Glider insurance

[David Ecentral news]

Maybe I am in error, and if so I apologize, but I cannot help but think the
good ol' insurance companies may be trying their usual rip-offs. As a renter
I am asked to have $20,000 hull insurance on an FBO G-103 so I can take the
occasional friend up into the aerospace - no problems - seems fair to the
FBO.

As a practical matter I am not even in the USA for six months/year. So what
I want is a six-month policy for a single sailplane only. Seems there are
two companies that do this but:

Supposedly I must be insured for SEL as well as gliders. Maybe I am
mistaken, but it seems to me that the risk and loss numbers for powered A/C
must be much higher than for a glider. Why should I pay to be insured for
SEL night instrument weather risks instead of "round the flagpole" soaring?
Thus, if correct (and I admit I may be way off base here) I may be
subsidizing SEL pilots via my artificially high-cost soaring policy. But
maybe not so - any comments here - anyone know (independent of what an INSCO
might tell you) what real accident/payout statistics show on SEL vs. glider?

I note on the SSA website that apparently soaring insurance is very hard
to get. WHY? Are our claims experiences so awful?

Neptune

[Liam]

On Jun 21, 9:29*am, " David Ecentral news" >
wrote:
> Maybe I am in error, and if so I apologize, but I cannot help but think the
> good ol' insurance companies may be trying their usual rip-offs. As a renter
> I am asked to have $20,000 hull insurance on an FBO G-103 so I can take the
> occasional friend up into the aerospace - no problems - seems fair to the
> FBO.
>
> As a practical matter I am *not even in the USA for six months/year. So what
> I want is a six-month policy for a single sailplane only. Seems there are
> two companies that do this but:
>
> * * Supposedly I must be insured for SEL as well as gliders. Maybe I am
> mistaken, but it seems to me that the risk and loss numbers for powered A/C
> must be much higher than for a glider. Why should I pay to be insured for
> SEL night instrument weather risks instead of "round the flagpole" soaring?
> Thus, if correct (and I admit I may be way off base here) I may be
> subsidizing SEL pilots via my artificially high-cost soaring policy. But
> maybe not so - any comments here - anyone know (independent of what an INSCO
> might tell you) what real accident/payout statistics show on SEL vs. glider?
>
> * * I note on the SSA website that apparently soaring insurance is very hard
> to get. WHY? Are our claims experiences so awful?
>
> Neptune

I think it's more that we're such a small and insignificant market
that few insurers find it worth their while to bother with us.

[jsbrake]

On Jun 21, 1:29*pm, " David Ecentral news" >
wrote:
> Maybe I am in error, and if so I apologize, but I cannot help but think the
> good ol' insurance companies may be trying their usual rip-offs. As a renter
> I am asked to have $20,000 hull insurance on an FBO G-103 so I can take the
> occasional friend up into the aerospace - no problems - seems fair to the
> FBO.
>
Perhaps I'm being naive, but wouldn't the FBO insure the glider and
pass on a portion of the insurance costs to the renter as part of the
time-for-use charge? After all, the FBO should already have insurance
on the ship as a commercial operation.

[vaughn]

"jsbrake" > wrote in message
...

>Perhaps I'm being naive, but wouldn't the FBO insure the glider and
>pass on a portion of the insurance costs to the renter as part of the
>time-for-use charge? After all, the FBO should already have insurance
>on the ship as a commercial operation.

It is indeed normal for an FBO (powered or glider) to insure rental
aircraft. Like all costs, you can be sure that those costs are passed on
the renter. Unfortunately, the renter gets little or no benefit form that
insurance because the "insured party" is normally defined as the FBO and the
owner of the aircraft (if they are different). In this way, the insurers
"double dip" by retaining the right to claim damages from the renter in case
of accident. For protection from this event, the renter must buy "renter's
insurance" to protect themselves from being sued by the insurance companies.
My renter's insurance costs me about $1,000/year and still only includes
modest hull coverage. The only good part is that mine covers both gliders
and airplanes.

Vaughn

[bildan]

On Jun 23, 7:25*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "jsbrake" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >Perhaps I'm being naive, but wouldn't the FBO insure the glider and
> >pass on a portion of the insurance costs to the renter as part of the
> >time-for-use charge? *After all, the FBO should already have insurance
> >on the ship as a commercial operation.
>
> * *It is indeed normal for an FBO (powered or glider) to insure rental
> aircraft. *Like all costs, you can be sure that those costs are passed on
> the renter. *Unfortunately, the renter gets little or no benefit form that
> insurance because the "insured party" is normally defined as the FBO and the
> owner of the aircraft (if they are different). *In this way, the insurers
> "double dip" by retaining the right to claim damages from the renter in case
> of accident. *For protection from this event, the renter must buy "renter's
> insurance" to protect themselves from being sued by the insurance companies.
> My renter's insurance costs me about $1,000/year and still only includes
> modest hull coverage. *The only good part is that mine covers both gliders
> and airplanes.
>
> Vaughn

Yep. Insurance companies are in it for the money - they need a lot of
it so they can cover their subprime mortgage and Credit Default Swap
losses.

Renter's insurance is a great deal for them. They get to sell
hundreds of $1000/year policies on top of the FBO's policy.

[cfinn]

Have you taken a look at AOPA's renter's insurance? I haven't looked
at all the details, but it looks like it meets your requirements. I
looked at the FAQ's and it specifically lists coverage of non-powered
sailpanes, including experimental. You are required to get injury and
property damage coverage. The minimum is $250,000. As an AOPA member,
the annual premium is $81. Non member is $86. The optional non-owned
aircraft damage coverage with a $20,000 limit premium is $283. Non
member is $250. That totals to $364 per year for a member. You can
check their web site at http://www.aopaia.com/renters_start.cfm#.

Charlie

[BT]

My Non-owned Renters Policy with AVEMCO for $50,000 Hull coverage and Std
Liability Coverage is about $600 a year and covers multi engine.
BT

"bildan" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 23, 7:25 am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "jsbrake" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >Perhaps I'm being naive, but wouldn't the FBO insure the glider and
> >pass on a portion of the insurance costs to the renter as part of the
> >time-for-use charge? After all, the FBO should already have insurance
> >on the ship as a commercial operation.
>
> It is indeed normal for an FBO (powered or glider) to insure rental
> aircraft. Like all costs, you can be sure that those costs are passed on
> the renter. Unfortunately, the renter gets little or no benefit form that
> insurance because the "insured party" is normally defined as the FBO and
> the
> owner of the aircraft (if they are different). In this way, the insurers
> "double dip" by retaining the right to claim damages from the renter in
> case
> of accident. For protection from this event, the renter must buy "renter's
> insurance" to protect themselves from being sued by the insurance
> companies.
> My renter's insurance costs me about $1,000/year and still only includes
> modest hull coverage. The only good part is that mine covers both gliders
> and airplanes.
>
> Vaughn

Yep. Insurance companies are in it for the money - they need a lot of
it so they can cover their subprime mortgage and Credit Default Swap
losses.

Renter's insurance is a great deal for them. They get to sell
hundreds of $1000/year policies on top of the FBO's policy.

[TonyV[_2_]]

Liam wrote:
> On Jun 21, 9:29 am, " David Ecentral news" >
> wrote:
>> Maybe I am in error, and if so I apologize, but I cannot help but think the
>> good ol' insurance companies may be trying their usual rip-offs. As a renter
>> I am asked to have $20,000 hull insurance on an FBO G-103 so I can take the
>> occasional friend up into the aerospace - no problems - seems fair to the
>> FBO.


Perhaps you do not understand the policy (or perhaps I don't :-) ). The
typical renter policy protects you from subrogation. The glider is
insured by the FBO and in case of accident, the company will pay the FBO
and then the insurer will come after *you* to recover its costs. THAT is
what you are being protected from.

Tony