GA bias in "general" insurance?

Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
disability. The insurance covered accidents at home or at work, and there
were very few outright exclusions. Of the eight or so exclusions they
listed, two were different ways of saying "self-inflicted" or deliberate
injuries or suicide attempts. Two were wartime or insurrection
exclusions, and one was specific to use of nuclear weapons. All of the
other exclusions were related to general aviation or air sports "of any
form". They include all activity related to aviation other than "flying
as a paying passenger on a scheduled airline".

Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
"acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out. I
visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

GF

Greg Farris wrote:

I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular problem.
The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically incorrect.

Greg Farris writes:

Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
"acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out.

GA is far more dangerous than flying as a passenger on a commercial
airline. It is apparently dangerous enough that insurance companies
are sometimes worried about it. Ask Cory Lidle's family about it.

I visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

Visit the cemetery instead. Look for wealthy people who died young or
in good health, especially people who had to travel a great deal.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

kontiki writes:

There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular problem.
The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically incorrect.

Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Visit the cemetery instead. Look for wealthy people who died young or
in good health, especially people who had to travel a great deal.

Why?

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Greg Farris wrote:
Received yet another mailing offer for disability insurance - from a
reputable company, ready to pay a $250-500K indemnity for complete
disability. The insurance covered accidents at home or at work, and there
were very few outright exclusions. Of the eight or so exclusions they
listed, two were different ways of saying "self-inflicted" or deliberate
injuries or suicide attempts. Two were wartime or insurrection
exclusions, and one was specific to use of nuclear weapons. All of the
other exclusions were related to general aviation or air sports "of any
form". They include all activity related to aviation other than "flying
as a paying passenger on a scheduled airline".

Doesn't this seem a bit over the top? They didn't even have a general
"acts of God" exclusion, but anything to do with GA and you're out. I
visited someone in a complete care hospital for accident victims a few
years ago. According to him, the large majority of quadraplegic's there
were (like himself) victims of automobile accidents. The second category
was from gunshot wounds in city gang and drug wars (no exclusion on the
insurance policy for involvement in criminal activities). After this came
houshold accidents. No airplane accidents.

I am not one of those who claim that GA is not dangerous - yet I don't
see my overall life risk as greater than that of someone who drives a
great deal. The per-hour risk of operating a GA plane is certainly much
higher than a car, but probably much lower than that of, say, a ladder.

GF


I suspect the main reason is all the famous figures who have died in GA
crashes. Even though they may represent a small fraction of the GA
population, they probably have huge claims which distorts the average
claim made by pilots. On the other hand, I doubt many famous figures
spend much time on the road or have any involvement with city gangs and
drug wars.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

kontiki writes:

There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular
problem. The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically
incorrect.

Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.

Absolutely 100% INCORRECT.

I asked my friends the actuaries about this.

The most vocal and experienced of the group said that it is in the hands
of the underwriter as to what inclusions and exclusions are in the
contract. The underwriters are people that make decisions based on the
facts and statistics that they observe. But they are people, and many of
their decisions are based on their human emotions, beliefs and opinions.
Otherwise, all insurance contracts would read the same.

Actuaries pretty much just figure out things like how much they need to
charge and how they need to invest money to ensure that the company
continues to be profitable every year after the "expected" amount of
capital gains, payouts, and revenue.

Interestingly enough, he said that in his experience, it was more likely
to find insurance companies that would exclude a Commercial Pilot than a
Recreational Pilot. He believed that even Airline Pilots would be included
in the category of Commercial Pilot.

I told him that statistically speaking, it would seem that Airline Pilots
are probably safer than GA Commercial Pilots or Recreational Pilots, but I
told him not to tell any underwriters that he works with because rather
than relieve the burden on Airline Pilots, they would probably just make
it harder for Recreational Pilots too...

It was not clear which category Sim Pilots fall into.

If you have any conversations with experts in the insurance industry that
you would like to share to back up your statements, I would be most
interested in hearing about them.

In article ,
says...


Mxsmanic wrote in
:

kontiki writes:

There you go again.... attempting to apply logic to a particular
problem. The application of bonafide logic to real life is politically
incorrect.

Insurance companies make their money by doing calculations based on
fact. I don't think they are in the habit of setting risks and
restrictions based on taboos or superstitions.




Absolutely 100% INCORRECT.

I asked my friends the actuaries about this.



If you have any conversations with experts in the insurance industry that
you would like to share to back up your statements, I would be most
interested in hearing about them.



You've got it all wrong - the experts are supposed to listen to him.

In article .com,
says...



Why?

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
--


Haven't you ever been in a cemetary?
Surely you're not suggesting you haven't noticed the scads of dead GA
pilots there. . .

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Why?

Are you saying that there are a lot of dead pilots?
--



Haven't you ever been in a cemetary?

No, what is a cemetary?

Matt