![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Longworth wrote:
On May 19, 10:36 pm, Matt Whiting wrote: I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who will write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of London, but I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that supposedly can deal with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I think AOPA uses) and both told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available. Matt Matt, We have had $1M smooth with USAIG the last several years starting when we both had less than 500hrs and without instrument ratings. Last year, we checked around and found that AOPA agreed to offer $1M smooth with AIG but with a somewhat higher premium than USAIG so we stayed with USAIG. Previously, AOPA told us that they could not offer $1M smooth, maybe the change had something to do with the fact that we got over 500hrs and with instrument ratings. We stayed with USAIG this year but switched agency since the previous one could not get us additional insured with waiver of subrogation free of charge for Guy Maher, a CFI specialized in Cardinal operation (whom we plan to take a training course this summer). Through the new agency, I learned that we could reduce our premium from $1545 to $1311 with $2500 deductible for the hull coverage (insured at $60K). This is about the same as what we got before with AIG for the $1M with $100K sublimit. I wonder if that is because you had an existing policy? I have 600+ hours and am instrument rated also, but I checked on insurance just last January and was told flat-out that I couldn't get $1M smooth initially. I sent and looked and I kept the email: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I emailed you a quote for liability only, I hope you received it. The company I quoted is AIG. The highest limit they will offer at this time is the industry standard 1mil/100K. They will require at least 50 hours in the make/model before they would offer higher limits, maybe next year. If you have any more questions, or wish to bind the coverage, just give me a call. Regards, We cannot accept bind and change requests via email. Jeanie Shogren Account Executive AOPA Insurance Agency, Inc. P. O. Box 9170 Wichita, KS 67277 Phone: 1-800-622-2672, ext. 177 Fax: 316-942-0091 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt - it looks like their issue was 50 Hrs in type at the time of the
request. Also, you were asking for straight liability only - no hull coverage. Were you approaching the request as a renter? -- Jim Carter Rogers, Arkansas "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... .... I sent and looked and I kept the email: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I emailed you a quote for liability only, I hope you received it. The company I quoted is AIG. The highest limit they will offer at this time is the industry standard 1mil/100K. They will require at least 50 hours in the make/model before they would offer higher limits, maybe next year. If you have any more questions, or wish to bind the coverage, just give me a call. .... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Carter wrote:
Matt - it looks like their issue was 50 Hrs in type at the time of the request. Also, you were asking for straight liability only - no hull coverage. Were you approaching the request as a renter? I asked for full coverage at first including $1MM smooth liability (see below), but after I fell out of my chair seeing the premium and they hadn't quoted the $1MM smooth per my request. I then asked again what liability only would be with $1MM smooth since they had given no reason for not quoting the requested covered in round 1. I then got the response that they wouldn't write that coverage so I passed on purchase of the 210. If I can't fly on company business, my person "business case" for buying an airplane is in much poorer shape... Matt I. AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION & PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE Aircraft 1 of 1 NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Number of Seats 6 Insured Value $70,000 Hull Coverage Full Ground & Flight Deductible In Motion/Ingestion: $100 Deductible Not In Motion: $100 Approved Pilots for Aircraft NJAS3068 with requirements if applicable Matthew Whiting Any other pilots: Any private pilot or better having an instrument rating having a minimum of 750 total logged hours including 250 hours in retractable gear aircraft and at least 25 hours in the make and model. Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 __________________________________________________ __________ II. LEGAL LIABILITY PROTECTION - Limits of Liability Single Limit Each Occurrence Including Passengers $1,000,000 Sub Limit per Passenger if applicable $100,000 __________________________________________________ __________ III. MEDICAL PAYMENTS Each passenger $1,000 Total Annual Policy Premium $3,785.00 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. -- Ken Reed M20M, N9124X |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ken Reed wrote:
NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50 hours in type. Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Whiting wrote:
Ken Reed wrote: NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50 hours in type. Matt 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message ... Matt Whiting wrote: Ken Reed wrote: NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50 hours in type. Matt 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models. When was the 210 a four-seater? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote: Ken Reed wrote: NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50 hours in type. Matt 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models. Ah, yes, I forgot that Mooney is a 4 seater. Matt |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 20, 8:48 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
Ken Reed wrote: NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F Insured Value $70,000 Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00 That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50 hours in type. Matt Generally the losses insurance companies see in Cessna 210 involve landing gear failures, gear up landings, losing control on landing or over-running the end of the runway. These losses themselves aren't so bad, but the cost to repair a Cessna 210 is going up rapidly every year. $3785 annual premium for a Cessna 210 for a low-time pilot doesn't seem out of line. If you can get through the first year without a loss and fly a lot, your premium would go down substantially the next year. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years
ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo. Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a decent accident rate. My broker just calls it a 'high loss rate.' -- Ken Reed M20M, N9124X |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Would ~ 500 planes depress the U.S. used aircraft market? | OtisWinslow | General Aviation | 0 | August 25th 05 09:42 PM |
Would ~ 500 planes depress the U.S. used aircraft market? | OtisWinslow | Owning | 0 | August 25th 05 09:42 PM |
Would ~ 500 planes depress the U.S. used aircraft market? | [email protected] | Owning | 15 | August 24th 05 09:40 PM |
Would ~ 500 planes depress the U.S. used aircraft market? | Dave S | General Aviation | 11 | August 24th 05 12:19 PM |
Would ~ 500 planes depress the U.S. used aircraft market? | Dave S | Owning | 0 | August 23rd 05 03:02 AM |