My insurance is coming due. I pay $2400/yr. for $85K in coverage. AOPA insurance sent me an invitation to get a quote. It was 25% less, pretty tempting. But I don't know anything about them. Do they willingly pay their claims? I have heard very good things about Avemco and that is why I am there, but $2400. is a lot of fuel money, not to mention taking a bite out of my slush fund for all those mods I seem to be chasing. You would think being associated with AOPA they would be good. Anyone know anything about them, or any other companies out there that anyone feels good about. I would like to save some money, but the bottom line is that they need to stand up when it's their turn. Thanks Gary

I have Avemco and I have been happy with it, but AOPA has some advantages with how much it pays to other that maybe injured. They also have no problem with off airport landings and their hangar insurance and bystander coverage is better than Avemco.

I will most likely change this next round.

Dane

AOPA is just a broker, so they usually end up selling you an AIG policy. I bought my AIG policy thru Southwest Aviation in AZ on the recommendation from Strata Rocketeer.

Just gotta love the aviation insurance racket.

If you get a quote from, say AIG, from AOPA, it locks you out from getting quotes from other brokers.

AVEMCO does not go through brokers so you can get a competitive quote from them after shopping from one broker or another.

I guess you just need to find a broker you think has your best interest in mind and have them get the quotes for you.

TD

I don't recall all the actual underwriters, but I've written checks for insurance on my current airplane to National,Avemco,AIG,AUA (thru EAA-Vintage Club),and Travers. I ususally try to get at least one competing quote every year instead of just re-upping. Make sure you're comparing apples to apples with regards to coverage.
Also check to see if there's an "off-airport exclusion", and exactly what operations you're covered or not covered on. The AUA coverage I had a few years ago cost a bit more than the competition, but they did not have that exclusion so I figured I was getting more bang for the buck. At the time, my take on AIG's explanation of their "off-airport exclusion" was that I was only covered taking off/landing on an FAA-recognized airstrip, except for a DECLARED emergency. Leaves the insurance outfit plenty of wiggle room if they decide to weasle out on ya.
I guess I'm a pesimist but better safe than sorry. A wreck's bad enough without taking a scewing too.

Eric

Eric,

The point TomD made is a valid one. You can get precisely two quotes at any one time for one airplane: One from AVEMCO, and one from a broker.

AVEMCO is a direct insurer, so they don't broker insurance, they sell it.

If you go to a broker, such as Falcon, or Joe Insurance Guy Down the Street (nice guy-gives out lollypops with quotes), they have you sign a form which says THEY are your sole representative in negotiating an insurance policy.

It is then THEIR job to find you the best deal.

If you call any other company, they won't give you a quote, because you are being represented by Joe, or whoever.

The theory is that it is a small market, and all the brokers are going to shop all the available underwriters for you, and they don't want you coming in day after day, shopping for a "deal". At least that's how it was explained to me.

So, you can get a quote from AVEMCO, and you can get a quote from someone else. Who you choose to acquire that other quote is up to you, but it will still come from one of the very few underwriters who still write aviation policies.

Believe it or not, this whole deal has gotten better from 20 years ago, at least in my opinion.

AVEMCO does not have an off airport exclusion. Their price seems fair to me. I've not had a claim with them, but friends have, and they have paid reasonably and fast.

AVEMCO will NOT insure any commercial activity, such as flight instructing. So, if you EVER do any flight instructing in your airplane, or take air tours, or.....don't go with AVEMCO.

MTV

I was able to buy my airplane without financing it and therefore was not forced by a bank to purchase insurance. Being a lawyer who deals on a daily basis with the bullshit that insurers come up with to try to avoid paying claims, I made the decision not to carry hull insurance. I just can't stand giving more money to inusurance companies than I have to. Am I the only one dumb enough not to be carrying hull insurance?

I know some guys that have self insured some pretty expensive toys.

You are not the only one not to insure, I know many more.
During many aircraft transactions, many years ago I noticed something odd and kept track of the phenomena. Those aircraft buyers who do not have to borrow to buy, and thus are not required to insure, are the subject of my interest, and I found in that group, that those who voluntarily insure have a higher accident rate than those who don't insure. So how could this be. I believe that as the insured are coming in to land, maybe a little tired, a deep subconcious knowledge of 'being covered' tends to let them off the responsibility hook just enough to allow less vigilance in the planning and targetting for the landing. Those uninsured are being very much more vigilant and careful to save the plane for another day as they are not covered.
Jeremy

I insured with Avemco when I renewed this year. They were about $150 less than Falcon for the same liability-only coverage. Hull self insuring for a careful pilot is not that risky, I think, because in aircraft you are far less likely to have some bozo run into you like in an automobile. Besides, for me the plane is a luxury, and if I wreck it, it won't matter if it takes months to restore.
tom

A few years back a friend with a Tri-Pacer wanted to get his tail wheel sighn off so he converted his plane to a Pacer. Got the sighn off and his instructor told him to get the insurance for the first year. He figured that he never had the hull in the Tri-P so why start now.

Two days later he left for Oshkosh and ground looped it in Wyoming on the way. Brought it home in a basket. If you self insure you better spend all you save on insurence on fuel so you can stay proficient.

Tim

one of the big differences between Avemco and AIG is in the passengers. With Avemco they limit the amount they will pay on each if they are related to the pilot and will pay full if not related.

AIG pays the full amount no matter who the people are.

Now if your dead as PIC then I don't know if you would care that the insurance did not give the full amount on your kids or not.

There are some other instances where AIG will pay the max when Avemco won't.

I have never had to use my insurance, and I hope that I never will.

Dane

qmdv wrote: Two days later he left for Oshkosh and ground looped it in Wyoming on the way. Brought it home in a basket. If you self insure you better spend all you save on insurence on fuel so you can stay proficient

qmdv:

I am glad you pointed that out because that is exactly the way I look at it. In my 7GCBC that burns 6.5 gph and has the auto gas STC, the same $2400 I would spend on insurance every year will buy nearly 1100 gallons of auto gas at current prices. That is about 170 hours of flying time. I see that $2400 as being far better spent using it to stay proficient than lining the pocket of an insurance company CEO. I know I am taking a risk, but it is a risk I see as acceptable.

Joe.

I don't like insurance companies anymore than anyone else. I don't usually have any money left over at the end of any given month, and there are a lot of things that I would rather spend my money on. We all have to fly and maintain our planes within our comfort levels.. This being said, I, and I would assume alot of others do a lot of low level flying so there is a little higher risk of bird strikes, which on my plane could be pretty expensive. I am also concerned with hail and theft if get stuck somewhere in route. I never used to have insurance, but I never had so much invested in the plane. I guess it goes back to some of my old thinking that the more you have, the more you worry and the harder you have to work to protect what you have. Not saying that I like feeling like that, just the way it is, for me. I guess at some pint you need to cover your ass, or risk losing it. FWIW Gary

All the time I lived in Alaska, I flew my airplanes with only liability insurance, no hull. I did so simply because hull coverage on an Alaska based seaplane is absolutley ridiculous in price.

Since I moved the the Lower 48 and am on wheels, the price to insure my airplane with hull coverage isn't any more than to insure our two cars.

That is a no brainer. You don't have to have an in motion accident to trash your airplane. There were several airplanes totalled near Oshkosh this summer, by wind. There is hail damage, etc.

Heck, there are other guys out there having ground loop accidents, who might just take out YOUR plane in the process. You KNOW without a doubt that THOSE guys aren't going to have ANY insurance, and not a pot to pee in.

I agree with the notion of hating to pay insurance bills. It is a negative concept. You're paying, betting on the come that something bad will happen, and nobody likes that.

That said, at least for me, full coverage isn't that expensive, and I will carry it.

I also carry non owned aircraft insurance, and flight instructor insurance. If you rent or instruct, you REALLY need some of this coverage.

MTV

It pays to shop around. When previously in a flying club for 20 or so years we had several claims and one fatal incident, we were with Avemco and they paid promptly. When I bought my Maule I called around and needed the insurance to get the airplane home after purchase. AOPA would write me right away...I missed a phone call from Ryan Birr at Northwest Insurance Group in Hillsboro, OR, to let me know I could save $1300. Upon renewal (they wait until 30 days before expiration to quote) I gave AOPA a shot and called Ryan, as well and he still came in with the best price. He advised me to "bite the bullet" until renewal, since there are only a handfull of underwriters who will cover Maules...you don't want to burn any bridges. I have not had any claims (knock-knock) so I don't know about that. I found that what TomD was saying about a customer being "in process" for a quote barring other agents is generally true, but some agents shop in different markets. So, it doesn't hurt to shop around. Ryan insured my Maule instructor and his FBO and thats where I got the referral. I bought my Maule outright and I'm threatening to let the kids pay for the hull insurance.

Thanks for that info. I went to their website and emailed Ryan. Incase anyone else is interested their phone # is 1-800-693-7053. Gary

OK, great subject, but let's divulge into a related subject. That's being under insured. I have my plane insured for a $40k hull value with the typical 100k/1mil per incident issue. One of my neighbor's was telling me some horror stories about how he had a fight to keep his Cub after an accident. He tells me that I am way too low in value.
I would love some expert advice, anyone with an opinion/experience, pitch in!
I hate insurance and would love to go to liability only. I have hull too so thought I'd look this through.

Insurance is the biggest waste of money in the world-- until you need it. That said, I carry hull on mine.
Underinsuring: let's say Kurt prangs his M4 ( like he tried to do in front of me at Pt Townsend a year or so ago ). He manages to twist up the landing gear and beat up a wing & aileron, but lucks out with no prop strike & no other airframe damage. I saw this scenario happen to an M5-235 at PT several years ago. It's gonna cost the insurance company say $15K to straighten out or replace the tweaked parts and recover/repaint as required. However, they can total the airplane out, pay Kurt off the $40K hull value he's declared, and then sell the airplane as is to someone for $30K, who will repair it for resale. So the insurance company is only out $10K instead of the 15 to repair the damage. Great- for them. But now Kurt is in the position of trying to replace a $50K airplane with only 30K in his pocket. Bummer.

Eric

The way I look at and use insurance is: I insure what I cannot afford to loose. I look at my airplanes as toys and insure them accordingly. All the airplanes have liability insurance and the reason is I value my familys security above all else.

With liability insurance at least they are covered (for the paultry 1mil. which dose not go very far in today economy) and they get the legal bills, clean up and removal paid for and handled by someone that knows how to get the job done. This piece of mind is priceless when you think about all the things the family will go through if I am not around to help handle the problems I brought on with my hobby.

The subject of under insurance is a great topic. When I totalled the 210 I didn't know that it was under insured until I started looking to replace it. I was hit with sticker shock. I got complacent about the plane I was flying and it's replacement cost. I also made the mistake of believing the local aircraft salesman when I ask him what my plane was worth for estate planning and insured it accordingly. I learned that to find out the value of your plane, go out and look at others that are for sale and do your own valuation.

On the bright side, I did find an aircraft to replace the broken one (and if you believe that all thing happen for the better) for less money and serves the type of flying that I used the 210 for with more style and comfort. The replacement aircraft has liability and not in motion coverage and the only reason for the not in motion is that I am planning on taking may trips to Mexico this year.

The other thing about liability insurance is that some states now require a minium amount to be carried just like auto insurance. I think the insurance companies will lobby the rest of the states to make this a requirement throughout the country because many pilots are doing just what we are thinking SELF INSURE.

My feelings, if I had nothing to loose I wouldn't carry insurance at all and that would include autos.