Contest Insurance Grumblings

OK, just had to post: Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel

On Apr 3, 1:53*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
OK, just had to post: *Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). *I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. *They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. *Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: *Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. *But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... *Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). *Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? *It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. *Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel

I have had the opposite experience with Avemco. They would not cover
my experimental aircraft without a lot of additional cost, and "non-
owners" insurance and guest pilots were big adders as well. Much
better deal in my situation with Costello.

Matt

On Apr 3, 1:53*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
OK, just had to post: *Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). *I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. *They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. *Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: *Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. *But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... *Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). *Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? *It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. *Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel

Noel
Who is the carrier of your insurance? Not your broker but the carrier?

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:53:14 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
OK, just had to post: Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel

Noel - Avemco did provide me with the required coverage and a
separate binder page for presenting at SSA contests. I've been
very happy with their service for many years and insure a
number of aircraft with them...
Perhaps you should give them another call ?
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

Unpleasant experiences can undoubtedly bias you against a company. For myself, though, Costello has been great. On advice from others, I got quotes from two other companies when I insured my LS8 (experimental A/W) three years ago. Costello offered by far the lowest cost policy. And when I factored in their annual lowering deductible and their renter's coverage, it got even better. I'm definitely a fan of Costello, but maybe you being "forced" to change insurance companies will turn out to be a good thing...

-John

At 20:53 03 April 2012, noel.wade wrote:
OK, just had to post: Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel



Im with Noel, I am even more ****ed that they (SSA) didn't give any notice
(should have been at least a year) for those of us who already renewed
before there notice. I have had excellent coverage with avemco but my
policy doesn't end until July.

And it sure smacks of a monopoly move on the sailplane market.

Prompted by the Hobbs midair, before renewing last year and after talking
last summer with Avemco the argument against larger limits is well fought
by them. Essentially they will fight to not pay out more and have some
(according to the agent I talked to) litigation going on for several years
and several million dollars in attorneys fees to not pay to the gold
diggers looking for a deep pocket. Also according to the agent, they have
NEVER paid out more than the 100,000 to an individual and don't intend to
start now!

CH (no contests in my future till they come to their senses or I come to
mine or at least until I renew

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:53:14 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
OK, just had to post: Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel

Costello has been easy to deal with from my viewpoint.

Lane
XF

I have recently had some insight into the aftermath of a midair collision with 2 fatalities and believe me the SSA requierment IS A BIG DEAL. Sure, your insurance company is required to fight for you in court, but if things go against you, AVEMCO will toss in $100,000 and walk away! Costello will pay out a maximum of $1,000,000. I really can't imagine any accident where AVEMCO would even come close to their $1,000,000 for each accident..............the accident would have to involve killing 10 people!
Bottom line is; AVEMCO was charging me $40 bucks more than Costello for 1/10 the coverage.
JJ Sinclair

For many years I used L. L. Johns agency....the agent is John Gostinger. I had previously used AVEMCO. L. L. Johns writes insurance for USAIG as I recall.

I had no reason to re up this year so do not know how the new rule would affect their policy

It might be worth a call to John Gostinger to check it out. Their web site is here

http://lljohns.com/

Phone is 1-800-662-4401

Jim

To be perfectly honest, every time I talk to Costello (including yesterday) it feels rude, short and uncomfortable. We have a number of pilots in our area who currently use them. In addition I insure a contest and a large hangar thru them. If you listened to the phone calls we have made with fairly simple questions you would think that we were bill collectors instead of paying customers of several years...it is frankly getting that bad. I am strongly considering a change.

I am very disappointed in their general customer care, consistent poor demeanor and very distinct lack of friendly-ness. This is not just I but a number of others and we have all been discussing it recently. Nothing is more important to me after spending 5k a year with someone (2 gliders, hangar, contest). We should be treated like gold, not like a piece of dog****.

Anyone else know what I am talking about?

Sean
F2

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:53:14 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
OK, just had to post: Is anyone else here really annoyed at the SSA's
insurance requirement "changes" for this year?

I had an unpleasant experience with Costello when I bought my first
sailplane (2007). I was very satisfied with my move to Avemco for the
last 4 years. They've provided me with comparable rates & coverage,
flexible payment plans, and helpful, friendly staff. Unfortunately,
they cannot comply with the revised/clarified requirements for soaring
contest liability insurance.

In fact, it seems that only one carrier out there words their policy
in a way that the SSA approves of: Costello.

I know that Costello has a positive relationship with the SSA and
witnessed the nice check they handed over to the SSA at the Reno
convention. But setting up a de-facto monopoly just rubs me the wrong
way... Shouldn't private companies be competing to do business with
us, as a group of several-hundred customers (who are likely to have
good income and be a relatively low risk of defaulting on our
payments)?

The "disputed" issue is a little bit of extra coverage for bystanders
(or other pilots in a midair). Does that actually help defuse any
ridiculous litigation or civil suits or financial penalties, in the
wake of an accident? It certainly doesn't provide any special
indemnification for the SSA, so I highly doubt it has a practical
benefit in a legal/liability situation. Seems to me that the primary
benefit of this insurance requirement is that it guarantees Costello a
certain volume of business each year.

Annoyed that I'm being forced to change carriers,

--Noel