Ian Cant wrote:
Mike,
Thankyou for the insight, which may very well
be good advice.

However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest
between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having
the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that
fact.

The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested
in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability
claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety
program. That would hardly be bad for us.

The SSA via the SSF (Soaring Safety Foundation) is already very
interested in the soaring safety statistics, and has been for a couple
decades. The SSF works closely with Costello Associates (the agent) to
get these statistics (a lot more accidents are reported to the insurers
than to the FAA!) to aid in the development of safety programs.

The large pool might well be a captive market for the
duration of any one contract; but at renewal time,
it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus
attract competitive rates.

The SSA insurance program does represent such a pool, and it is used to
obtain decent group rates. I don't think these could ever be as low as
hang glider rates, given the aircraft flown, so adding the cost to the
membership fee would not be practical. In any case, _liability_ costs
are quite low, at only $143 for 2004 for me. It's hull insurance costs
that cause most people to wince, as they are many times the liability costs.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA