with a broad brush. Was it liability only? Was it a show car that only goes by trailer? Was it a collector car that is never driven? Is it a garage queen that stays in an alarm equipped garage with fire suppression? Etc, etc...

RobBurson wrote:......So liability yes if it was $500.00 a year or less.

I get the impression you do NOT have liability coverage. Have you priced a liabilty only policy? I don't have the exact figures handy, but the liabilty portion was a very small part of the price of my full coverage policy-- well under $500. Might be more for a Maule, but even so it could turn out to be the best investment you ever made. If God forbid you fly into something or someone, or even have someone walk into your prop or something like that, you're gonna wish like hell you had bit the bullet & bought it after their lawyers get through ripping you a new one.

Eric

Stol wrote:For you guys who want to land on a gravel bar, in a taildragger, for the first time, because you are insured and someone will pay for your stupidy, I say ..........HAVE at it... I ain't paying for that stupid pilot trick though.
Ben.

Risky maybe, but I wouldn't call it stupid.
I rank my first gravel bar landing almost as high as my first solo.

Isn't there a first time for everything? Can you skip it somehow?

lowflybye wrote: With aircraft insurance the check written for a total loss is the same amount as is stated on the policy.

So lets say I insure my M7 for 189K and lets say I am filling out of a plastic can at some far out place and it catches fire. Burns to the ground. You are going to give me a check for 189K Really?

Chris I think we need to talk

Ok, after not too serious consideration I bagged an insurance policy for my plane today. So I am no longer self insured. I have never had insurance on any plane I have ever had but none of them were this kind of money either.
My plane is an experimental and I am the builder. I am based and hangared on the farm, . 55 hrs in this plane since new and it is tailwheel.
A Tundra set up like mine except with a constant speed prop sold in 2008 for 140,000. Regardless of what my actual investment is, I took that price as the hull replacement value for insurance purposes. This is an interesting spread in the quotes.

140,000 hull, 1 million liability limit/occurrence, 100,000/passenger, 3000 medical/person, 100 deductible/occurrence
Avemco quoted 6200
USSIC 4394
Falcon (EAA) 3800
Chartis (AIG) 3191 (Includes additional 5% discount for AOPA members

I ended up with Chartis with some exclusions to agree to in order for this rate. I am the sole insured pilot. Must be current in flight review, medical and current in type and be a legal flight (example, not a drug runner or a terrorist) Imagine my disappointment.

Well there you have it. This will be a huge waste of money for every year that I fly that I don't crash my plane. But for the one day that I might, the $8.74/day on that day will be one heck of a good buy and besides, like a very wealthy neighbor once told me, " Except for the liability part, insurance is for folks who can't afford things."

Oh yeah, and now I can send the insurance waiver for the Utah Fly In!

I fly an ELSA trike worth maybe $18,000. NO ONE will offer insurance for my trike, not hull, not liability, not even give me a quote. Not even EAA and it seems like they would be the most likely to understand what "experimental" means. Insurance is limited to a tiny subset of "approved" trike models from a tiny subset of "approved" manufactures. I am happy to take the risk for the hull but I have never been able to figure out why they can't figure out a liability policy for me. Licensed pilot, certain number of hours, in a registered, airworthy aircraft. How hard can this be?? And if I can't get it, what chance does the poor schmuck flying Part 103?

I would LOVE to buy liability insurance. I have begged folks to SELL me liability insurance. But I am not going to give up flying just because the yahoos in the insurance industry won't even take the time to break out their calculators and give me a quote! I do wish the EAA would step up and actually DO something about this. Isn't that what the "association" part is for?

RobBurson wrote:

lowflybye wrote: With aircraft insurance the check written for a total loss is the same amount as is stated on the policy.

So lets say I insure my M7 for 189K and lets say I am filling out of a plastic can at some far out place and it catches fire. Burns to the ground. You are going to give me a check for 189K Really?

Chris I think we need to talk

Rob, if that were the case then everyone would buy insurance and "accidentally" total their aircraft.

Remember, I said it was an "Agreed Value"...that means that both you and the underwriter must agree to the value listed on the policy. Typically the underwriters will agree to a value that is +\- 15% of the stated bluebook value without any form of substantiation, but I have seen values in excess of 200% of the BB value with some formal substantiation for increase.

dirtstrip wrote:140,000 hull, 1 million liability limit/occurrence, 100,000/passenger, 3000 medical/person, 100 deductible/occurrence
Avemco quoted 6200
USSIC 4394
Falcon (EAA) 3800
Chartis (AIG) 3191 (Includes additional 5% discount for AOPA members

pdshetler wrote: I do wish the EAA would step up and actually DO something about this. Isn't that what the "association" part is for?

This is a common misconception in the aviation world....EAA does not have an insurance department or an insurance license and Falcon is not an underwriter. The EAA "program" is written through Global Aerospace and uses Falcon as the agent. Falcon has no greater pull in the underwriting industry than the rest of us. The difference is that they did a good P/R job in partnering with the EAA in order to gain the association referral, but that is where the difference stops. Any agent can get you the exact same rates provided you tell them your EAA number. Global Aerospace still has their set of guidelines for risks that they will and will not write. Contrary to popular belief the rates are the same whether you are an EAA member or not...the only benefit is that they will waive the deductibles and raise your Medical pay to $10,000. Two other underwriters already offer that regardless of membership. Global Aerospace (EAA program) will also quote a few models of aircraft for EAA members that they will not quote for non-members. The downside to the EAA program is that due to the "program" often times Falcon will only take the risk to Global because of the political side (AOPA has a "deal" with AIG) which leaves other markets unchecked that will often times quote the risk.

The AOPA program is very similar except that AOPA does have an insurance license so they act as their own agent. AOPA primarily uses Chartis (AIG) as their preferred underwriter and very seldom checks with Global due to the aforementioned EAA program. The AOPA "deal" with AIG is not exclusive either and the same rates can be obtained by any broker presenting your member number. Other markets such as Phoenix, CV Starr, and USAIG also offer a 5% discount for AOPA membership although it is not highly publicized like the "AOPA program".

Something to think about...a 5% reduction may not be of much value with some of the annual premiums that we pay in our world of light aircraft. Unless you pay more than $1,000 annually the 5% credit is a wash with your membership dues with either organization...if you pay less than $1,000 annually it is actually costing you more to be a member than it saves you. At $2,000 annual premium you save yourself $50 after your membership dues.

Neither AOPA nor EAA has the power to adjust the rates or to make an underwriter write a risk that they see as a bad investment...remember, the insurance companies are a business trying to make money like the rest of us. Unfortunately, trikes fall into the category of a bad investment with most underwriting companies along with powered parachutes and the like. Just because the FAA deems it airworthy and the pilot capable does not mean it is a good risk. The FAA will not lose a penny if the aircraft goes down, but the insurance company could lose a lot.