Hull/Liability Insurance Recommendations

[Jim Weir]

The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
coverage. So far it is:

Phoenix $805
AIG $920
Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)


Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?

Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:49:44 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
>about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
>coverage. So far it is:
>
>Phoenix $805
>AIG $920
>Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
>Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
>Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?

This is a link to a recent 16-post thread on the Cherokee 235 BBS that
you may find relevant:

http://www.cabo-rental.net/cherokee235/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000475.html

Your numbers sound low for an equivalent airplane. It'd be interesting
to hear your take.

Don

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:49:44 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
>about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
>coverage. So far it is:
>
>Phoenix $805
>AIG $920
>Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
>Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
>Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?

This is a link to a recent 16-post thread on the Cherokee 235 BBS that
you may find relevant:

http://www.cabo-rental.net/cherokee235/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000475.html

Your numbers sound low for an equivalent airplane. It'd be interesting
to hear your take.

Don

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Weir wrote:
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?

My policy (through a broker) is with AIG. Had a claim a few years ago. It was paid
promptly with none of this "get three written estimates" BS, and my premiums did not
go up the next year.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Weir wrote:
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?

My policy (through a broker) is with AIG. Had a claim a few years ago. It was paid
promptly with none of this "get three written estimates" BS, and my premiums did not
go up the next year.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Howard]

Without knowing the hull value you're insuring it's hard to tell if those
are good quotes, but generally those sound like really good numbers.

There aren't many other markets for aviation insurance. The ones you
haven't mentioned are US Specialty (USSIC), USAIG, London Aviation
Underwriters, Aerospace Insurance Managers and Avemco. London and AIM are
more specialty markets for hard-to-place insurance risks, so they aren't
likely to be competetive price-wise with the other markets. You can call
Avemco direct since they are a direct writer and don't work through the
brokerage system. Your insurance agent should be able to get quotes from
USSIC and USAIG for you.

Phoenix is an excellent company (I used to work for them) and they have an
excellent claims handling reputation.

Jon Howard


"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal
in
> about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the
same
> coverage. So far it is:
>
> Phoenix $805
> AIG $920
> Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
> Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Howard]

Without knowing the hull value you're insuring it's hard to tell if those
are good quotes, but generally those sound like really good numbers.

There aren't many other markets for aviation insurance. The ones you
haven't mentioned are US Specialty (USSIC), USAIG, London Aviation
Underwriters, Aerospace Insurance Managers and Avemco. London and AIM are
more specialty markets for hard-to-place insurance risks, so they aren't
likely to be competetive price-wise with the other markets. You can call
Avemco direct since they are a direct writer and don't work through the
brokerage system. Your insurance agent should be able to get quotes from
USSIC and USAIG for you.

Phoenix is an excellent company (I used to work for them) and they have an
excellent claims handling reputation.

Jon Howard


"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal
in
> about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the
same
> coverage. So far it is:
>
> Phoenix $805
> AIG $920
> Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
> Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[TripFarmer]

It would help if you gave the deatils of your coverage.



Trip


In article >, says...
>
>The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
>about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
>coverage. So far it is:
>
>Phoenix $805
>AIG $920
>Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
>Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
>Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>
>Jim
>
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

What possible difference would that make? All that should matter is that I give
the same information to each company from whom I solicit a bid.

Because it seems to make a difference to you, $45K hull, $500K liability limited
to $100K/passenger.

What I was trying to avoid was a long list of why this is the wrong coverage,
how much the hull is actually worth ... I don't need it.

Jim


(TripFarmer)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->It would help if you gave the deatils of your coverage.
->
->
->
->Trip

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[One's Too Many]

Give a call to AUA in Greensboro, NC.

http://www.auaonline.com

[Jim Weir]

I appreciate the link, but when I go to the online application and "hangar" and
"occupation" are misspelled, and then go to the "send us email" link and it
gives me an Apache server error, I tend to shy away.

They are probably very nice people, but their inattention to detail on their
website makes me question the attention to detail of the business.

Jim


(One's Too Many)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Give a call to AUA in Greensboro, NC.
->
->http://www.auaonline.com

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

Have had prices and results (never a good thing) from Global.

Insurance s/b needed and not used.

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

[Rick Durden]

Jim,

Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
(if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
$100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?

It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
$2,000 a year.

All the best,
Rick

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
> about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
> coverage. So far it is:
>
> Phoenix $805
> AIG $920
> Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
> Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[TripFarmer]

Sorry for trying to help.............lol


In article >, says...
>
>What possible difference would that make? All that should matter is that I give
>the same information to each company from whom I solicit a bid.
>
>Because it seems to make a difference to you, $45K hull, $500K liability limited
>to $100K/passenger.
>
>What I was trying to avoid was a long list of why this is the wrong coverage,
>how much the hull is actually worth ... I don't need it.
>
>Jim
>
>
(TripFarmer)
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->It would help if you gave the deatils of your coverage.
>->
>->
>->
>->Trip
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[TripFarmer]

Rick,

Don't discuss limits with Jim. He's very "touchy" about discussing them.


Trip

In article >, says...
>
>Jim,
>
>Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
>is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
>(if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
>inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
>$100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
>adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
>It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
>referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
>quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
>surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
>$2,000 a year.
>
>All the best,
>Rick
>
>Jim Weir > wrote in message news:<5kuom0lellcqee5m6nn2o44i9v272
>...
>> The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
>> about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
>> coverage. So far it is:
>>
>> Phoenix $805
>> AIG $920
>> Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>>
>>
>> Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>>
>> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

Rick...

I appreciate you and Trip's concern about my coverage, but I've structured my
finances to pay a minimum of taxes, insurance, and still give me and my family
peace of mind that we are doing what is required of us. I would argue that your
advice of $1M smooth is NOT valid in all cases. I am also very aware of what my
hull is worth and what it would cost me to replace it. I have absolutely no
intention of over-insuring anything I own.

"Satisfactory" is in the mind of the satisfactee.

Jim


(Rick Durden)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Jim,
->
->Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
->is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
->(if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
->inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
->$100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
->adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
->
->It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
->referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
->quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
->surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
->$2,000 a year.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Doug]

No harm in getting a quote from Avemco. 800-283-7019.

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> The BlueOnBlue 182 is coming up for insurance (hull & liability) renewal in
> about fifteen days. I'm very careful to get competitive quotes using the same
> coverage. So far it is:
>
> Phoenix $805
> AIG $920
> Global $939 (current carrier with no renewal discount)
>
>
> Any suggestions on another quote that can be done inside a week?
>
> Any COMMENTS, good or bad, about the two lowest bidders?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Newps]

Jim Weir wrote:

> What possible difference would that make? All that should matter is that I give
> the same information to each company from whom I solicit a bid.
>
> Because it seems to make a difference to you, $45K hull, $500K liability limited
> to $100K/passenger.

I have a $70K hull on my 182, $1 mil/$100K per passenger. I paid $1050
last May to Global. This is my second year with them. I had USAIG for
the 5 years prior to that. They were about $50 more than Global. So
your numbers look pretty good.

[Newps]

Rick Durden wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
> is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
> (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
> It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
> referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
> quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
> surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
> $2,000 a year.

I have never paid anywhere near $2K for my 182. Even Avemco, which is
never in the ballpark, has never given me a quote over $2K. But then I
also don't have smooth coverage. Don't need it, won't pay for it.

[NW_PILOT]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> I appreciate the link, but when I go to the online application and
"hangar" and
> "occupation" are misspelled, and then go to the "send us email" link and
it
> gives me an Apache server error, I tend to shy away.
>
> They are probably very nice people, but their inattention to detail on
their
> website makes me question the attention to detail of the business.
>
> Jim
>
>
> (One's Too Many)
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->Give a call to AUA in Greensboro, NC.
> ->
> ->http://www.auaonline.com
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com


Don't blame the company, blame the web master it's usually contracted out
and typos are simple to do everyone dose them.

[NW_PILOT]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> Jim,
>
> Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
> is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
> (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?


I would say depends on his assets,

[Dude]

Jim, I agree with you totally. I don't make too much of appearences, but
there is a limit to what you can live with. It's not worth the self doubt
that will creep in everytime there is a problem - "I knew they were shoddy,
why did I not just pass on them!"



"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>I appreciate the link, but when I go to the online application and "hangar"
>and
> "occupation" are misspelled, and then go to the "send us email" link and
> it
> gives me an Apache server error, I tend to shy away.
>
> They are probably very nice people, but their inattention to detail on
> their
> website makes me question the attention to detail of the business.
>
> Jim
>
>
> (One's Too Many)
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->Give a call to AUA in Greensboro, NC.
> ->
> ->http://www.auaonline.com
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[David Johnson]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> Jim,
>
> Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
> is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
> (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
> It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
> referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
> quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
> surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
> $2,000 a year.

Really? My current policy, through Travers & Associates, cost $736
for a 182B. IIRC it has always been in that ballpark in recent years.
I'll dig out more details if desired.

Perhaps it helps that I have owned/flown this plane for 26 years,
and the only claim was for flood damage (wheel bearings). I have,
however, changed providers several times.

David Johnson

[Matt Whiting]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I appreciate the link, but when I go to the online application and
>
> "hangar" and
>
>>"occupation" are misspelled, and then go to the "send us email" link and
>
> it
>
>>gives me an Apache server error, I tend to shy away.
>>
>>They are probably very nice people, but their inattention to detail on
>
> their
>
>>website makes me question the attention to detail of the business.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
(One's Too Many)
>>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>>
>>->Give a call to AUA in Greensboro, NC.
>>->
>>->http://www.auaonline.com
>>
>>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>>http://www.rst-engr.com
>
>
>
> Don't blame the company, blame the web master it's usually contracted out
> and typos are simple to do everyone dose them.
>
>

The company's name is on the site. They hired the web company. They
are responsible.


Matt

[Dave Butler]

> Don't blame the company, blame the web master it's usually contracted out
> and typos are simple to do everyone dose them.

The webmaster may have made the original error, but I'm with Jim on this one.
The person/company who hired the webmaster failed to do basic quality control on
the web presentation. I'll avoid doing business with companies for similar
reasons. It shows a lack of attention to detail.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Doug wrote:
>
> No harm in getting a quote from Avemco.

If your time isn't worth anything.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[TripFarmer]

Jim,

I wanted to give you a comparision of my insurance on a PA29-235 which
is probably comparable to your C182 if in the same age range. I pay
$900 a year.


Trip

In article >, says...
>
>Rick...
>
>I appreciate you and Trip's concern about my coverage, but I've structured my
>finances to pay a minimum of taxes, insurance, and still give me and my family
>peace of mind that we are doing what is required of us. I would argue that your
>advice of $1M smooth is NOT valid in all cases. I am also very aware of what my
>hull is worth and what it would cost me to replace it. I have absolutely no
>intention of over-insuring anything I own.
>
>"Satisfactory" is in the mind of the satisfactee.
>
>Jim
>
>
(Rick Durden)
>shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
>->Jim,
>->
>->Those rates sound extremely low for a Cessna 182 of any vintage. What
>->is the hull value you are insuring? What is the liability coverage
>->(if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
>->inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
>->$100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
>->adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>->
>->It sounds as if your broker has shopped the market. The companies you
>->referenced are all very reputable. The concern I have is that the
>->quote you have just seems too low by a large factor. I would be
>->surprised to find satisfactory coverage for a Cessna 182 for under
>->$2,000 a year.
>
>Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
>VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
>http://www.rst-engr.com

[Michael]

(Rick Durden) wrote
> (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?

In an ideal world, everyone would be covered for millions for
everything. Ideal for attorneys, that is.

The best advice I ever got about liability insurance came from a
retired aviation attorney who had practiced in GA for 20 years. He
had just recently signed me off for my glider checkride, and was
suggesting that because of my prior experience as a skydiving
instructor, I needed to start working on my CFI-Glider. Since he was
a man of means and protection of personal assets was certainly an
issue for him, I asked him about liability insurance, specifically for
instruction. What developed was a fairly long and mostly one-sided
conversation on aviation liability insurance in general, the high
points of which I am going to relate here.

The first thing he told me was that he was telling me the dirty little
secret of the profession - something a practicing attorney was not
likely to tell me.

Here it is - all liability insurance does is make you a target. It is
VERY difficult to get an aviation attorney excited about taking a case
against an uninsured person unless that person has extensive assets -
and now we're talking about someone with enough assets that he is not
getting his risk management advice over the internet or via any other
informal method - he has people on retainer. Or, to put it another
way - if you need hull coverage, you really don't need liability
coverage. There is a reason why you can't buy hull coverage without
buying liability.

There are all sorts of reasons for this. Juries have a tendency to
make large awards (that are usually reduced later) against
corporations, but not so much against individuals. In most cases,
liability is tough to determine, so the suit is a long shot. And most
importantly, while an insurance company will usually settle a suit, an
individual will usually fight it out - and even if he loses, there's
usually little or nothing to collect for the plaintiff's lawyer
because the defendant's lawyer got it all. Of course the defendant's
lawyer could advise the defendant to settle - meaning give the money
to the plaintiff's lawyer. Yeah, that's likely.

It's also a little known fact that it's general insurance company
policy not to write a check to the plaintiff unless he accepts that
check as a complete settlement. If the plaintiff chooses not to
accept, the insurance company will defend the claim. Given the choice
between a possibly inadequate but sure thing settlement (of which the
plaintiff's lawyer will get a cut) and putting time and effort into a
case that may pay nothing, and will involve trying to get blood from a
stone, what do you suppose the plaintiff's lawyer will recommend?

So I asked this retired attorney what kind of aviation liability
insurance he carried. After all, he routinely flew and instructed in
aircraft he didn't own. The answer was none. I asked him what he
would do if he bought an aircraft, and he replied that he would get
the minimum he could get in order to have hull insurance, and
suggested I do the same. And so I have.

Michael

[Howard]

Excellent advice!!!

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Rick Durden) wrote
> > (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> > inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> > $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> > adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
> In an ideal world, everyone would be covered for millions for
> everything. Ideal for attorneys, that is.
>
> The best advice I ever got about liability insurance came from a
> retired aviation attorney who had practiced in GA for 20 years. He
> had just recently signed me off for my glider checkride, and was
> suggesting that because of my prior experience as a skydiving
> instructor, I needed to start working on my CFI-Glider. Since he was
> a man of means and protection of personal assets was certainly an
> issue for him, I asked him about liability insurance, specifically for
> instruction. What developed was a fairly long and mostly one-sided
> conversation on aviation liability insurance in general, the high
> points of which I am going to relate here.
>
> The first thing he told me was that he was telling me the dirty little
> secret of the profession - something a practicing attorney was not
> likely to tell me.
>
> Here it is - all liability insurance does is make you a target. It is
> VERY difficult to get an aviation attorney excited about taking a case
> against an uninsured person unless that person has extensive assets -
> and now we're talking about someone with enough assets that he is not
> getting his risk management advice over the internet or via any other
> informal method - he has people on retainer. Or, to put it another
> way - if you need hull coverage, you really don't need liability
> coverage. There is a reason why you can't buy hull coverage without
> buying liability.
>
> There are all sorts of reasons for this. Juries have a tendency to
> make large awards (that are usually reduced later) against
> corporations, but not so much against individuals. In most cases,
> liability is tough to determine, so the suit is a long shot. And most
> importantly, while an insurance company will usually settle a suit, an
> individual will usually fight it out - and even if he loses, there's
> usually little or nothing to collect for the plaintiff's lawyer
> because the defendant's lawyer got it all. Of course the defendant's
> lawyer could advise the defendant to settle - meaning give the money
> to the plaintiff's lawyer. Yeah, that's likely.
>
> It's also a little known fact that it's general insurance company
> policy not to write a check to the plaintiff unless he accepts that
> check as a complete settlement. If the plaintiff chooses not to
> accept, the insurance company will defend the claim. Given the choice
> between a possibly inadequate but sure thing settlement (of which the
> plaintiff's lawyer will get a cut) and putting time and effort into a
> case that may pay nothing, and will involve trying to get blood from a
> stone, what do you suppose the plaintiff's lawyer will recommend?
>
> So I asked this retired attorney what kind of aviation liability
> insurance he carried. After all, he routinely flew and instructed in
> aircraft he didn't own. The answer was none. I asked him what he
> would do if he bought an aircraft, and he replied that he would get
> the minimum he could get in order to have hull insurance, and
> suggested I do the same. And so I have.
>
> Michael

[TripFarmer]

IMHO, you should have enough to cover your assets. Then you should
make sure you have enough to cover any future earning you don't want to
give up. If you have $1-2M and are an average guy you should have enough.


Trip



In article >, says...
>
(Rick Durden) wrote
>> (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
>> inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
>> $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
>> adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
>In an ideal world, everyone would be covered for millions for
>everything. Ideal for attorneys, that is.
>
>The best advice I ever got about liability insurance came from a
>retired aviation attorney who had practiced in GA for 20 years. He
>had just recently signed me off for my glider checkride, and was
>suggesting that because of my prior experience as a skydiving
>instructor, I needed to start working on my CFI-Glider. Since he was
>a man of means and protection of personal assets was certainly an
>issue for him, I asked him about liability insurance, specifically for
>instruction. What developed was a fairly long and mostly one-sided
>conversation on aviation liability insurance in general, the high
>points of which I am going to relate here.
>
>The first thing he told me was that he was telling me the dirty little
>secret of the profession - something a practicing attorney was not
>likely to tell me.
>
>Here it is - all liability insurance does is make you a target. It is
>VERY difficult to get an aviation attorney excited about taking a case
>against an uninsured person unless that person has extensive assets -
>and now we're talking about someone with enough assets that he is not
>getting his risk management advice over the internet or via any other
>informal method - he has people on retainer. Or, to put it another
>way - if you need hull coverage, you really don't need liability
>coverage. There is a reason why you can't buy hull coverage without
>buying liability.
>
>There are all sorts of reasons for this. Juries have a tendency to
>make large awards (that are usually reduced later) against
>corporations, but not so much against individuals. In most cases,
>liability is tough to determine, so the suit is a long shot. And most
>importantly, while an insurance company will usually settle a suit, an
>individual will usually fight it out - and even if he loses, there's
>usually little or nothing to collect for the plaintiff's lawyer
>because the defendant's lawyer got it all. Of course the defendant's
>lawyer could advise the defendant to settle - meaning give the money
>to the plaintiff's lawyer. Yeah, that's likely.
>
>It's also a little known fact that it's general insurance company
>policy not to write a check to the plaintiff unless he accepts that
>check as a complete settlement. If the plaintiff chooses not to
>accept, the insurance company will defend the claim. Given the choice
>between a possibly inadequate but sure thing settlement (of which the
>plaintiff's lawyer will get a cut) and putting time and effort into a
>case that may pay nothing, and will involve trying to get blood from a
>stone, what do you suppose the plaintiff's lawyer will recommend?
>
>So I asked this retired attorney what kind of aviation liability
>insurance he carried. After all, he routinely flew and instructed in
>aircraft he didn't own. The answer was none. I asked him what he
>would do if he bought an aircraft, and he replied that he would get
>the minimum he could get in order to have hull insurance, and
>suggested I do the same. And so I have.
>
>Michael

[Rick Durden]

Michael,

You got good advise back when you got it. It is, unfortunately, out
of date. The aviation insurance market has changed so much in the
last decade that it is not possible to get enough insurance to make
oneself a "target". Now, if you have the assets to own an airplane,
you have the assets to be a target. You are correct that a
plaintiff's attorney will not go after a dry hole; the problem is that
sublimits of $100,000, is not enough to stop an attorney from going
after the owner's assets should there be a serious injury or death.
The fact that a person owns an airplane is a pretty good indication
that there are assets to be reached in the event of a suit, even if it
is the insurance check that went to the owner to pay for the airplane
after the crash. Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have. They may
have moved them offshore, illegally, and the lawsuit may lead to a
discreet call to the IRS by the plaintiff's attorney that buys the
owner an opportunity to defend an action by the IRS and potentially,
criminal charges.

Sadly, I've had to defend the estates of pilots who bought inadequate
insurance and their widows found that the money that was there for the
widow and children got diminished substantially. Their memories of
their husbands were no longer that he was a good provider for the
family, but that he went out and did something stupid in an airplane,
killing himself and passengers and that he was cheap, especially when
a million smooth policy would have protected the estate completely.

It's sad to watch pilots who spend a bunch of money on an airplane go
cheap on things that matter, such as maintenance and insurance,
thinking they are getting a good deal, and then rationalize it with
phrases like "what the aviation attorneys don't want you to know".
The reality is that most aviation attorneys are pilots and want to do
their best for pilots. Right now, the aviation attorneys I know,
whether on the defense side or the plaintiff side, are recommending
million smooth policies to their friends because have seen what
happens to someone who has inadequate coverage. Many are trying to
get two million smooth, but are finding it hard to do so and they have
given up on getting any higher limits, because they are no longer
available. Some of my friends no longer fly on business because they
cannot get adequate coverage and an accident could mean the loss of
their business.

All the best,
Rick

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (Rick Durden) wrote
> > (if you are getting less than $1 million smooth you may very well have
> > inadequate coverage as the "$100,000 sublimit" policies mean only
> > $100,000 is available per injured/deceased person, which is not
> > adequate for such a claim and puts your assets at risk)?
>
> In an ideal world, everyone would be covered for millions for
> everything. Ideal for attorneys, that is.
>
> The best advice I ever got about liability insurance came from a
> retired aviation attorney who had practiced in GA for 20 years. He
> had just recently signed me off for my glider checkride, and was
> suggesting that because of my prior experience as a skydiving
> instructor, I needed to start working on my CFI-Glider. Since he was
> a man of means and protection of personal assets was certainly an
> issue for him, I asked him about liability insurance, specifically for
> instruction. What developed was a fairly long and mostly one-sided
> conversation on aviation liability insurance in general, the high
> points of which I am going to relate here.
>
> The first thing he told me was that he was telling me the dirty little
> secret of the profession - something a practicing attorney was not
> likely to tell me.
>
> Here it is - all liability insurance does is make you a target. It is
> VERY difficult to get an aviation attorney excited about taking a case
> against an uninsured person unless that person has extensive assets -
> and now we're talking about someone with enough assets that he is not
> getting his risk management advice over the internet or via any other
> informal method - he has people on retainer. Or, to put it another
> way - if you need hull coverage, you really don't need liability
> coverage. There is a reason why you can't buy hull coverage without
> buying liability.
>
> There are all sorts of reasons for this. Juries have a tendency to
> make large awards (that are usually reduced later) against
> corporations, but not so much against individuals. In most cases,
> liability is tough to determine, so the suit is a long shot. And most
> importantly, while an insurance company will usually settle a suit, an
> individual will usually fight it out - and even if he loses, there's
> usually little or nothing to collect for the plaintiff's lawyer
> because the defendant's lawyer got it all. Of course the defendant's
> lawyer could advise the defendant to settle - meaning give the money
> to the plaintiff's lawyer. Yeah, that's likely.
>
> It's also a little known fact that it's general insurance company
> policy not to write a check to the plaintiff unless he accepts that
> check as a complete settlement. If the plaintiff chooses not to
> accept, the insurance company will defend the claim. Given the choice
> between a possibly inadequate but sure thing settlement (of which the
> plaintiff's lawyer will get a cut) and putting time and effort into a
> case that may pay nothing, and will involve trying to get blood from a
> stone, what do you suppose the plaintiff's lawyer will recommend?
>
> So I asked this retired attorney what kind of aviation liability
> insurance he carried. After all, he routinely flew and instructed in
> aircraft he didn't own. The answer was none. I asked him what he
> would do if he bought an aircraft, and he replied that he would get
> the minimum he could get in order to have hull insurance, and
> suggested I do the same. And so I have.
>
> Michael

[Newps]

Rick Durden wrote:
Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
> them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have.

This part I agree with. I know several people who have a corporation as
the registered owner of the plane. They are the only officer of this
"corporation". They think this will protect them from a lawsuit. It
never does.

[Nathan Young]

On 15 Oct 2004 07:25:53 -0700, (Rick Durden)
wrote:

>Michael,
>
>You got good advise back when you got it. It is, unfortunately, out
>of date. The aviation insurance market has changed so much in the
>last decade that it is not possible to get enough insurance to make
>oneself a "target". Now, if you have the assets to own an airplane,
>you have the assets to be a target. You are correct that a
>plaintiff's attorney will not go after a dry hole; the problem is that
>sublimits of $100,000, is not enough to stop an attorney from going
>after the owner's assets should there be a serious injury or death.
>The fact that a person owns an airplane is a pretty good indication
>that there are assets to be reached in the event of a suit, even if it
>is the insurance check that went to the owner to pay for the airplane
>after the crash. Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
>them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have. They may
>have moved them offshore, illegally, and the lawsuit may lead to a
>discreet call to the IRS by the plaintiff's attorney that buys the
>owner an opportunity to defend an action by the IRS and potentially,
>criminal charges.
>
>Sadly, I've had to defend the estates of pilots who bought inadequate
>insurance and their widows found that the money that was there for the
>widow and children got diminished substantially. Their memories of
>their husbands were no longer that he was a good provider for the
>family, but that he went out and did something stupid in an airplane,
>killing himself and passengers and that he was cheap, especially when
>a million smooth policy would have protected the estate completely.

So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?

[Newps]

Nathan Young wrote:


>
>
> So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
> coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?

Yep.

[Dave Stadt]

"TripFarmer" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO, you should have enough to cover your assets. Then you should
> make sure you have enough to cover any future earning you don't want to
> give up. If you have $1-2M and are an average guy you should have enough.
>
>
> Trip

You cannot cover your assets with liability insurance. Best you can do is
hope they go after your liability insurance and leave you assets alone.
Fact is your assets are fair game in addition to what liability insurance
might provide.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "TripFarmer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>IMHO, you should have enough to cover your assets. Then you should
>>make sure you have enough to cover any future earning you don't want to
>>give up. If you have $1-2M and are an average guy you should have enough.
>>
>>
>>Trip
>
>
> You cannot cover your assets with liability insurance. Best you can do is
> hope they go after your liability insurance and leave you assets alone.

What...they "forget"?

[Michael]

(Rick Durden) wrote
> You got good advise back when you got it.

When was that? I guess I'm really amazed how you are able to
determine when I got that advice.

> The aviation insurance market has changed so much in the
> last decade that it is not possible to get enough insurance to make
> oneself a "target".

A million dollars is a pretty inviting target. On contingency, that's
$300K-$500K in the pockets of the attorney - worth a long shot.

> Now, if you have the assets to own an airplane,
> you have the assets to be a target.

Maybe that's the case if your airplane is an impulse purchase. For
most people I know, the airplane is the major asset - one they had to
borrow to purchase. I suppose that might be because I'm not an
attorney and don't know too many pilots who are.

With most people I know, once you take the house (if any) and the
airplane out of the picture, there's simply not much there in the way
of assets.

> You are correct that a
> plaintiff's attorney will not go after a dry hole; the problem is that
> sublimits of $100,000, is not enough to stop an attorney from going
> after the owner's assets should there be a serious injury or death.

You're not making sense. If the owner is a dry hole (or close to one)
$100K is about all there is. Are you telling me a plaintiff's
attorney will pass up a $100K settlement to roll the dice on a
possible $200K? Now if we're looking at assets in the $1M range,
that's another story. I don't know too many light plane owners in
that range.

> The fact that a person owns an airplane is a pretty good indication
> that there are assets to be reached in the event of a suit, even if it
> is the insurance check that went to the owner to pay for the airplane
> after the crash.

That's less than $100K in most cases, and most people have a note so
the bank gets paid first and immediately. Go try to get that money
after the bank has it...

You know, there are those who can easily afford aviation, and there
are those who can only afford it because they make it a priority. I
think your advice may be relevant to the former group, but not the
latter. It's a very rare individual who makes enough money to support
a family, own an airplane, and have anything at all left over for the
lawyers to take.

> Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
> them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have. They may
> have moved them offshore, illegally, and the lawsuit may lead to a
> discreet call to the IRS by the plaintiff's attorney that buys the
> owner an opportunity to defend an action by the IRS and potentially,
> criminal charges.

Or they may have put them into a house, untouchable even in the event
of bankruptcy.

As for plaintiff's attorneys who have a habit of dropping the dime on
those who have illegally moved their assets offshore, they have a bad
history of getting their knees broken. People willing to break the
law are, well, willing to break the law.

> given up on getting any higher limits, because they are no longer
> available.

Want to clue us in - WHY are they no longer available? Would it be
because insurance companies have figured out that the settlement will
be based on how much coverage there is, rather than how much damage
was actually done? Would it be because they've figured out that the
increased coverage simply makes you too tempting a target?

Consider it as a simple matter of statitstics - if I'm wrong and the
amount of insurance is not a large factor in making you a target, you
could get $5M smooth simply by paying 5 times the rate for $1M smooth.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Rick Durden) wrote
> > You got good advise back when you got it.
>
> When was that? I guess I'm really amazed how you are able to
> determine when I got that advice.
>
> > The aviation insurance market has changed so much in the
> > last decade that it is not possible to get enough insurance to make
> > oneself a "target".
>
> A million dollars is a pretty inviting target. On contingency, that's
> $300K-$500K in the pockets of the attorney - worth a long shot.
>
> > Now, if you have the assets to own an airplane,
> > you have the assets to be a target.
>
> Maybe that's the case if your airplane is an impulse purchase. For
> most people I know, the airplane is the major asset - one they had to
> borrow to purchase. I suppose that might be because I'm not an
> attorney and don't know too many pilots who are.
>
> With most people I know, once you take the house (if any) and the
> airplane out of the picture, there's simply not much there in the way
> of assets.
>
> > You are correct that a
> > plaintiff's attorney will not go after a dry hole; the problem is that
> > sublimits of $100,000, is not enough to stop an attorney from going
> > after the owner's assets should there be a serious injury or death.
>
> You're not making sense. If the owner is a dry hole (or close to one)
> $100K is about all there is. Are you telling me a plaintiff's
> attorney will pass up a $100K settlement to roll the dice on a
> possible $200K? Now if we're looking at assets in the $1M range,
> that's another story. I don't know too many light plane owners in
> that range.
>
> > The fact that a person owns an airplane is a pretty good indication
> > that there are assets to be reached in the event of a suit, even if it
> > is the insurance check that went to the owner to pay for the airplane
> > after the crash.
>
> That's less than $100K in most cases, and most people have a note so
> the bank gets paid first and immediately. Go try to get that money
> after the bank has it...
>
> You know, there are those who can easily afford aviation, and there
> are those who can only afford it because they make it a priority. I
> think your advice may be relevant to the former group, but not the
> latter. It's a very rare individual who makes enough money to support
> a family, own an airplane, and have anything at all left over for the
> lawyers to take.
>
> > Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
> > them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have. They may
> > have moved them offshore, illegally, and the lawsuit may lead to a
> > discreet call to the IRS by the plaintiff's attorney that buys the
> > owner an opportunity to defend an action by the IRS and potentially,
> > criminal charges.
>
> Or they may have put them into a house, untouchable even in the event
> of bankruptcy.
>
> As for plaintiff's attorneys who have a habit of dropping the dime on
> those who have illegally moved their assets offshore, they have a bad
> history of getting their knees broken. People willing to break the
> law are, well, willing to break the law.
>
> > given up on getting any higher limits, because they are no longer
> > available.
>
> Want to clue us in - WHY are they no longer available? Would it be
> because insurance companies have figured out that the settlement will
> be based on how much coverage there is, rather than how much damage
> was actually done? Would it be because they've figured out that the
> increased coverage simply makes you too tempting a target?
>
> Consider it as a simple matter of statitstics - if I'm wrong and the
> amount of insurance is not a large factor in making you a target, you
> could get $5M smooth simply by paying 5 times the rate for $1M smooth.
>
> Michael

You and I know people in entirely different financial situations. What you
say might be true for a minority of airplane owners but Rick is right in the
main.

[Michael]

Newps > wrote
> Nathan Young wrote:
> >
> > So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
> > coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?
>
> Yep.

Well, hold on a sec. If the insurance company offers to settle at
policy limits, the victim has a choice. He can accept the $1M
insurance - a sure thing - but then he CAN'T go after the estate.
That's a condition of settlement.

Or he can go after both - but now the insurance company will defend
the case. He may get nothing. He may get less than $1M. He may get
more than $1M at the jury trial, simply to see it reduced on appeal.

If the case is ironclad (meaning you were very obviously at fault and
the damage is huge) then NO AMOUNT of insurance you can buy will ever
be enough. However, the reality is that in most cases it's not so cut
and dried. That's where a plaintiff is likely to settle for the part
(the insurance) rather than going for the whole.

Because in most cases the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer working
on contingency (few can afford the fees out of pocket, and the ones
who can are not likely to sue in the first place) the plaintiff's
lawyer will almost always recommend a settlement - it's easy money and
a sure thing. Only time he's going to recommend not accepting a
settlement is when he believes that he can win AND collect. And
that's the rub - see my other posts. You can't get blood from a
stone.

The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
are NOT wealthy. They're just guys with jobs or small businesses, and
after the plane is crashed, the defense lawyer paid, and the house
(which you can't take) paid for, there's simply nothing left to
collect.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Newps > wrote
> > Nathan Young wrote:
> > >
> > > So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
> > > coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Well, hold on a sec. If the insurance company offers to settle at
> policy limits, the victim has a choice. He can accept the $1M
> insurance - a sure thing - but then he CAN'T go after the estate.
> That's a condition of settlement.
>
> Or he can go after both - but now the insurance company will defend
> the case. He may get nothing. He may get less than $1M. He may get
> more than $1M at the jury trial, simply to see it reduced on appeal.
>
> If the case is ironclad (meaning you were very obviously at fault and
> the damage is huge) then NO AMOUNT of insurance you can buy will ever
> be enough. However, the reality is that in most cases it's not so cut
> and dried. That's where a plaintiff is likely to settle for the part
> (the insurance) rather than going for the whole.
>
> Because in most cases the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer working
> on contingency (few can afford the fees out of pocket, and the ones
> who can are not likely to sue in the first place) the plaintiff's
> lawyer will almost always recommend a settlement - it's easy money and
> a sure thing. Only time he's going to recommend not accepting a
> settlement is when he believes that he can win AND collect. And
> that's the rub - see my other posts. You can't get blood from a
> stone.
>
> The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
> are NOT wealthy. They're just guys with jobs or small businesses, and
> after the plane is crashed, the defense lawyer paid, and the house
> (which you can't take) paid for, there's simply nothing left to
> collect.
>
> Michael

I don't believe your last statement at all. Certainly not true of the
people I know.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Dave
Stadt" > wrote:

> > The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
> > are NOT wealthy. They're just guys with jobs or small businesses, and
> > after the plane is crashed, the defense lawyer paid, and the house
> > (which you can't take) paid for, there's simply nothing left to
> > collect.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I don't believe your last statement at all. Certainly not true of the
> people I know.

fwiw - most of the airplane owners I know have a net worth less
than 1 million, with most of that being the house.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> The webmaster may have made the original error, but I'm with Jim on this
> one. The person/company who hired the webmaster failed to do basic quality
> control on the web presentation. I'll avoid doing business with companies
> for similar reasons. It shows a lack of attention to detail.

Which is sad for you. As an aircraft owner you may have just bypassed the
best aircraft insurance company out there. We've done the research. No
company will insure our fleet of airplanes at affordable prices except AUA.
Some will not insure them at all.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dave
> Stadt" > wrote:
>
> > > The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
> > > are NOT wealthy. They're just guys with jobs or small businesses, and
> > > after the plane is crashed, the defense lawyer paid, and the house
> > > (which you can't take) paid for, there's simply nothing left to
> > > collect.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > I don't believe your last statement at all. Certainly not true of the
> > people I know.
>
> fwiw - most of the airplane owners I know have a net worth less
> than 1 million, with most of that being the house.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
> oh yeah baby.

Might be a regional thing. A million in assets isn't much at all nowadays.

[Rick Durden]

Newps,

> > So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
> > coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?
>
> Yep.

Not necessarily. The issue is the potential damanges involved. It's
a matter of evaluating risk and insuring it appropriately.

The most common accident is on landing, however, that sort of accident
is the least common to involve fatalities (Nall Report) as compared
with takeoff, cruise/CFIT/weather/loss of control accidents. In a
landing accident with perhaps two passengers, there may be broken
bones or slightly worse. $100,000 available insurance for each person
may or may not be enough depending on the extent of the injuries. The
plaintiff's attorney may decide to accept the $100,000 from your
insurance company, letting it off the hook for the cost of defending
you, and proceed against you if he or she feels you have adequate
assets to make it worth while, and use the $100,000 per person just
received as a war chest to build the case against you. (Yes, that can
be done.) May or may not happen. If the passengers were killed, you
can almost count on going through bankruptcy (assuming you survived)
because the $100,000 isn't going to cut it. The million smooth policy
buys you far more peace of mind. It is enough money that it would get
rid of the injury cases easily and you don't have to worry about it.
In the event of two deaths, it would probably (and we are talking risk
management) be enough to settle those as well and not place your
assets at risk. The fact that you have an additional $million in
assets does not mean someone is going to come after them when there is
adequate insurance to make it attractive enough to resolve the claims
and not make the effort to go after the personal assets, especially
when there is the risk that a jury will not award the kind of money
the plaintiff attorney hopes. And, despite the hype, there are very,
very few gigantic judgments any more. Juries have become much more
conservative, despite the hype from insurance companies and political
candidates.

The bottom line is that a million dollars of insurance is not enough
money to make a person a target any more, and hasn't been for some
years. By the same token, $100,000 sublimits are not adequate
insurance for most people who have the financial wherewithal to own an
airplane, again, that has to be examined on a person by person basis.

The other conclusion is that just because you have a million in assets
and a million smooth policy does not mean a person seeking to sue you
is going to get both. The idea is to protect that million in assets
by putting up a suitable barrier to make it difficult to get anything
at all (the insurance policy provides a defense) and a pool of money
that is adequate to resolve the vast majority of potential suits you
might face as a pilot because you messed up and had caused an accident
(a $ million smooth policy). That sort of defensive plan reduces
one's risk substantially, it will get rid of probably 95% of the types
of claims one can expect, which is all one can hope to do,
realistically. The $100,000 sublimit policy reduces the likelihood
that the majority of potential claims will be kept at arms length and
increases the risk that they will cross the castle wall and get at
your assets. It's an individual decision that, in my opinion, should
not be made flippantly by just asserting that if you have insurance
the bad guys will take all of it. If a pilot has little in the way of
assets, it may be appropriate to carry no liability insurance. The
college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying. Unless
one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to carry
insurance. However, by the time a person has put together a few
assets during the course of a lifetime and has acquired an airplane,
it's wise to give serious consideration to how best to insure it to
protect oneself and one's family financially in the event the pilot
isn't as good as he thinks he is. From what I've observed over the
years, the $100,000 sublimit policy should be viewed with great
skepticism from the standpoint of providing adequate risk protection.

All the best,
Rick

[Rick Durden]

Michael,
> > You got good advise back when you got it.
>
> When was that? I guess I'm really amazed how you are able to
> determine when I got that advice.

The advise you described is about ten years old (give or take five)
and was the common approach back then.
>
> > The aviation insurance market has changed so much in the
> > last decade that it is not possible to get enough insurance to make
> > oneself a "target".
>
> A million dollars is a pretty inviting target. On contingency, that's
> $300K-$500K in the pockets of the attorney - worth a long shot.

Actually a contingency is one third, after expenses. Once you figure
in the time involved in putting together the suit, unless the damages
are huge and liability is a slam dunk, and the fact that the
plaintiff's attorney has to bankroll the case for two to five years,
it's not enough money to make a person a target. In this day an age,
it simply isn't.
>
> > Now, if you have the assets to own an airplane,
> > you have the assets to be a target.
>
> Maybe that's the case if your airplane is an impulse purchase. For
> most people I know, the airplane is the major asset - one they had to
> borrow to purchase. I suppose that might be because I'm not an
> attorney and don't know too many pilots who are.
>
> With most people I know, once you take the house (if any) and the
> airplane out of the picture, there's simply not much there in the way
> of assets.

That's why insurance has to be a part of an objectively thought out
risk evaluation for each pilot. For the folks you know, $100,000
sublimits may very well be adequate. In my observation, for most
airplane owners, they are not.
>
> > You are correct that a
> > plaintiff's attorney will not go after a dry hole; the problem is that
> > sublimits of $100,000, is not enough to stop an attorney from going
> > after the owner's assets should there be a serious injury or death.
>
> You're not making sense. If the owner is a dry hole (or close to one)
> $100K is about all there is. Are you telling me a plaintiff's
> attorney will pass up a $100K settlement to roll the dice on a
> possible $200K? Now if we're looking at assets in the $1M range,
> that's another story. I don't know too many light plane owners in
> that range.

The problem is perception. If there damages are large, the
planitiff's attorney will simply take the $100,000 (the insurance
company can settle by paying limits without including the pilot in the
settlement, although that can vary, what your insurance company can do
is in the contract), use it as a war chest and go after the pilot's
assets, if there is reason to believe they are worth pursuing. If the
pilot does not have such assets, the $100,000 sublimit may be
adequate.
>
> > The fact that a person owns an airplane is a pretty good indication
> > that there are assets to be reached in the event of a suit, even if it
> > is the insurance check that went to the owner to pay for the airplane
> > after the crash.
>
> That's less than $100K in most cases, and most people have a note so
> the bank gets paid first and immediately. Go try to get that money
> after the bank has it...
>
> You know, there are those who can easily afford aviation, and there
> are those who can only afford it because they make it a priority. I
> think your advice may be relevant to the former group, but not the
> latter. It's a very rare individual who makes enough money to support
> a family, own an airplane, and have anything at all left over for the
> lawyers to take.

That is a matter for each individual to evaluate. I've simply
observed that by the time a person with a family is able to own a high
performance airplane, that person has enough in the way of assets that
for him or her to protect the family financially, $100,000 sublimits
are not adequate for the task, it leaves to much at risk. By simply
paying a little more for insurance and getting smooth coverage, the
risk drops. Whether that is appropriate is an individual decision and
should be taken, in my opinion, with due regard for one's family.
>
> > Yes, some owners have structured their assets to get
> > them beyond reach of a lawsuit, or they think they have. They may
> > have moved them offshore, illegally, and the lawsuit may lead to a
> > discreet call to the IRS by the plaintiff's attorney that buys the
> > owner an opportunity to defend an action by the IRS and potentially,
> > criminal charges.
>
> Or they may have put them into a house, untouchable even in the event
> of bankruptcy.

True, but rare, in my observation over the years.
>
> As for plaintiff's attorneys who have a habit of dropping the dime on
> those who have illegally moved their assets offshore, they have a bad
> history of getting their knees broken. People willing to break the
> law are, well, willing to break the law.
>
> > given up on getting any higher limits, because they are no longer
> > available.
>
> Want to clue us in - WHY are they no longer available? Would it be
> because insurance companies have figured out that the settlement will
> be based on how much coverage there is, rather than how much damage
> was actually done? Would it be because they've figured out that the
> increased coverage simply makes you too tempting a target?

The aviation insurance companies have only made a profit in about one
or two years of the last ten. Two have gone bankrupt. They have made
the decision to write lower limits and cocentrate on the $100,000
sublimit coverage for pilots because it makes them more money.

They have also simply stopped offering high limits because they lost
money on them. It was, in my opinion, based on observation, a
business decision. The aviation market is tiny, perhaps 250,000
airplanes out there, fewer than there are cars in a decent sized city.
The companies are competing for business in a small market and those
who were not extremely conservative in their underwriting have gone
under. Do you remember the Omni, back in the 1970s? They would write
about anyone flying anything for any coverage. They went under pretty
spectacularly. American Eagle had lower rates than most everyone and
offered some pretty high limits when others wouldn't. They went
under. The remaining companies stopped writing high limits because
they could not charge high enough premiums to make the risk
worthwhile.
>
> Consider it as a simple matter of statitstics - if I'm wrong and the
> amount of insurance is not a large factor in making you a target, you
> could get $5M smooth simply by paying 5 times the rate for $1M smooth.

The amount of insurance can make you a target, it's just that a
million smooth isn't enough to do so (and that's only my opinion but
it is based on working in this business on a day to day basis). Ten
million might very well make you a target (although you still have to
have an accident for it to matter), and the insurance companies have
taken that option away from us.

It boils down to each pilot objectively analyzing risk and not simply
buying what is the least expensive. I've just seen too many pilots
get burned from doing so.

All the best,
Rick

[Howard Nelson]

> Actually a contingency is one third, after expenses. Once you figure
> in the time involved in putting together the suit, unless the damages
> are huge and liability is a slam dunk, and the fact that the
> plaintiff's attorney has to bankroll the case for two to five years,
> it's not enough money to make a person a target. In this day an age,
> it simply isn't.

But, but, but...

That can't be the case. Plaintiff's attorneys are working to help the
injured little guy (and the chilluns). I know cus I saw it on TV.

Actually we may get to the day when the only ones left in our society with
enough assets to be targets are the attorneys.

Howard :)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Teacherjh]

>>
The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
carry insurance.
<<

I find that position morally reprehensable.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Michael wrote:
>
> The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
> are NOT wealthy.

Most of the ones I know have at least half a million just in retirement accounts. And
when $60k/year is regarded as about the top of the middle class income bracket, I
know *very* few aircraft owners who aren't classified as wealthy, just on income
alone.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:29:10 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Michael wrote:
>>
>> The fact is, most owners of airplanes that cost less than six figures
>> are NOT wealthy.
>
>Most of the ones I know have at least half a million just in retirement accounts. And
>when $60k/year is regarded as about the top of the middle class income bracket, I
>know *very* few aircraft owners who aren't classified as wealthy, just on income
>alone.

On what planet is $60k the top of the middle class?

Don in Silicon Valley

[Jim Weir]

Can any of you learn how to say "snip" and not waste bandwidth with useless
postings of the original post with one or two comments at the end?

jim




Nathan Young >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
->>a million smooth policy would have protected the estate completely.
->
->So lets say the pilot has an estate of $1M and the $1M smooth
->coverage. Won't the victims just go after both?

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Rick Durden]

"Howard Nelson" > wrote in message >...
> > Actually a contingency is one third, after expenses. Once you figure
> > in the time involved in putting together the suit, unless the damages
> > are huge and liability is a slam dunk, and the fact that the
> > plaintiff's attorney has to bankroll the case for two to five years,
> > it's not enough money to make a person a target. In this day an age,
> > it simply isn't.
>
> But, but, but...
>
> That can't be the case. Plaintiff's attorneys are working to help the
> injured little guy (and the chilluns). I know cus I saw it on TV.
>
> Actually we may get to the day when the only ones left in our society with
> enough assets to be targets are the attorneys.
>
> Howard :)

Howard,

If you look at the stats, the average income for attorneys has been
dropping the last several years. Don't know how that fits anything in
the discussion <g>.

All the best,
Rick
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Dave Butler]

Henry and Debbie McFarland wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The webmaster may have made the original error, but I'm with Jim on this
>>one. The person/company who hired the webmaster failed to do basic quality
>>control on the web presentation. I'll avoid doing business with companies
>>for similar reasons. It shows a lack of attention to detail.
>
>
> Which is sad for you. As an aircraft owner you may have just bypassed the
> best aircraft insurance company out there. We've done the research. No
> company will insure our fleet of airplanes at affordable prices except AUA.
> Some will not insure them at all.

Having a personal recommendation from someone I know [like you ;-)] overrides
considerations of grammatical and spelling errors on web sites. I'm talking
about when I want to buy a widget, I google for widgets, and I'll bypass any
sites with obvious errors. I'll keep your recommendation in mind next time our
insurance comes up.

DGB

[G.R. Patterson III]

Don Tuite wrote:
>
> On what planet is $60k the top of the middle class?

This one.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Michael]

Bob Noel > wrote
> fwiw - most of the airplane owners I know have a net worth less
> than 1 million, with most of that being the house.

That's certainly consistent with my experience.

Michael

[Mike Rapoport]

Rick,

Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate and
won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that the
insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the pilot's
family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to trial
against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
Thanks for the insite!

Mike
MU-2

[Rick Durden]

Jose,

> >>
> The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
> Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
> carry insurance.
> <<
>
> I find that position morally reprehensable.
>
> Jose

I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
for them to carry to protect their potential victims?

I have not given the perspective you raise a great deal of thought
and, as I said, I'm interested. For the last several years, I've
looked at insurance issues from the point of view of airplane owners
managing risk in an appropriate manner as it applies tho them and
their families. You raise a point worth exploring as, with
automobiles, most states require drivers to carry some insurance to
provide for their potential victims and automobiles (per accidents per
million miles traveled) have been shown to be significantly safer than
general aviation aircraft.

I'm also concerned with the fact that the cost of flying has always
seemed to increase at a rate much faster than inflation, and mandating
insurance for pilots would spike it once again. It's a heck of an
interesting area for discussion.

All the best,
Rick

[Dave Stadt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> Rick,
>
> Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate
and
> won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that
the
> insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the
pilot's
> family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to
trial
> against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
> Thanks for the insite!
>
> Mike
> MU-2


I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
Collins.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
>
>>Rick,
>>
>>Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate
>
> and
>
>>won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that
>
> the
>
>>insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the
>
> pilot's
>
>>family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to
>
> trial
>
>>against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
>>Thanks for the insite!
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>
>
>
> I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
> Collins.

What part of the estate are they going after and in what state? When I
bought my Skylane share, my partner and I talked with two local
attorneys (NY state) about incorporating to help avoid some of the
personal liability. They both advised that this was unnecessary as the
only significant assets that either of us had were homes jointly owned
wiht our spouses, 401K plans, life insurance policies and company
pensions. We were told that none of the above could be touched via a
liability suit. They said to carry reasonable insurance (we had $1MM
smooth) and not worry about it.

We were told that the only assets they could go after were assets that
we owned solely, which for me was a pickup and a motorcycle. Everything
else was jointly owned with my wife and, if the attorneys were correct,
immune from litigation since my wife had no ownership position in the
airplane.


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial
(and perhaps appeal) and they win (pilot is found negligent) the insurance
company pays up to the policy limit. At some point, the insurance company
is going to try to settle. My question is whether any case has gone to
trial against the pilot's estate after the insurance company paid out or
offered $1MM. The jury doesn't care about the insurance company but is
likely to be sympathetic to the pilots widow and children. My understanding
is that the insurance company is obligated to defend the pilot and generally
offers the policy limit to settle. The plaintiff then has to decide between
taking the $1MM now or taking the multi-year risk of going to trial and
risking the jury being sympathetic to the pilot's family and possibly
getting little or nothing. Also the plaintiff's legal fees will likely be
much higher if the case goes to trial, perhaps 50% instead of 33. Most
people are not in a postion to gamble the $1MM so they settle for the policy
limits.

I asked about this at a seminar by an aviation insurance broker and he said
that, as far as he knew, nobody had ever gone after the pilot or his estate
after the insurance company had offered the ($1MM) policy limits.

Mike
MU-2



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> Has there ever been a case where a plaintiff went after a pilots estate
> and
>> won when there was $1MM insurance coverage? It was explained to me that
> the
>> insurance company was such an easy target (in a jury trial) and the
> pilot's
>> family such a difficult one, that it isn't worth the risk of going to
> trial
>> against the pilots family and that cases settled for the insurance limit.
>> Thanks for the insite!
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
>
> I know of one currently in litigation. That being the estate of Bob
> Collins.
>
>
>

[Dude]

Averages are often misleading, and throwing it out with a quip about whether
it matters or not does not mean that you didn't just use it as evidence that
the problem isn't getting worse. It detracts from your other arguments by
lowering your credibility.

At any rate, we don't care what the attorneys make (at least the rational
don't really care). What matters is the amounts of the awards that are going
out, and how reasonable they are.


"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> "Howard Nelson" > wrote in message
> >...
>> > Actually a contingency is one third, after expenses. Once you figure
>> > in the time involved in putting together the suit, unless the damages
>> > are huge and liability is a slam dunk, and the fact that the
>> > plaintiff's attorney has to bankroll the case for two to five years,
>> > it's not enough money to make a person a target. In this day an age,
>> > it simply isn't.
>>
>> But, but, but...
>>
>> That can't be the case. Plaintiff's attorneys are working to help the
>> injured little guy (and the chilluns). I know cus I saw it on TV.
>>
>> Actually we may get to the day when the only ones left in our society
>> with
>> enough assets to be targets are the attorneys.
>>
>> Howard :)
>
> Howard,
>
> If you look at the stats, the average income for attorneys has been
> dropping the last several years. Don't know how that fits anything in
> the discussion <g>.
>
> All the best,
> Rick
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Dude]

I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Doug wrote:
>>
>> No harm in getting a quote from Avemco.
>
> If your time isn't worth anything.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

[Mike Rapoport]

Wouldn't the FBO/Club have liability on the airplane?

Mike
MU-2


"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
> Jose,
>
>> >>
>> The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
>> Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
>> carry insurance.
>> <<
>>
>> I find that position morally reprehensable.
>>
>> Jose
>
> I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
> would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
> young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
> that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
> insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
> for them to carry to protect their potential victims?
>
> I have not given the perspective you raise a great deal of thought
> and, as I said, I'm interested. For the last several years, I've
> looked at insurance issues from the point of view of airplane owners
> managing risk in an appropriate manner as it applies tho them and
> their families. You raise a point worth exploring as, with
> automobiles, most states require drivers to carry some insurance to
> provide for their potential victims and automobiles (per accidents per
> million miles traveled) have been shown to be significantly safer than
> general aviation aircraft.
>
> I'm also concerned with the fact that the cost of flying has always
> seemed to increase at a rate much faster than inflation, and mandating
> insurance for pilots would spike it once again. It's a heck of an
> interesting area for discussion.
>
> All the best,
> Rick

[Teacherjh]

>>
> The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
> Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
> carry insurance.
> <<
>
> I find that position morally reprehensable.
>
> Jose

I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
for them to carry to protect their potential victims?
<<

Anybody engaging in an activity which is reasonably capable of causing serious
harm (define this any way you like, but the existance of an insurance market is
indicative) owes it to the public to minimize this potential so much as
possible. This is one of the reasons we attempt to fly safely, especially with
passengers in the plane. Our passengers have entrusted their lives to us, and
it is incumbant upon us to take this trust seriously. The public below us is
entitled to the same level of trust. Flying aerobatics above Manhattan, even
if we are a pretty good pilot, would be an example of not taking this trust
seriously.

Part of this involves mitigating harm should it occur. Insurance money can fix
a broken leg, a busted living room, and pay for other forms of harm that may
come to a victim. True, it can never bring back a loved one, but it is not for
us to decide what would be appropriate for a victim.

College kids and other young pilots probably don't own an airplane. They
probably rent at the FBO or the college flying club. They should carry renters
insurance at the highest limit. It costs several hundred a year - the
equivalent of four or five hours of flying. Fotr those that do own an
airplane, insurance is just part of the cost of flying, and protecting the
nonflying public from some of the effects of the harm that might come their
way, should the worst happen.

To think of insurance as just a way to protect your own assets, victims be
damned, is very bad karma.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>> Wouldn't the FBO/Club have liability on the airplane?

Maybe. The renter doesn't typically have access to that policy and can't be
sure it's in force. Also, it might not cover pilot-induced accidents (but only
maintanance-induced ones. I don't know, and unless the renter calls the broker
each flight, the renter doesn't know either. The FBO is protecting themselves,
not the renter or the victims.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bill Hale]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message >...
> I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
> the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial


It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
interest.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

Bill Hale

[Dave Stadt]

"Bill Hale" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>...
> > I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to
be
> > the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to
trial
>
>
> It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is
to
> have some skin in the game other than yours.
>
> You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.
>
> So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
> defense to be.
>
> If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
> For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth
their
> time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your
best
> interest.

Don't kid yourself, the insurance company is going to defend their interest.
They could care less about your assets.

> Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.
>
> Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.
>
> Bill Hale

[Cub Driver]

>Very, very few college kids and other
>young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
>that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
>insurance?

I don't know about the person to whom you directed this post, but that
would be my position, yes.

I pay $600 a year for insurance. That is my obligation to society. If
I break somebody, I should pay for it, even if I'm not around to write
the check.

If you can afford to fly, you can afford to insure. If you can't
afford to insure, you shouldn't fly.

On the road, sensible people are protected from idiots who drive
without insurance (at least in my state, where the policy carries an
"uninsured dirver" clause). Unfortunately there is no protection
against idiots who fly without insurance.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:16:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>The jury doesn't care about the insurance company but is
>likely to be sympathetic to the pilots widow and children.

Well, at least in my state, the jury CAN'T know about the insurance
comany. They can guess (we had a pretty good idea, the time the woman
is suing her boyfriend and now husband who was driving the car, and he
didn't say a peep in his own defense :) but if anyone mentions
insurance, the judge is very unhappy, with the possibility of a
mistrial or sanctions.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Matt Whiting]

Bill Hale wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message >...
>
>>I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
>>the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial
>
>
>
> It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
> have some skin in the game other than yours.
>
> You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.
>
> So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
> defense to be.
>
> If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
> For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
> time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
> interest.
>
> Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.
>
> Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

I don't think there is any logic at all when it comes to our tort system...

Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.

That's the first time I've heard anyone say that. In that case, I withdraw my remark,
but I will state that my experience with AVEMCO has been that they are very high. The
last quote I got from them was over double what I am currently paying.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:


>
> I pay $600 a year for insurance. That is my obligation to society. If
> I break somebody, I should pay for it, even if I'm not around to write
> the check.

And remember the $100K sublimit is only for a passenger, however if you
get a $100K sublimit per person that really is pretty useless insurance.
Per passenger sublimits mean that I can auger into your house and the
insurance company is still on the hook for the full million to anybody
on the ground if I was alone in the plane.

[Howard]

Avemco is VERY competetive on certain types of aircraft. The main thing to
remember about aviation insurance is no single company has the lowest rates
on every aircraft and for every pilot. Additionally, rates may change from
year to year.


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.
>
>
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Doug wrote:
>>>
>>> No harm in getting a quote from Avemco.
>>
>> If your time isn't worth anything.
>>
>> George Patterson
>> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
>> have
>> been looking for it.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

If they rent/loan an airplane to someone and there is an accident then they
are probably going to be held liable along with the pilot.

Like you, I am interested in this discussion. On one hand I am generally
against requiring people to purchase something. On the other hand, I think
that people should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Liability insurance is required in autos in the US and for aircraft in most
other countries. Both Canada and Mexico require liability insurance. I
guess that I come down on the side of those who would mandate liability
insurance for pilots at least to cover those who are not in the airplane
(another airplane or on the ground).

Mike
MU-2

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>> Wouldn't the FBO/Club have liability on the airplane?
>
> Maybe. The renter doesn't typically have access to that policy and can't
> be
> sure it's in force. Also, it might not cover pilot-induced accidents (but
> only
> maintanance-induced ones. I don't know, and unless the renter calls the
> broker
> each flight, the renter doesn't know either. The FBO is protecting
> themselves,
> not the renter or the victims.
>
> Jose
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Cub Driver]

>Liability insurance is required in autos in the US

Not in New Hampshire, and I assume not in some western states. As
posted, those of us who do buy insurance get "uninsured driver"
coverage at no extra (stated) charge. Of course there's still the
situation where an uninsured driver kills another uninsured driver....
Then there's nobody left to sue but the ambulance driver.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> Of course there's still the
> situation where an uninsured driver kills another uninsured driver....
> Then there's nobody left to sue but the ambulance driver.

and the auto manufacturers

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Liability insurance is required in autos in the US .....

Not in Tennessee. Last I heard, Alabama also did not, and Cub Driver just posted that
New Hamshire is also holding out.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.