Saw a post on another site for someone who was denied liability coverage for a tandem Airbike. The underwriter's response was oriented around "not insuring this type."

They're a proven design that are usually plans built, and one company makes built fuselages for them. No idea the safety record.

Does this happen often? Just a "no" to a particular design?

Spit ballin’ but maybe because it’s not a aircraft per the normal FAA definition, as it’s lacking a N number?

Like trying to insure a golf cart with a auto policy


I’m not sure why you’d insure that, it’s so small and slow, chances are if you bend it enough to be worth the deductible to file a claim you won’t be around to file anyways

Hull coverage makes more sense to me. The guy said he had north of $60k into it. I personally would want the comprehensive type coverage for acts of God.

He wasn't terribly logical about the whole thing so, oh well. I was curious about this aspect of the aviation insurance. The aircraft in question is N-numbered as far as I know and is not Part 103.

I'm pretty familiar with the Tandem Airbike ( I have a scratch build stalled project I hope to finish some day ) and have been following this. This Tandem, like any of the two seat Airbikes these days was built, certified and registered (N Numbered) as an EAB. A single seat Airbike can be built to meet part 103 regs but you have to be diligent about weight management to make 254 lbs.

Insuring a Tandem shouldn't be any different than any other small light weight LSA size experimental out there.

The conclusion I came to is that he's asking for liability only, and it seems (assuming) aviation underwriters don't really like that for some reason.

Zzz wrote:The conclusion I came to is that he's asking for liability only, and it seems (assuming) aviation underwriters don't really like that for some reason.

Try calling AirPower insurance? They tend to be good with odd ball stuff