Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike

Michael Horowitz wrote:
>
> Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike

None of the three places I kept a plane did this.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Michael Horowitz > writes:

> Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
> I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
> asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
> the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
> Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike

I rent a hangar from the city (KSNS), they require to be listed as
named insured on my policy.

-jav

Javier Henderson > wrote:

>Michael Horowitz > writes:
>
>> Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
>> I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
>> asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
>> the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
>> Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike
>
>I rent a hangar from the city (KSNS), they require to be listed as
>named insured on my policy.
>
>-jav


After sleeping on it, I seem to recall that I did previously have an
FBO do the same. Thanks - MIke

Here (Long Island MacArthur ), FBO wants a copy of policy every year, and
wants to be listed as insured.
"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Horowitz > writes:
>
> > Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
> > I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
> > asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
> > the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
> > Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike
>
> I rent a hangar from the city (KSNS), they require to be listed as
> named insured on my policy.
>
> -jav

Mike,
Our FBO does not but the state (VA) does.
Michelle

Michael Horowitz wrote:

>Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
>I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
>asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
>the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
>Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike
>
>

Yes.....

Boat clubs, marinas, the same...

Dave


On Sat, 14 May 2005 22:11:50 -0400, Michael Horowitz
> wrote:

>Is it typical for an FBO to ask to see evidence of a/c insurance?
>I've been tied down at XXX for several years now; today the manager
>asked for a copy of my insurance (not sure if he wanted to see a cy of
>the policy, or simply evidence of insurance).
>Did your FBO ask same of you? - Mike

Pretty common. My policy (AIG w/ AOPA riders ) has explicit coverage
for the tie down area and liability insurance if someone trips on the
plane.

-Robert

Ask the airport manager if he requires that all transient aricraft have
the airport as named insured before using the airport... If not, then
they are discriminating among users of a public airport, which is a
violation of federal law..
The reality is that if someone gets injured, say by walking into a
prop, it doesn't make any difference if the plane has been sitting
there 90 seconds or 90 days... The airport's risk level is the same...
The other reality is that the airport is the landlord for renters and
the renters will probably have to compromise in the end, but by keeping
their feet to the fire you can keep their demands down to a reasonable
level...

My situtation is a bit different as I own my hangar - which sits on
land leased from the airport... Still, the County tried to force me to
abrogate my insurance with them as additional named insured.. I
politely declined..
Well actually and more accurately, the airport manager handed me a
sealed envelope on a Saturday morning, inside was this contract with
numerous underlined, blank areas that I was to sign and after I signed
they would fill in the blanks... He said he had to have it within 5
business days... I read through it briefly, laughed loudly to get the
attention of the other pilots/owners milling around, wadded up the
contract and tried for a 3 pointer into the waste basket... I missed
and it skidded under the vending machine... I was still chuckling as I
walked out... He told me later that two guys who had signed their
contract and put it on his desk, after seeing my little act of defiance
then grabbed their contract back and tore it up... The airport wound
upwith a full blown revolt and only the FBO's signing the new airport
contract... Be aware that this airport does not have a five year
waiting list for a hangar... AIrports in major urban centers probably
can play hard ball...

denny

Denny wrote:

> Ask the airport manager if he requires that all transient aricraft have
> the airport as named insured before using the airport... If not, then
> they are discriminating among users of a public airport, which is a
> violation of federal law..
> The reality is that if someone gets injured, say by walking into a
> prop, it doesn't make any difference if the plane has been sitting
> there 90 seconds or 90 days...

Sure it does. The plane based there is much more likely to be the one
causing the accident. It's all about reducing the risk that you have
control over.


The airport's risk level is the same...
> The other reality is that the airport is the landlord for renters and
> the renters will probably have to compromise in the end, but by keeping
> their feet to the fire you can keep their demands down to a reasonable
> level...

It's not unreasonable and is quite common.

Newp's ol bud, you are defending the status quo, and I continue say it
is unreasonable and needs to be changed by force of law...
If the airport requires you to abrogate your insurance to them because
your C-150 sleeps in a hangar there and only flys on weekends, but lets
Joe Hotrod come screaming over the fence in his Stage 1 Lear every
weekend without a penny of abrogated coverage to the airport; I
propose to you that is discriminatory...
And, how about the public roaring into the parking lot in a 4 ton SUV,
with their little darling, Dennis the Hatchet Kid, just rearing to the
demolish everything in sight... Why does not the airport owner demand
named insured status from them before the door locks are popped? They
demand it of you before your airplane is tied down (like little Denny
should be)

The answer is simple, because it hasn't been done before (that I know
of), status quo again... At that point it is discrimination against a
class of people, airplane owners who are hangared on the field versus
airplane owners who use the field without hangaring there... Now it
will take some deep pockets to herd a discrimination suit through the
courts for a decade or so.... Non the less, my gut instinct tells me
that the Appeals and Superior courts are going to take a hard look at
any case where there is blatant discrimination between classes of
airplane owners...

Cheers;

denny

Denny wrote:

> Newp's ol bud, you are defending the status quo, and I continue say it
> is unreasonable and needs to be changed by force of law...
> If the airport requires you to abrogate your insurance to them because
> your C-150 sleeps in a hangar there and only flys on weekends, but lets
> Joe Hotrod come screaming over the fence in his Stage 1 Lear every
> weekend without a penny of abrogated coverage to the airport; I
> propose to you that is discriminatory...
> And, how about the public roaring into the parking lot in a 4 ton SUV,
> with their little darling, Dennis the Hatchet Kid, just rearing to the
> demolish everything in sight... Why does not the airport owner demand
> named insured status from them before the door locks are popped? They
> demand it of you before your airplane is tied down (like little Denny
> should be)
>
> The answer is simple, because it hasn't been done before (that I know
> of), status quo again... At that point it is discrimination against a
> class of people, airplane owners who are hangared on the field versus
> airplane owners who use the field without hangaring there... Now it
> will take some deep pockets to herd a discrimination suit through the
> courts for a decade or so.... Non the less, my gut instinct tells me
> that the Appeals and Superior courts are going to take a hard look at
> any case where there is blatant discrimination between classes of
> airplane owners...
>
> Cheers;
>
> denny
>

The real result of such a successful legal challenge is likely to be the
elimination and/or curtailment of hangar rentals at the airport in
question, not the airport in quesiton giving up a liability coverage
they have come to rely on.

xyzzy wrote:
>
> The real result of such a successful legal challenge is likely to be the
> elimination and/or curtailment of hangar rentals at the airport in
> question, not the airport in quesiton giving up a liability coverage
> they have come to rely on.

If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going to
give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because some
judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way they dealt
with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

> If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going
> to give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because
> some judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way
> they dealt with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

In a city looking to close their airport -- a fairly common situation,
nowadays -- this type of thing would be the perfect excuse to shut it down.

Heck, if this were to happen, I can just imagine our city attorney gleefully
making the announcement that "Due to onerous and burdensome changes in
insurance liability laws, we will no longer be able to provide hangar space
or transient parking at our airport..."

Let's not push this issue, please.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

: If you seriously think that any airport in this neck of the woods is going to
: give up the $450/month or so rent on each of their hangars just because some
: judge says they have to go back to dealing with insurance the way they dealt
: with it a few years ago, you really have a screw loose.

... but with the insanity that has become of liability insurance in the past
(surprisingly few) years, it may *not* make sense.

I'm actually interested in the legalities of the leases that federally-funded
airports use for hangars and tiedowns. Some issues are specifically spelled out
(self-fueling, for instance). Other issues are less clear... like what one is allowed
to do in ones rented hangar. Some places are getting so that you aren't allowed to
keep tools in your own hangar... just an airplane.

Anyway, the whole thing is rather sickening. I figure you should be able to
do whatever the hell you want if you're leasing the space (provided you are not
breaking the law WRT chemical hazzards, fire codes, drug smuggling, etc)... :)

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

> Anyway, the whole thing is rather sickening. I figure you should
be able to
> do whatever the hell you want if you're leasing the space (provided you are not
> breaking the law WRT chemical hazzards, fire codes, drug smuggling, etc)... :)

Be careful how you phrase that or more airports will end up like SMO,
where hangars are not available and about 1/3 of the ones on the field
are being used for non-aviation purposes. See Barry Schiff's column in
AOPA pilot last month on this...