Renter Insurance

[W P Dixon]

Ok Gang!
Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question, do
any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance companies
do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want it all up
front...which means I could not use the insurance because I couldn't afford
to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it!!?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


--
Patrick Dixon
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Aluckyguess]

You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably have
to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.
Unless the renters are requiring it.
"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Ok Gang!
> Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
> liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question,
> do any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance
> companies do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want
> it all up front...which means I could not use the insurance because I
> couldn't afford to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose
> doesn't it!!?
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>
> --
> Patrick Dixon
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

[W P Dixon]

Yep the renter requires it for solo.

Patrick

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably
> have to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.
> Unless the renters are requiring it.
>>
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Aluckyguess,

> You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably have
> to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.
>

Could you elaborate how you arrive at that conclusion? Two aspects would be of
interest:

1. How do you put the term "subrogation" in context with your statement?
2. How do you arrive at the number 1000 $, if I can quote you rental agreements
with deductables of 2500 and more left and right?

Thanks!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

They're about the same, for the same coverage, so I stick with my
current insurer since I get a 10 percent discount if I pay when
invoiced instead of waiting till the effective date. I pay about $600
for $40K hull insurance and $1 million liability, the most I can get.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:02:00 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> wrote:

>Ok Gang!
> Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
>liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question, do
>any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance companies
>do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want it all up
>front...which means I could not use the insurance because I couldn't afford
>to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it!!?
>
>Patrick
>student SPL
>aircraft structural mech


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:31:20 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably have
>to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.

Dream on!

When I was in training, I had a prop strike while learning to make
wheelies in the Cub. The instructor's insurance company thought he was
on the hook for just the $2,000 deductible, but no, that's not how it
works. You're responsible for all the damage you do (or in the case,
that your student does), and the FBO's insurance company will shake
you until your pockets are empty.

He paid (his insurance company paid) for a new prop and an engine
tear-down.



-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[OtisWinslow]

Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to negligence
the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for any
claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)


"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably
> have to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.
> Unless the renters are requiring it.
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ok Gang!
>> Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
>> liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question,
>> do any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance
>> companies do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want
>> it all up front...which means I could not use the insurance because I
>> couldn't afford to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose
>> doesn't it!!?
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Dixon
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>
>

[TaxSrv]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote:
> Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to
negligence
> the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for
any
> claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)
>

Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
with no money (orig poster) will be sued? Why would they incur legal
fees to do that? It also seems stupid from a business standpoint to
spread bad "word of mouth," by hassling a pilot who'll tell other
pilots/owners which insurance company to avoid like a plague.

Fred F.

[Richard Kaplan]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message

> Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
> with no money (orig poster) will be sued?

Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net worth
and no anticipated future cashflow source.

It is hard to imagine someone with no cash, no net worth, no assets, no job,
and no future career plans taking flying lessons.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[W P Dixon]

IMAGINE Richard IMAGINE! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1121267987.c1a2540e23fcd39a48afa82ed612d447@t eranews...
>
>
> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>
>> Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>> with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>
> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net worth
> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>
> It is hard to imagine someone with no cash, no net worth, no assets, no
> job, and no future career plans taking flying lessons.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Chris G.]

Take a look at the coverages, too. For me, I will liekly go with AVEMCO
when it is my time for insurance because my flying club uses them AND
they automatically include CAP operations, which AOPA (AIG) doesn't.
Since I have plans to fly with CAP later on, that makes sense for me.

I would *NEVER, EVER* fly without insurance. There is waaaayyyy too
much at risk. You think auto insurance companies can go nuts, the
aviation insurance companies have a lot mmore risk and financial burden
when there is an incident or accident (NTSB definitions). I also can't
afford to lose my house and all of my other assets because I couldn't
spend a few hundred dollars a years on a plane.

That being said, I fly with a local flying club (an option I would
suggest looking into) because it's less expensive than an FBO and their
insurance covers me to fly there planes. I was very careful to check
out the insurance issues before I joined.

Chris


W P Dixon wrote:
> Ok Gang!
> Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
> liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question,
> do any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance
> companies do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they
> want it all up front...which means I could not use the insurance because
> I couldn't afford to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose
> doesn't it!!?
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>

[W P Dixon]

I am limited to sport planes, and have not seen any clubs yet with them.
Flight School I was flying with here at home I was covered under their
policy, just 1000 deductible for myself. But I can't solo any of their
planes:( If I were a rich fellow I may even think about making my own sport
flying club!!

Patrick
>
> That being said, I fly with a local flying club (an option I would suggest
> looking into) because it's less expensive than an FBO and their insurance
> covers me to fly there planes. I was very careful to check out the
> insurance issues before I joined.
>
> Chris
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message

> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
> the matter?

A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.

Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to 3rd party
person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:07:03 -0400, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

>Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>with no money (orig poster) will be sued? Why would they incur legal
>fees to do that? It also seems stupid from a business standpoint to
>spread bad "word of mouth," by hassling a pilot who'll tell other
>pilots/owners which insurance company to avoid like a plague.

If you have no resources, then you can safely go without insurance--if
the FBO will permit. (Mine won't.) The same is true of course of
medical and automobile insurance, which is why a lot of states have
mandatory insurance, thus doubling the cost for everyone.

Then the question arises as to whether your integrity is so low that
you would put other people in hazard of catastrophic loss because you
fly or drive uninsured.

It's feasiable, but it ain't admirable.



-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:52:18 -0400, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

> Can
>you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>$5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>the matter?

There's no ill will. Every pilot knows the score, and a reasonable
pilot would cheer the insurance company on, knowing that the less
money it loses in such cases, the cheaper insurance will be for the
rest of us.

It's purely a business decision. They might be content with wrecking
your credit rating.


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[TaxSrv]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>
> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
worth
> and no anticipated future cashflow source.

Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
$5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
the matter?

Fred F.

[TaxSrv]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote:
> A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.
>
> Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to
3rd party
> person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.
>

So, make it $100,000. Or $6 million -- taxi accident on the ramp and
ensuing fire consumes a bizjet. For someone without big money in the
bank, and any significant amount of judgment, he'll just declare
bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.
Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.

Fred F.

[Barney Rubble]

Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word of
mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company have any
morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters insurance,
landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights, prop strike,
engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well north of $40K, and
they came after that person for every penny. Had to sell car and house to
pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP, look at AOPA. I think I pay
about $200 PA, for the basic deal.

- Barney

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>
>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
> worth
>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>
> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
> the matter?
>
> Fred F.
>

[Barney Rubble]

Good luck. Once again it's your money and your risk, but in this litigious
society, you would have to be absolutely crazy to fly a rented plane without
your own renters insurance. Didn't the senate just pass a new bill to
prevent people declaring bancrupcy to avoid paying their obligations?

- Barney
"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote:
>> A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.
>>
>> Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to
> 3rd party
>> person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.
>>
>
> So, make it $100,000. Or $6 million -- taxi accident on the ramp and
> ensuing fire consumes a bizjet. For someone without big money in the
> bank, and any significant amount of judgment, he'll just declare
> bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.
> Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.
>
> Fred F.
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

TaxSrv wrote:
> "OtisWinslow" > wrote:
>> Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to negligence
>> the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for any
>> claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)
>
> Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
> with no money (orig poster) will be sued? Why would they incur legal
> fees to do that? It also seems stupid from a business standpoint to
> spread bad "word of mouth," by hassling a pilot who'll tell other
> pilots/owners which insurance company to avoid like a plague.


I dinged a C-210 back in the early 1980s and was told at the time that I should
expect to hear from the FBO's insurance company as they would try to subrogate
their money out of me. Back in those days I didn't have a pot to **** in. I
owned no real estate and I drove a 1969 Fury I.

As it turned out, nothing happened on any front. No FAA ding, no insurance
problems. They apparently decided to cut their losses as I had nothing they
wanted. What they did want I didn't have. So sad, too bad.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.


I just crumpled a gear door and dragged a wingtip after one of my main gear
folded. No prop strike. The tab came to $17,500, give or take a couple of
bucks.

Oh, yeah, now I remember the empenage was at a slightly off angle when I came to
a stop. That probably ran it up a bit.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
> Then the question arises as to whether your integrity is so low that
> you would put other people in hazard of catastrophic loss because you
> fly or drive uninsured.
>
> It's feasiable, but it ain't admirable.


That is a function of where you live. Here in North Carolina, I've never had a
FBO ask me if I had insurance or to buy insurance. The subject never comes up.
I don't know anybody that they've (the FBO) asked. I've rented extensively in
South Carolina and I've rented in Florida as well; the subject never comes up.

I resent your implication that this is in some way dishonorable.

I don't carry malpractice insurance either... nor do the majority of nurses I
know. We're covered by the hospital's insurance. Or the FBO's insurance in the
case of flying... less a deductible, of course.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Robert M. Gary]

I hope they also have owners insurance that covers renting the plane
out. Your renters insurance will ONLY cover a loss if it can be proved
to be your fault. If a tire blows out on the runway and you total the
plane, renters insurance won't cover any of that because it wasn't the
renter's fault. The owner needs to ensure their owner's policy allows
for rental.

-Robert

[George Patterson]

OtisWinslow wrote:
> Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to negligence
> the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for any
> claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)

If you ball up a plane due to negligence, some companies will simply refuse to
pay. There was a case in litigation about 10 years ago in this part of the
country. The pilot crashed after going below minimums on an IFR approach. The
owner's on the hook for the entire bill.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

TaxSrv wrote:
>
> He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.

Not necessarily. I grew up in a house that my father bought in a forced sale due
to bankruptcy. About the only possessions that are safe from the creditors is
tools you use in your profession and some types of retirement accounts.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Richard Kaplan]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message

> bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.
> Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.

Actually the plaintiff will get all the assets except those protected by
bankruptcy laws. The defendant loses a good portion of his net worth and a
severely damaged credit rating.

Or the defendant can buy insurance and the case will probably settle for
policy limits.

Which plan sounds better to you?



--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Michael]

> Yep the renter requires it for solo.

This is becoming more and more common.

A flight school on my home field recently started requiring this. They
had wrecked so many airplanes that their insurance very nearly doubled
in cost, with more restrictions and dramatically increased deductibles.
They're dealing with the issue of increased deductibles by requiring
all the renters AND all the CFI's to carry insurance. It's pretty hard
to go after a student pilot for an accident - there's too much
likelihood the CFI would be blamed for inadequate instruction - so this
way they cover all bases.

I suspect this is the future. For a long time, the prices for renting
airplanes did not keep up with the costs (while the cost of ownership,
obviously, did) to the point where renting airplanes became a very
marginal business AND it became nearly impossible to own an airplane
more cheaply than renting. This is changing - but not in a good way.
Owning isn't getting any cheaper, but renting is getting more
expensive.

Michael

[TaxSrv]

"George Patterson" > wrote:
> ...
> If you ball up a plane due to negligence, some companies will simply
refuse to
> pay. There was a case in litigation about 10 years ago in this part
of the
> country. The pilot crashed after going below minimums on an IFR
approach. The
> owner's on the hook for the entire bill.
>

Maybe that's why price-shopping can be bad. My policy is a
plain-language policy, "no fault" in bold print. Paraphrased, "We
will [in bold] pay you for loss, except under the following
circumstances: A)....B)..." Pilot error is not listed, but rather
gov't seizure, breakdown, theft by your trusted A&P, nuclear
holocaust, ....

Fred F.

[TaxSrv]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> > bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his
car.
> > Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.
>
> Actually the plaintiff will get all the assets except those
protected by
> bankruptcy laws. The defendant loses a good portion of his net
worth and a
> severely damaged credit rating.
>

And state laws variously list the assets. They may cap a home at like
$150K of equity, and $1,000 on a car. Or practically unlimited home
as in Florida. This implies that someone with basically the above,
and even some cash -- plaintiff must judge if that will be lost to
defendant's legal fees -- is judgment-proof for likely claims
discussed here. What decision a defendant may make concerning credit
rating a plaintiff can't assume either way. An individual, ****ed-off
plaintiff may not care about any of this. But a business will try to
assess the realistic collection potential in advance of spending major
money (my only real point).

Fred F.

[Robert M. Gary]

"subrogation" is a term pilots through around to keep each other up at
night. In truth is an extreamly rare situation that is very expensive
for the insurance company. Insurance must be evaluated just as you do
any other financial decision. Its bunk to say you should buy as much
insurance as you can afford. In truth you can never assign all your
liability in life to insurance companies. Therefor, you have to decide
how much you are willing to pay to reduce your liability exposure. If
the guy has little assets there is no reason for him to buy a bunch of
insurance. You have to assume the owner has insurance that covers
himself (and the plane) when renters are flying the airplane because
renters insurance does not provide that coverage.

-Robert

[gregg]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
> They're about the same, for the same coverage, so I stick with my
> current insurer since I get a 10 percent discount if I pay when
> invoiced instead of waiting till the effective date. I pay about $600
> for $40K hull insurance and $1 million liability, the most I can get.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:02:00 -0400, "W P Dixon"
> > wrote:
>
>>Ok Gang!
>> Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
>>liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question,
>>do any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance
>>companies do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want
>>it all up front...which means I could not use the insurance because I
>>couldn't afford to fly for a few months! ;) Kinda defeats the purpose
>>doesn't it!!?
>>
>>Patrick
>>student SPL
>>aircraft structural mech
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford


Dan,

If you don't mind my asking:

Did you go with the company that the Hampton people recommended?


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Fred Choate]

"> That is a function of where you live. Here in North Carolina, I've never
had a
> FBO ask me if I had insurance or to buy insurance. The subject never
> comes up. I don't know anybody that they've (the FBO) asked. I've rented
> extensively in South Carolina and I've rented in Florida as well; the
> subject never comes up.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

This whole thread got me to thinking about mine. I realized I never read
the insurance stuff at my FBO, but new I was covered. I called just now,
and was told that I would be responsible for the deductible (off the top of
her head she couldn't remember the exactly amount the deductible was, but
thought it was $1000).

Fred

[Carl Orton]

"Fred Choate" > wrote in message
...

> This whole thread got me to thinking about mine. I realized I never read
> the insurance stuff at my FBO, but new I was covered. I called just now,
> and was told that I would be responsible for the deductible (off the top
> of her head she couldn't remember the exactly amount the deductible was,
> but thought it was $1000).
>
Fred:

That's what mine always said as well. Someplace else (can't recall) told me
that if that is truly the case, then see if the FBO's insurance company will
issue a "waiver of subrogation." My FBO called, and got an earfull from
their insurance company. They're now considering changing their prior
stance of recommending only getting insurance to cover their deductible ($5K
in this case).

Carl

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:08:16 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>OtisWinslow wrote:
>> Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to negligence
>> the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for any
>> claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)
>
>If you ball up a plane due to negligence, some companies will simply refuse to
>pay. There was a case in litigation about 10 years ago in this part of the
>country. The pilot crashed after going below minimums on an IFR approach. The
>owner's on the hook for the entire bill.

Do you have a link or additional details? Sounds like an interesting
case?

I would expect insurance to pay in this type of accident, unless it
could be proven that the pilot knowingly and intentionally went below
minimums.

-Nathan

[Aluckyguess]

I believe you could of got out of paying any money with a good lawyer. I
could be wrong, but I dont think so.
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:31:20 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
> wrote:
>
>>You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably
>>have
>>to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.
>
> Dream on!
>
> When I was in training, I had a prop strike while learning to make
> wheelies in the Cub. The instructor's insurance company thought he was
> on the hook for just the $2,000 deductible, but no, that's not how it
> works. You're responsible for all the damage you do (or in the case,
> that your student does), and the FBO's insurance company will shake
> you until your pockets are empty.
>
> He paid (his insurance company paid) for a new prop and an engine
> tear-down.
>
>
>
> -- 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
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Aluckyguess]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word of
> mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company have
> any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters
> insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights, prop
> strike, engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well north of
> $40K, and they came after that person for every penny. Had to sell car and
> house to pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP, look at AOPA. I
> think I pay about $200 PA, for the basic deal.
>
So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right. The
owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this guy needed
a good lawyer.
Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went after
the pilot.
> - Barney
>
> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>>
>>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
>> worth
>>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>>
>> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
>> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
>> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
>> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>> the matter?
>>
>> Fred F.
>>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> I believe you could of got out of paying any money with a good lawyer. I
> could be wrong, but I dont think so.

Well, I'm not certain when Dan was training, but he's in the Northeast. Ten
years ago it was cheaper to pay out $3,000 in penalties than to hire a decent
attorney to try to avoid it in New Jersey.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Nathan Young wrote:
>
> Do you have a link or additional details? Sounds like an interesting
> case?

No. The case was mentioned in a safety meeting about ten years ago. The speaker
was Inspector Ryan of the Allentown, Pennsylvania FSDO.


> I would expect insurance to pay in this type of accident, unless it
> could be proven that the pilot knowingly and intentionally went below
> minimums.

Don't know about "proven", but the insurance company claimed the pilot did
exactly that. Sorta hard for a pilot to claim otherwise when a radar track and
ATC tape is available. The aircraft was worth something like 1.5 million, and
I'm sure that's a factor in the situation.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[OP]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:07:03 -0400, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

>"OtisWinslow" > wrote:
>> Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to
>negligence
>> the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for
>any
>> claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)
>>
>
>Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>with no money (orig poster) will be sued? Why would they incur legal
>fees to do that? It also seems stupid from a business standpoint to
>spread bad "word of mouth," by hassling a pilot who'll tell other
>pilots/owners which insurance company to avoid like a plague.
>
>Fred F.
>

Ah, I think you may be forgetting that the insurance company has
lawyers on staff or on retainer. There is no extra cost involved
for them to pursue a law suit. As for "bad word of mouth" they
couldn't care less... all insurance companies have the same policy,
namely, recover costs and minimize losses in their quarterly report.

Ron

[TaxSrv]

"OP" > wrote:
> Ah, I think you may be forgetting that the insurance company has
> lawyers on staff or on retainer. There is no extra cost involved
> for them to pursue a law suit. As for "bad word of mouth" they
> couldn't care less... all insurance companies have the same policy,
> namely, recover costs and minimize losses in their quarterly report.
>
> Ron
>

My only argument is experiernce in tax and accounting since 1960.
Lawyers on staff or retainer have a real cost, according to what
workoad you give them by company policy on how much potentially
wasteful activities they should pursue. And to suggest to that bad
public reputation has no effect on profits is really naive. If you
drop and break merchandise in a store, what's the better decision in
approaching that embarassed customer? That's small dollars, so that's
easy.

But airframe damage to aircraft are small dollars per incident too in
the industry, relative to the big payouts on personal injury/death
liability. The latter is so potentially deleterious to shareholder
interests, the industry has to universally lay it off with like Lloyds
of London, the "reinsurance" market under the concept of large pooling
of risk. It's actually all explained in detail in the SEC 10-K
filings of aircraft insurers, unlike the auto insurance industry where
this isn't necessary. Even there, have you ever heard of an auto
insurance company going after an uninsured motorist for the insured's
vehicle damage with litigation? Keep it real.

Fred F.

[Richard Kaplan]

> this isn't necessary. Even there, have you ever heard of an auto
> insurance company going after an uninsured motorist for the insured's
> vehicle damage with litigation? Keep it real.

Considering all the frivilous lawsuits we have in this country, it is
disappointing they will not go after these. Those would indeed by justified
lawsuits.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:53:54 -0700, "Aluckyguess" >
wrote:

>I believe you could of got out of paying any money with a good lawyer. I
>could be wrong, but I dont think so.

First, I didn't pay anything, nor did the instructor. His insurance
company did.

Second, have you priced a good lawyer lately? Insurance is cheaper!


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:15:44 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Not necessarily. I grew up in a house that my father bought in a forced sale due
>to bankruptc

Personal bankiruptcy became a whole lot easier in recent years. Some
of that ease was recently taken back. Dunno what the bottom line is:
probably it's more favorable to the would-be bankrupt than when your
dad bought the house, but less favorable than a year ago.

Individuals go through a different bankruptcy "chapter" than
businesses do. Used to be Chapter 7, probably still is.


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

And never forget that in a bankruptcy case, the lawyer wants his fee
*before* you become bankrupt :)



-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:48:00 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>I resent your implication that this is in some way dishonorable.

Then I'll make it a flat statement: you are lacking in integrity if
you knowingly go uninsured and are unable to pay any potential bill
for damages.



-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:45:46 -0400, gregg > wrote:

>Did you go with the company that the Hampton people recommended?

They didn't recommend one, that I know of. I use AIG. I checked their
quote against AOPA (possibly they use AIG also?) and it was identical,
except that by renewing my current policy I saved 10 percent, so I
stayed with the same broker (in Maine).


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Robert M. Gary]

That is waaaaayyyy to blanket of a statement. :) Buying insurance is
just like any other financial decision. You must weight the risk vs.
the reward. There is no way possible to assign all your risk to
insurance companies so you must decide how much you are willing to pay
to reduce your exposure. It greatly depends on the assests you are
trying to protect and your level of comfort.

-Robert

[Richard Kaplan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message

> to reduce your exposure. It greatly depends on the assests you are
> trying to protect and your level of comfort.

That is certainly true when it comes to hull insurance since the level of
damage is somewhat objective or at least has realistic upper end. I think
there are very few circumstances though where it makes sense to fly without
liability insurance even if you have huge deep pockets. If a policy exists,
there is a very good chance a settlement can be negotiated for policy
limits. If there is no policy, then the settlement amount becomes an
arbitrary number and can easily exceed typical insurance policy limits --
once they have to go after your personal assets, there is no reason for them
to be restrained.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Chris G.]

I stand by my statement. I will NEVER fly without insurance coverage.
**For me and my family** there is too much at risk that I can't justify
a few hundred dollars a year for.

I'm dealing with some auto insurance claims now that I'm glad I have the
higher policy limits for because some of the other people involved are
not settling with my insurance and thus are filing a lawsuit for an
amount that is well more than I make in 1 year. I don't pretend to know
a lot about the insurance, but I do know that I will purchase the most
coverage I can afford that is appropriate to my situation.

Chris


Robert M. Gary wrote:
> That is waaaaayyyy to blanket of a statement. :) Buying insurance is
> just like any other financial decision. You must weight the risk vs.
> the reward. There is no way possible to assign all your risk to
> insurance companies so you must decide how much you are willing to pay
> to reduce your exposure. It greatly depends on the assests you are
> trying to protect and your level of comfort.
>
> -Robert
>

[W P Dixon]

Well like I said, I have to have the renters insurance..not something I
would consider under different circumstances due to the fact that my flight
school here has insurance that covers all but $1000 deductible. But the
place where I am doing the taildragger thing requires the renters insurance
for solo and aircraft rental.
Been alot of discussion on insurance but no answers to my questions? I
did find a place that financed the premiums. Avemco was the cheapest but
they would not finance. So I have to pay alittle more and for alittle more
coverage...had to go with 40,000 hull instead of 25,000.
Anyway I will have it for my next flying trip! Myself I think insurance
is a rip off in general. I think back on the outrageous premiums paid for
auto insurance for all those years and WOW I could buy a very nice sports
car with all that money...since I have never filed a claim.
Then you have your medical insurance, which loves you while you are
young and healthy and then wants to cancel on you because you get old!!!!!
Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the big
huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> That is waaaaayyyy to blanket of a statement. :) Buying insurance is
> just like any other financial decision. You must weight the risk vs.
> the reward. There is no way possible to assign all your risk to
> insurance companies so you must decide how much you are willing to pay
> to reduce your exposure. It greatly depends on the assests you are
> trying to protect and your level of comfort.
>
> -Robert
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
> Then I'll make it a flat statement: you are lacking in integrity if
> you knowingly go uninsured and are unable to pay any potential bill
> for damages.


Well, I paid the ****ing deductible without whining. Does that count? If the
FBO doesn't ask me to carry insurance and in fact tells me my liability is
limited to the deductible and I can and do pay that deductible, I fail to see
any further liability. You may kiss my ass now.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message

> FBO doesn't ask me to carry insurance and in fact tells me my liability is
> limited to the deductible and I can and do pay that deductible, I fail to
> see any further liability.

My comment here is not judgmental but rather practical.

I think the main risk to a renter without renter's insurance is not hull
damage but rather a claim for liability, i.e. damage to 3rd party property
or person. The FBO's insurance may very well only cover the FBO. If you
were to injure someone or damage someone else's plane or property, it is
quite possible the FBO's insurer would hire a lawyer to defend the FBO and
in turn put the blame on you. You would not only be lacking insurance
coverage to pay damage but also would need to pay for a lawyer out of your
own pocket to defend you in court.

Even if you do not have substantial assets, an obvious licensed profession
linkable to a revenue stream is all it takes to get a judgement in the form
of a lien against payroll.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Jose]

> Myself I think insurance is a rip off in general. I think back on the outrageous premiums paid for auto insurance for all those years and WOW I could buy a very nice sports car with all that money...since I have never filed a claim.

Yep. A big ripoff. Especially when you don't file a claim. They
should have it so that you don't pay any premiums in the years you don't
have claims. Then, if you have an accident, you can pay the $300
insurance policy after the fact, and be covered for the accident. That
way, you don't pay for insurance you don't use (keeping those mooching
insurance companies from making huge profits at your expense), and you
are covered when you do need it.

The only downside I see with this kind of policy is that the insurance
limits would be no greater than the insurance premiums, but that's just
a minor issue that I'm sure can be easily fixed with a ballpoint pen.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Barney Rubble]

I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup what
subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible, well
informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's plane WILL
come after you in most cases.

- Barney

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word
>> of mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company
>> have any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters
>> insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights,
>> prop strike, engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well
>> north of $40K, and they came after that person for every penny. Had to
>> sell car and house to pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP, look
>> at AOPA. I think I pay about $200 PA, for the basic deal.
>>
> So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right.
> The owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this guy
> needed a good lawyer.
> Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went
> after the pilot.
>> - Barney
>>
>> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>>>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>>>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>>>
>>>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
>>> worth
>>>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>>>
>>> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
>>> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
>>> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
>>> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>>> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>>> the matter?
>>>
>>> Fred F.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...

> Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
> must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
> price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
> cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the big
> huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.
>

Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things homeowner's
policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in an earthquake
fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going to happen it is a
matter of when.

[W P Dixon]

Absolutely agree with you, except homeowners insurance should be exactly
that..no more no less. You should not need any other type of rip off
insurance to cover your home. One policy, one coverage..anything happens to
your home it's covered period! But NOOOOOOO we can't do that because the
insurance company whose sole purpose is to cover "accidents" and "mishaps of
nature" think there is supposed to be no risk involved . The only reason we
get insurance is to cover the "chance" of something happening,...well and
because our government makes us get it( cars especially), which in turn lets
the insurance vultures set whatever rate they wish. Think about it, have you
ever seen a full-coverage car insurance policy that did not pay for a cars
water damage, or being destroyed by a tornado, earthquake ? Why should the
homeowner's policy be any different?

Patrick

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:C9yBe.40269$DC2.25482@okepread01...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
>> must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
>> price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
>> cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the big
>> huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.
>>
>
> Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things homeowner's
> policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in an
> earthquake fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going to
> happen it is a matter of when.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

That house is going to be in the same place for a lot longer than my car is
going to be. And outside of a covered damage destruction odds are it will be
there when (NOT IF) an earthquake or flood happens.

With a house in a "danger area" the insurance isn't betting that nothing
will happen to it ever they are betting that it will be some X amount of
time before it happens. As opposed to my homeowners insurance who is betting
that it won't burn down because most houses historicly haven't burned down.

I don't live in an earthquake area or a flood plain and I'm very happy that
I don't have to pay into the pool like those that do. All you have to do to
get out of a "danger area" is move and you won't have to pay for those
coverages.


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Absolutely agree with you, except homeowners insurance should be exactly
> that..no more no less. You should not need any other type of rip off
> insurance to cover your home. One policy, one coverage..anything happens
> to your home it's covered period! But NOOOOOOO we can't do that because
> the insurance company whose sole purpose is to cover "accidents" and
> "mishaps of nature" think there is supposed to be no risk involved . The
> only reason we get insurance is to cover the "chance" of something
> happening,...well and because our government makes us get it( cars
> especially), which in turn lets the insurance vultures set whatever rate
> they wish. Think about it, have you ever seen a full-coverage car
> insurance policy that did not pay for a cars water damage, or being
> destroyed by a tornado, earthquake ? Why should the homeowner's policy be
> any different?
>
> Patrick
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:C9yBe.40269$DC2.25482@okepread01...
>>
>> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
>>> must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
>>> price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
>>> cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the
>>> big huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.
>>>
>>
>> Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things
>> homeowner's policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in
>> an earthquake fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going
>> to happen it is a matter of when.
>>
>

[Aluckyguess]

Sure they will. I have been sued by insurance companies twice. I won both
times. The problem is most people cave in because they don't take the time
to actually figure out the law. Only a moron lets himself be conquered by an
insurance company.
One time it would of been cheaper to settle. I learned from that and the
next time they paid. I go for the juggler right from the start. Let them
know you will fight to the end.
Let me know how the FBO's insurance can come after you. I thought the reason
they had it was exactly for that reason.
Its sounds like you need to understand how things work. If I ask you for
money it doesn't mean you owe it to me.
Please don't call me a troll. I can only tell you my experiences. I had a
decent size company and dealing with insurance is one of the biggest
expenses. You have workers comp, health, product liability, building
insurance, car insurance, death and I am sure I am forgetting a few.
I also was not asking any question just stating my opinion and that's all it
is my opinion. If you have never owned your own company you have no way of
knowing how things work. I can also tell you this you can be dead right and
still lose in court or vice a versa it all comes down to the judge.

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup what
> subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible, well
> informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's plane
> WILL come after you in most cases.
>
> - Barney
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word
>>> of mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company
>>> have any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters
>>> insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights,
>>> prop strike, engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well
>>> north of $40K, and they came after that person for every penny. Had to
>>> sell car and house to pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP, look
>>> at AOPA. I think I pay about $200 PA, for the basic deal.
>>>
>> So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right.
>> The owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this guy
>> needed a good lawyer.
>> Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went
>> after the pilot.
>>> - Barney
>>>
>>> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>>>>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>>>>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>>>>
>>>>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
>>>> worth
>>>>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>>>>
>>>> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
>>>> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
>>>> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
>>>> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>>>> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>>>> the matter?
>>>>
>>>> Fred F.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> They didn't recommend one, that I know of. I use AIG. I checked their
> quote against AOPA (possibly they use AIG also?)

I believe they do not. When I had the Maule, it was insured with AIG. AOPA was
higher, and they told me that they could not compete with AIG for policies on
Maules.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Individuals go through a different bankruptcy "chapter" than
> businesses do. Used to be Chapter 7, probably still is.

Serious question, Dan. Used to be that, when you declared bankruptcy, most of
your assets were sold and all of your creditors (including the mortgage company)
were paid off from the proceeds. Now the mortgage company gets special treatment?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dYEBe.5997$Om4.4130@trndny07...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>>
>> They didn't recommend one, that I know of. I use AIG. I checked their
>> quote against AOPA (possibly they use AIG also?)
>
> I believe they do not. When I had the Maule, it was insured with AIG. AOPA
> was higher, and they told me that they could not compete with AIG for
> policies on Maules.

My current renter's policy, obtained through AOPA, is issued by AIG. (But I
don't know whether AOPA uses AIG for owner's policies too.)

--Gary

[OP]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:11:19 -0400, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

>"OP" > wrote:
>> Ah, I think you may be forgetting that the insurance company has
>> lawyers on staff or on retainer. There is no extra cost involved
>> for them to pursue a law suit. As for "bad word of mouth" they
>> couldn't care less... all insurance companies have the same policy,
>> namely, recover costs and minimize losses in their quarterly report.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>
>My only argument is experiernce in tax and accounting since 1960.
>Lawyers on staff or retainer have a real cost, according to what
>workoad you give them by company policy on how much potentially
>wasteful activities they should pursue. And to suggest to that bad
>public reputation has no effect on profits is really naive. If you
>drop and break merchandise in a store, what's the better decision in
>approaching that embarassed customer? That's small dollars, so that's
>easy.

I agree, that for small dollar damages, (dropping and breaking
something in a store), or maybe even dinging a wingtip while
parking, the insurer might make a cost-benefit judgement and not
come after the renter. But if you get a prop strike or bend a wing
spar and the damages go upward of $30,000 or $40,000, I think the
insurance company is coming after the renter to recoup as much of
their costa as they can.
>
>But airframe damage to aircraft are small dollars per incident too in
>the industry, relative to the big payouts on personal injury/death
>liability. The latter is so potentially deleterious to shareholder
>interests, the industry has to universally lay it off with like Lloyds
>of London, the "reinsurance" market under the concept of large pooling
>of risk. It's actually all explained in detail in the SEC 10-K
>filings of aircraft insurers, unlike the auto insurance industry where
>this isn't necessary. Even there, have you ever heard of an auto
>insurance company going after an uninsured motorist for the insured's
>vehicle damage with litigation? Keep it real.
>

I think uninsured motorists are completely different. Most
uninsured motorists have no money, no assets, some even have no home
address. If you are renting an airplane from any FBO around here, I
can guarantee they will have an address, credit card number and
enough personal information about you to find you.

I respect your experience in tax and accounting. I may have
misinterpreted your original post, but you seem to be saying that
the FBO's insurance company will not come after the renter in the
case of airframe damage that is the fault of the renter. I've had
too many people, including FBO owners and insurance agents, tell me
different. I guess it all comes down to the level of risk you are
willing to accept. I tend to err on the side of caution.

Ron

[Barney Rubble]

Congratulations, you are of course completly right, no one but an idiot
should pay for renters insurance it's a scam, sham and a general rip-off, we
can always win every case against insurance company paid lawyers. As I said
before, go look up the rules of subjugation and then come back with sensible
questions and/or comments. You will have answered your own question "Let me
know how the FBO's insurance can come after you." Don't bother to reply as I
won't read, nor do, I don't really care. I do know what kind of crap goes on
in the real world, as I have seen it, get out and fly some more, maybe
you'll find out how good the FBO's insurance is. Of course you may own your
own plane by now.... I'm sorry if I called you a troll, but you know what
they say; if it smells, walks and talks like one, then it probably is.

- Barney

aluckyguess - congratulations again, you just made a clunking noise as your
handle hit my plunk file


"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> Sure they will. I have been sued by insurance companies twice. I won both
> times. The problem is most people cave in because they don't take the time
> to actually figure out the law. Only a moron lets himself be conquered by
> an insurance company.
> One time it would of been cheaper to settle. I learned from that and the
> next time they paid. I go for the juggler right from the start. Let them
> know you will fight to the end.
> Let me know how the FBO's insurance can come after you. I thought the
> reason they had it was exactly for that reason.
> Its sounds like you need to understand how things work. If I ask you for
> money it doesn't mean you owe it to me.
> Please don't call me a troll. I can only tell you my experiences. I had a
> decent size company and dealing with insurance is one of the biggest
> expenses. You have workers comp, health, product liability, building
> insurance, car insurance, death and I am sure I am forgetting a few.
> I also was not asking any question just stating my opinion and that's all
> it is my opinion. If you have never owned your own company you have no way
> of knowing how things work. I can also tell you this you can be dead right
> and still lose in court or vice a versa it all comes down to the judge.
>
> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup
>> what subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible, well
>> informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's plane
>> WILL come after you in most cases.
>>
>> - Barney
>>
>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word
>>>> of mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company
>>>> have any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters
>>>> insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights,
>>>> prop strike, engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well
>>>> north of $40K, and they came after that person for every penny. Had to
>>>> sell car and house to pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP,
>>>> look at AOPA. I think I pay about $200 PA, for the basic deal.
>>>>
>>> So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right.
>>> The owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this guy
>>> needed a good lawyer.
>>> Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went
>>> after the pilot.
>>>> - Barney
>>>>
>>>> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>>>>>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>>>>>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
>>>>> worth
>>>>>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
>>>>> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
>>>>> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
>>>>> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>>>>> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>>>>> the matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> Congratulations, you are of course completly right, no one but an idiot
> should pay for renters insurance it's a scam, sham and a general rip-off,
> we can always win every case against insurance company paid lawyers. As I
> said before, go look up the rules of subjugation

You keep saying "subjugation", but you mean "subrogation".

--Gary

[Robert M. Gary]

I think I meant it the other way. If you don't have a lot of assets you
may not want to buy a lot of insurance for two reasons. First, there
isn't much to motivate the insurance company to come after you if you
don't have a lot of assets. Second, having a large policy can make you
a target. In most states we have JSL, which basically means if you are
5% at fault but you have the most money you can be sued for the entire
amount of loss and its up to you to recover from the people responsible
for the other 95%. Having an unreasonably large amount of insurance
makes you a quick and easy target.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Heheh, gee that sounds workable. I'm sure the insurance companies would
stay solvent for a long time with that. I guess you don't see any
reason for them to receive your premium even though they accepted the
exposure. The fact is insurance is a for-profit industry and as a
result can't charge any more than they need to operate due to
competition. Its an economic principle called "zero profit" that
basically says all companies in a competitive environment will reach
"zero profit" at some point. Now, your definition of "zero profit" is
certainly different than that of the economist but the theory does seem
to reflect actual business results.

-Robert

[Jose]

> I guess you don't see any
> reason for them to receive your premium
> even though they accepted the
> exposure.

I guess you didn't see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Robert, it is customary to quote a line or paragraph or two to indicate what you
are replying to. If you don't know how, ask someone to show you. This is not
an invitation to archive the entire conversation; just a few lines is plenty.

You'll note I didn't bother with any quotation here. Makes it difficult to
follow, doesn't it?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Richard Kaplan]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message

>I think I meant it the other way. If you don't have a lot of assets you
> may not want to buy a lot of insurance for two reasons.

That may be true but it almost always makes sense to have SOME level of
liability insurance. First, that means you are entitled to a legal defense
paid by the insurance company. Second, it creates the likelihood that any
suit will be settled for policy limits.

If your assets and potential future earnings are both so small as to make a
lawsuit against you pointless then it is hard to understand how you have
enough disposable income to fly.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Aluckyguess]

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> Congratulations, you are of course completly right, no one but an idiot
> should pay for renters insurance it's a scam, sham and a general rip-off,
> we can always win every case against insurance company paid lawyers. As I
> said

Thats not what I said, but you only hear what you wnat to hear.

> before, go look up the rules of subjugation and then come back with
> sensible questions and/or comments. You will have answered your own
> question "Let

I think you need to look it up. I take it you took it in the shorts without
even trying to defend yourself.

> know how the FBO's insurance can come after you." Don't bother to reply as
> I won't read, nor do, I don't really care. I do know what kind of crap
> goes on in the real world, as I have seen it, get out and fly some more,
> maybe you'll find out how good the FBO's insurance is. Of course you may
> own your own plane by now.... I'm sorry if I called you a troll, but you
> know what they say; if it smells, walks and talks like one, then it
> probably is.
>
> - Barney
>
> aluckyguess - congratulations again, you just made a clunking noise as
> your handle hit my plunk file
>
Again you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink. Its the same
with an ASS.
>
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sure they will. I have been sued by insurance companies twice. I won both
>> times. The problem is most people cave in because they don't take the
>> time to actually figure out the law. Only a moron lets himself be
>> conquered by an insurance company.
>> One time it would of been cheaper to settle. I learned from that and the
>> next time they paid. I go for the juggler right from the start. Let them
>> know you will fight to the end.
>> Let me know how the FBO's insurance can come after you. I thought the
>> reason they had it was exactly for that reason.
>> Its sounds like you need to understand how things work. If I ask you for
>> money it doesn't mean you owe it to me.
>> Please don't call me a troll. I can only tell you my experiences. I had
>> a decent size company and dealing with insurance is one of the biggest
>> expenses. You have workers comp, health, product liability, building
>> insurance, car insurance, death and I am sure I am forgetting a few.
>> I also was not asking any question just stating my opinion and that's all
>> it is my opinion. If you have never owned your own company you have no
>> way of knowing how things work. I can also tell you this you can be dead
>> right and still lose in court or vice a versa it all comes down to the
>> judge.
>>
>> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup
>>> what subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible,
>>> well informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's
>>> plane WILL come after you in most cases.
>>>
>>> - Barney
>>>
>>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad
>>>>> word of mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance
>>>>> company have any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not
>>>>> have renters insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end
>>>>> identifier lights, prop strike, engine teardown and new landing gear.
>>>>> The costs were well north of $40K, and they came after that person for
>>>>> every penny. Had to sell car and house to pay it. He thought he was
>>>>> insured. To the OP, look at AOPA. I think I pay about $200 PA, for the
>>>>> basic deal.
>>>>>
>>>> So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right.
>>>> The owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this
>>>> guy needed a good lawyer.
>>>> Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went
>>>> after the pilot.
>>>>> - Barney
>>>>>
>>>>> "TaxSrv" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Richard Kaplan" wrote:
>>>>>>> > Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
>>>>>>> > with no money (orig poster) will be sued?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>> and no anticipated future cashflow source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
>>>>>> amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
>>>>>> practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
>>>>>> you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
>>>>>> $5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
>>>>>> the matter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:20:45 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Serious question, Dan. Used to be that, when you declared bankruptcy, most of
>your assets were sold and all of your creditors (including the mortgage company)
>were paid off from the proceeds. Now the mortgage company gets special treatment?

My sense is that you get to keep the house AND the mortgage, provided
your equity isn't huge.

In New Hampshire, the "homestead" can be worth $125,000 if recently
acquired, more if older. There's a whole lot of other exemptions,
including books up to a value of $800! One sewing machine! Etc etc. I
don't see any explanation of what happens when there's a mortage on
the homestead.


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:32:58 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>Well, I paid the ****ing deductible without whining. Does that count?

Well, it's certainly a good start!

But what if you took the arm off the gas jockey by taxiing into him?
Do you have a way of reimbursing him for his diminished capabilities
for the rest of his life, perhaps 70 years?

We carry insurance for events that are devastating, either to us or to
someone else. Paying the FBO's deductible isn't an insurance matter;
it's a financing matter. You could borrow the money from your brother,
if need be. But if buying a whole new Cessna would really crimp your
lifestyle, then you should be insured for that. And if buying the gas
jockey a new way of life is beyond your credit card limit, you damned
well should be insured for that.



-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:41:35 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>If you
>were to injure someone or damage someone else's plane or property, it is
>quite possible the FBO's insurer would hire a lawyer to defend the FBO and
>in turn put the blame on you

And of course the injured party's attorney would add your name to the
list of defendants.


-- 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
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Stefan]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> That may be true but it almost always makes sense to have SOME level of
> liability insurance. First, that means you are entitled to a legal defense
> paid by the insurance company. Second, it creates the likelihood that any
> suit will be settled for policy limits.

There is also a third reason. If I crippled somebody and destroyed his
life, I would be very unhappy of course. But if I were not insured and
could not compensate his "inconvenience" at least to some degree, so
that he not only was crippled, but on top of this also financially
ruined, I would sleep pretty bad for the rest of my life. But maybe this
thinking is too European.

Stefan

[TaxSrv]

"OP" wrote:
> ...
> But if you get a prop strike or bend a wing spar and the damages
> go upward of $30,000 or $40,000, I think the insurance company
> is coming after the renter to recoup as much of their cost as they
can.
> >

On average, these suits are halfway across the country; jurisdiction
is where you live and generally crash. So they have to engage counsel
in your state, and who don't mind charging a big corporation at all.

Your first filing with the court costs little or nothing, a simple
denial of the complaint. It's then the plaintiff who gets to spend
big money first, in a factual investigation to cover all possible
defenses you might raise later. Aviation cases are expensive, because
every little thing has to be explained to a jury, which means also
lining up experts. In auto accidents, they don't have this problem
because jurors drive cars. While they're spending all this money, the
defendant need do little. Say at a nontowered field you run into the
freakiest turbulence and wind shear on short final you've ever
encountered there. They have to prove against this defense. Find
others landing at that time. Experts on pilot proficiency expected
for handling this stuff.

So they know they're not taking a $30K case to trial, where it gets
really expensive. The experts clock in at $5K a day plus first class
airfares. Defendant knows that too. Insurance company must assume
that maximum money for them will be a fraction of $30K in a
settlement. It's very easy for them to wind up with a net loss
through litigation. So again I want to know how even occasional such
suits are.

Fred F.

[Richard Kaplan]

"TaxSrv" > wrote > settlement. It's very easy for them to
wind up with a net loss
> through litigation. So again I want to know how even occasional such

An airplane could easily cause $1M or more in damage or personal injury.
This is rare but not unheard of. The costs you mention would be negligible
vs. such a claim. Even pilots who do not have visible assets will generally
have a visible future income stream that can be attached.

Insurance is not to cover anticipated, common occurrences; it is to cover
the risk of rare but catastrophic losses.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[TaxSrv]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:

> An airplane could easily cause $1M or more in damage
> or personal injury.

You changed the facts from $30K to $1M and still haven't sold me.
Grieving widows and disfigured plaintiffs can get $1 million PI
judgments OK; much tougher for a big insurance company who has
collected premiums to make the payout to get sympathy from a jury
relative to sympathy for you. Unless you have enough cash or
equivalent they'll take the chance you'll settle w/o going near trial.

> Even pilots who do not have visible assets will generally
> have a visible future income stream that can be attached.

That's good for small claims court stuff. Look up the law for wage
garnishment in your state, which likely places a low limit on the
amount per pay period. Then look for protections the wage earner has
which can reduce their recovery further, and that amount can be a mere
agreement, not a court order. Change jobs and the litigation starts
all over. Meanwhile, some law firm in your town is freely sending big
legal bills to like Avemco.

Fred F.

[Richard Kaplan]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message

> You changed the facts from $30K to $1M and still haven't sold me.
> Grieving widows and disfigured plaintiffs can get $1 million PI
> judgments OK; much tougher for a big insurance company who has
> collected premiums to make the payout to get sympathy from a jury

Perhaps so. Perhaps not if they can portray you as a "rich pilot" -- that
is the public perception of ALL pilots.

And if the issue is property damage then the dollar amounts are pretty clear
and can easily be $1M.

> That's good for small claims court stuff. Look up the law for wage
> garnishment in your state, which likely places a low limit on the
> amount per pay period. Then look for protections the wage earner has

And it is worth it to have someone go after you in this manner?

This is particularly significant if -- as it not unusual -- a pilot has a
professional job where such a judgment could raise questions in an
employer's mind about the employee's integrity and/or financial solvency.
Credit checks are not unusual as part of pre-employment screening. Even
if someone were hired, I suspect an employee with garnished wages of this
nature might well raise red flags in the mind of supervisors regarding their
fitness for advancement in the company.

** All that aside, if nothing else a judgment is worthwhile for an insurance
company to get to protect themselves against some future windfall you may
receive. Insurance companies can be patient. Many, many people will
eventually receive an inheritance or acquire assets over a period of time.
Do you really want to live your life playing a cat and mouse game avoiding a
financial judgment?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> There is also a third reason. If I crippled somebody and destroyed his
> life, I would be very unhappy of course. But if I were not insured and
> could not compensate his "inconvenience" at least to some degree, so that
> he not only was crippled, but on top of this also financially ruined, I
> would sleep pretty bad for the rest of my life. But maybe this thinking is
> too European.

Unfortunately, if the injury is to a passenger, then the insurance policies
available in the US (at least the ones I know of, such as what AOPA offers)
only cover up to $100,000 (per passenger). That won't make much of a dent in
the case of a badly disabling injury.

--Gary

[John Galban]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, if the injury is to a passenger, then the insurance policies
> available in the US (at least the ones I know of, such as what AOPA offers)
> only cover up to $100,000 (per passenger). That won't make much of a dent in
> the case of a badly disabling injury.
>

Gary,

Policies without the $100K submlimit are not as rare as you seem to
think. My aircraft liablility policy (and every one I've had for the
last 10 yrs) is $1 million with no sublimits. AOPA is not an insurance
agency, they're just a policy writer for a single underwriter. Talk
to a real aviation insurance agent and you'll find that just about
anyone can get a policy with no sublimits. The catch? While they
provide 10 times the potential coverage for a passenger, they do cost
an average of 25% - 30% more than a policy with sublimits.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jose]

> Policies without the $100K submlimit are not as rare as you seem to
> think.

They are for renters. If you can find one, let me know.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.