FBO Insurance requirement for tie-downs

[Chris]

A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

[EDR]

In article >, Chris
> wrote:

> A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
> tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
> a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
> insurance and not rely on mine for anything.
>
> Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
> aircraft the following is also listed:
>
> "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> "Best" rating of A or better....."
>
> I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> why this?

So they (FBO, airport authority, etc) don't have to pay for other
peoples mistakes.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Chris wrote:

> A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
> tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
> a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
> insurance and not rely on mine for anything.
>
> Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
> aircraft the following is also listed:
>
> "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> "Best" rating of A or better....."
>
> I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> why this?
>
> Thanks,
> CK

They want to make sure your insurance will pay up and not force them to
resort to using their insurance, if for example you don't tie your
plane down properly and it gets blown into their fuel truck by a gust
of wind.

[OtisWinslow]

Lawyers. That's why, lawyers.

"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> why this?
>
> Thanks,
> CK

[Newps]

Run it by your insurance company, many will laugh at you. No way in hell
will they name an FBO on your policy.



"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
> tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
> a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
> insurance and not rely on mine for anything.
>
> Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
> aircraft the following is also listed:
>
> "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> "Best" rating of A or better....."
>
> I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> why this?
>
> Thanks,
> CK

[BTIZ]

Here.. the county airport authority rents the tiedowns.. and they are listed
as additional insured on the "renters" policy... this is to protect them if
they are included in a lawsuit for your negligence.. not theirs..

Example... you park your aircraft and do not tie it down or chock it while
you run to take care of natures call, you'll be right back and finish tying
it down.

Meanwhile a gust of wind, or something causes your aircraft to roll into
another aircraft. That aircraft owner then sues you and the county for
damage.. the county is covered under your policy for your negligence.

They are not covered under your policy for their negligence of driving their
fuel truck into yours or anyone else's aircraft.

BT

"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
> tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
> a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
> insurance and not rely on mine for anything.
>
> Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
> aircraft the following is also listed:
>
> "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> "Best" rating of A or better....."
>
> I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> why this?
>
> Thanks,
> CK

[C J Campbell]

Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

[Chris]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
> insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
> interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do. While I know the
insurance company should investigate this they may not. It seems in
most instances like this if my plane damaged something the FBO's
insurance would cover this and then their insurance company would go
after my insurance for the claim. Typical scenario is an aircraft
renter damages an airplane. I don't like what appears to be the easy
ability to make a claim against my policy from a third party.

Thanks for the comments so far.

- CK

[BTIZ]

They are not making a claim against your policy to be listed as additional
insured.. They are asking to be covered under your policy if your aircraft
is involved in something where they could also be named at fault.

You replaced their tie down chain with a rope.. in a storm the rope fails
and your aircraft damages someone else's aircraft.. they get blamed for
allowing you to change the chain to a rope.. your poor choice of rope.. they
get covered by your policy for your error.. and in this case their error for
not catching that you swapped out their equipment (chains) for your own
(rope).

BT

"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
> > insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
> > interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.
>
> My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
> happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do. While I know the
> insurance company should investigate this they may not. It seems in
> most instances like this if my plane damaged something the FBO's
> insurance would cover this and then their insurance company would go
> after my insurance for the claim. Typical scenario is an aircraft
> renter damages an airplane. I don't like what appears to be the easy
> ability to make a claim against my policy from a third party.
>
> Thanks for the comments so far.
>
> - CK

[C J Campbell]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:rVUoc.18179$k24.6372@fed1read01...

>
> You replaced their tie down chain with a rope..

Boy, what a bad example. Anybody who ties their plane down with a chain
deserves to get sued.

[C J Campbell]

"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
> > insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
> > interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.
>
> My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
> happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do.

That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

[Chris]

> That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
>
> You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
> named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
> the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
> Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

- CK

[C J Campbell]

"Chris" > wrote in message
om...
> > That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
> >
> > You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
> > named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
because in
> > the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
policy.
> > Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.
>
> Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
> gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
> from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
> not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
> ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
> doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

If they got every aircraft on the ramp to do this then they would be
completely insured without paying a dime. They also do not have any
responsibility. Their accidents count against your insurance record, not
theirs.

[zatatime]

On 14 May 2004 08:00:40 -0700, (Chris) wrote:

>> That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
>>
>> You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
>> named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
>> the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
>> Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.
>
>Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
>gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
>from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
>not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
>ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
>doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.
>
>- CK

If they do this thry may not need insurance. There is something
called Hangar Keepers Insurance which airports/FBOs have to protect
themselves. It has gotten pretty expensive (like all insurance), so
if they can ride your coat tails they may be able to drop it. Might
be interesting to ask if they have Hangar Keepers, it may add a piece
to the puzzle.

z

[Aaron Coolidge]

Chris > wrote:
: "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
: additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
: "Best" rating of A or better....."

This is pretty mild. At the happy little airport that I'm based at the
rule was changed so that (1) The FBO, (2) The town, (3) The airport
comission, (4) the airport comissioners by name, (5) the selectmen by name
were to be listed as "additional insured". I (and some others) balked, and
the rule was withdrawn, after a very acrimonious debate.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[BTIZ]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:rVUoc.18179$k24.6372@fed1read01...
>
> >
> > You replaced their tie down chain with a rope..
>
> Boy, what a bad example. Anybody who ties their plane down with a chain
> deserves to get sued.
>
>

agreed.. but that is what the county provides..

BT

[BTIZ]

you guys got this all backwards... they are not covered by just your
policy...

if there is an accident / incident in which YOUR AIRCRAFT is not involved..
THEY are not covered...

it is only when YOUR AIRCRAFT is involved.. and they are "named" in a claim
against YOU because THEY ALLOWED you to park there.

BT

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
> > >
> > > You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is
a
> > > named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
> because in
> > > the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
> policy.
> > > Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.
> >
> > Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
> > gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
> > from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
> > not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
> > ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
> > doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.
>
> If they got every aircraft on the ramp to do this then they would be
> completely insured without paying a dime. They also do not have any
> responsibility. Their accidents count against your insurance record, not
> theirs.
>
>

[Chris]

Aaron Coolidge > wrote in message >...
> This is pretty mild. At the happy little airport that I'm based at the
> rule was changed so that (1) The FBO, (2) The town, (3) The airport
> comission, (4) the airport comissioners by name, (5) the selectmen by name
> were to be listed as "additional insured". I (and some others) balked, and
> the rule was withdrawn, after a very acrimonious debate.

This is at a private airport and I believe the policy has been in
existence for well over a year. While I can't say everyone has
complied without asking each and every aircraft owner I believe they
have.

- CK

[Greg Hopp]

> Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
> gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
> from my house which would be nice.

So be a responsible owner, always tie/chock your a/c down so it
doesn't blow into someones million $ plane, and enjoy the fact you're
five minutes away! The gas savings alone makes this a no-brainer; I'm
35 mins away and I know there are lots here who are way more than
that.

Greg

[Howard]

Not true. We do it all the time.

Jon Howard
Aviation Insurance Underwriter

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Run it by your insurance company, many will laugh at you. No way in hell
> will they name an FBO on your policy.
>
>
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> om...
> > A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
> > tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
> > a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
> > insurance and not rely on mine for anything.
> >
> > Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
> > aircraft the following is also listed:
> >
> > "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> > additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> > "Best" rating of A or better....."
> >
> > I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
> > why this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > CK
>
>

[Howard]

Additional Insured status on YOUR policy and Hangar Keepers Liability are
very different.

Additional Insured (AI) protects them for liability claims arising from YOUR
ownership and operation of your aircraft. If the FBO gets sued for
something YOU did, the AI will give them some protection. However, it does
not protect them if THEY did something negligent, therefore most airport
require the FBO to carry their own insurance too.

Hangar Keepers Liability (HKLL) pays for damage to an aircraft in the FBO's
custody if the FBO damages it. AI will NOT pay for damage to your
aircraft - HKLL will.

Jon Howard

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 May 2004 08:00:40 -0700, (Chris) wrote:
>
> >> That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
> >>
> >> You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is
a
> >> named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
because in
> >> the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
policy.
> >> Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.
> >
> >Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
> >gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
> >from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
> >not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
> >ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
> >doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.
> >
> >- CK
>
> If they do this thry may not need insurance. There is something
> called Hangar Keepers Insurance which airports/FBOs have to protect
> themselves. It has gotten pretty expensive (like all insurance), so
> if they can ride your coat tails they may be able to drop it. Might
> be interesting to ask if they have Hangar Keepers, it may add a piece
> to the puzzle.
>
> z

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article <xFapc.350$wn1.169@fed1read01>,
BTIZ > wrote:
>
>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
>> news:rVUoc.18179$k24.6372@fed1read01...
>>
>> >
>> > You replaced their tie down chain with a rope..
>>
>> Boy, what a bad example. Anybody who ties their plane down with a chain
>> deserves to get sued.
>>
>>
>
>agreed.. but that is what the county provides..
>
....but do they mandate that you use that inferior tie down? Are they
taking the liability for the increased risk of shock damage when the
chain pulls up short with no give, bending metal...

yours,
Michael


--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/

[Ben Haas]

Aaron Coolidge > wrote in message >...
> Chris > wrote:
> : "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
> : additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
> : "Best" rating of A or better....."
>
> This is pretty mild. At the happy little airport that I'm based at the
> rule was changed so that (1) The FBO, (2) The town, (3) The airport
> comission, (4) the airport comissioners by name, (5) the selectmen by name
> were to be listed as "additional insured". I (and some others) balked, and
> the rule was withdrawn, after a very acrimonious debate.

Aaron is right on with this message. When you see a sitution coming
that doesn't pass the smell test like the policy they wanted to enact
at his airport, contest it till you are blue in the face, if you don't
they will ram it down your throat, or worse, some other place..

Ben Haas N801BH Jackson Hole.

[zatatime]

Thanks for the info and clarification.

Question: If an airplane is tied down and "shot" by some pellets from
a shotgun, would that be something the FBO is resposible for?

Thanks agin.
z

On Tue, 18 May 2004 00:46:54 -0500, "Howard"
> wrote:

>Additional Insured status on YOUR policy and Hangar Keepers Liability are
>very different.
>
>Additional Insured (AI) protects them for liability claims arising from YOUR
>ownership and operation of your aircraft. If the FBO gets sued for
>something YOU did, the AI will give them some protection. However, it does
>not protect them if THEY did something negligent, therefore most airport
>require the FBO to carry their own insurance too.
>
>Hangar Keepers Liability (HKLL) pays for damage to an aircraft in the FBO's
>custody if the FBO damages it. AI will NOT pay for damage to your
>aircraft - HKLL will.
>
>Jon Howard
>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> On 14 May 2004 08:00:40 -0700, (Chris) wrote:
>>
>> >> That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:
>> >>
>> >> You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is
>a
>> >> named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
>because in
>> >> the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
>policy.
>> >> Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.
>> >
>> >Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
>> >gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
>> >from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
>> >not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
>> >ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
>> >doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.
>> >
>> >- CK
>>
>> If they do this thry may not need insurance. There is something
>> called Hangar Keepers Insurance which airports/FBOs have to protect
>> themselves. It has gotten pretty expensive (like all insurance), so
>> if they can ride your coat tails they may be able to drop it. Might
>> be interesting to ask if they have Hangar Keepers, it may add a piece
>> to the puzzle.
>>
>> z
>

[Newps]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the info and clarification.
>
> Question: If an airplane is tied down and "shot" by some pellets from
> a shotgun, would that be something the FBO is resposible for?

Not unless the FBO did the shooting.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 18 May 2004 09:06:57 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> Thanks for the info and clarification.
>>
>> Question: If an airplane is tied down and "shot" by some pellets from
>> a shotgun, would that be something the FBO is resposible for?
>
>Not unless the FBO did the shooting.
>

What if they allowed the shooting?

z