"ISLIP" wrote in message
...
keep in
mind that chute deployments seem to virtually assure totalled Cirrus
airframes.

Actually, the 1st Cirrus deployed under chute (Lionel Morrison's last
year) was
repaired, exhibited at AOPA and back flying.
Initial reports of the two latest deployments indicate minor to moderate
damage
to the airframe. Even if the airframe is not repairable, there should be a
high
salvage return on the avionics ,engine, interior & other undamaged parts.

I think the highest cost to an insurance company is medical/death
payments,.not
hull repair. Hull insurance cost is a small percentage of hull value, and
thus
pretty high on ANY high value aircraft.


Yep, I agree with that. I remember several years ago when I went to purchase
my first Mercedes. I was concerned that because the car was $80k, the
insurance premiums would be considerably above what I had paid on other
cars. I mentioned this to the dealer, and he told me that the insurance
rates would be equal to or less than any other car I would buy because the
Mercedes was so safe. The insurance companies don't care much about having
to repair or even total out a car, regardless of it's cost, because the real
expense for them is with injury and death settlements. An $80k car is
nothing compared to a million-dollar injury/death situation, and they would
rather insure an expensive but safe car than a cheap but potentially
dangerous one. As it turns out, the dealer was right, and my insurance
quotes were between 10% and 20% less than what I was paying for my previous
car.

I would imagine that the Cirrus would be along the same lines. If anything,
insurance costs for these planes should wind up well below average, as the
injury/death statistics begin to accumulate in their favor. Totaling or
fixing a hull, even on an expensive plane, is nothing compared to having to
fix a person.