On 09 Jan 2005 01:55:17 GMT, (Bartscher) wrote:

Thanks for the information. I was assuming the insurance would increase with me
as a named insured on the policy and I would definitly have to cover that cost
as a part of leasing the plane. However, I wasn't thinking of the issue of the
insurance not allowing the owner to charge for the plane.

Does anyone know if it would be possible to form a "temporary" partnership of
some sort to get around this?

I think this is going to be an uphill battle:

Unless you have a good friend who has a plane, it will be damn near
impossible to find any owner willing to take on a short term partner
just so the plane flies more. This is especially so on the higher
performance singles, as people who own these typically have enough
money that they don't care about the costs.

Regarding insurance, no matter how you structure it - what you are
trying to perform is a commercial operation (rental) under a insurance
policy that does not cover it. Policies that cover rental have
dramatically higher premiums (3-5x) than standard policies.

I have no idea how well the insurance industry enforces their
policies, but if they have a $50k hull claim from a gear up, when the
non-owner pilot was flying, I bet they do their homework before paying
the check. Again, I don't know if they can subpoena bank records or
the like, but if they can, it would not take much digging to find out
that the partnership is not a partnership, but is really a rental
situation.

Now flip yourself to the owner side of the equation, and ask if you
want to be involved in the risk. I would not.

-Nathan