Renter's Insurance?

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:37:44 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

That was the end of that. I guess they weren't interested in my '69 Fury I.

So sad, too bad... for them. I got away with that when I was young. Today I
wouldn't take the chance... too much to lose now.

Yeah, that '69 Fury's got to be worth a lot more now.

:-)

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:37:44 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

That was the end of that. I guess they weren't interested in my '69 Fury I.

So sad, too bad... for them. I got away with that when I was young. Today I
wouldn't take the chance... too much to lose now.

Yeah, that '69 Fury's got to be worth a lot more now.



I have my doubts. I, on the other hand....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On Dec 5, 1:35 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Dallas wrote:
A pilot buddy who works for a law firm has rattled my cage over
renter's insurance and liability.

Do you renters feel the need to pick up supplemental insurance? If
so who did you use and how much did it cost you?

Here's his comments:

You should talk to me about FBO insurance too. Unless your FBO is
different than every other FBO I've ever been into, their insurance
provides them (and/or the aircraft owner if it is leased to the FBO)
with hull coverage and liability insurance. In the event of damage
to the aircraft, of harm to a person (but maybe not you), the
insurance will pay to repair the aircraft and defend and pay and
lawsuits that arise out of the event. However, when all is said and
done, to the extent that the incident is your fault (most are), the
insurance company will have the right to sue you to recover all the
amounts they paid to 'clean up your mess'. If you are renting from
an FBO, getting a renter's policy (sometimes called a non-owned
aircraft policy) is a good idea. I've never figured out how the
'hull' portion of those polcies work - if you were flying a $100K
aircraft, you wouldn't want to have to maintain $100K of hull
coverage on top of the liability coverage.

Is everything above after "Here's his comments:" really a lawyers comments?
If so he really needs to go do some remedial work on insurance law. Because
the last part about hull versus liability shows a significant cluelessness.

The liability covers the insured against damage done to OTHER's person or
property. The hull coverage covers the insured aircraft.

That said, if you need renter's insurance depends on two things. The policy
that to FBO has and your personal net worth. There are policies out there
that cover renters with no or limited right to subrogation. If your FBO has
one of those you don't need renter's insurance. Also, if you don't have
enough assets you don't need to worry about it either.

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never. I know
an insurance broker who's been in the business for decades who tells
me he's never seen it happen, and it actually kind of annoys him
because he has seen some cases that really cried out for subrogation
(particularly stupid people with money being really negligent and
causing his clients' insurace to pay out large sums). They have the
right but don't for whatever reason don't exercise it.

Last time this topic came up I asked if anyone could name any case
that they knew of where subrogation actually occurred, and the answer
was crickets.

That said, I belong to a club where I am a named insured so it's
academic to me. If not for that, I might take the plunge into renters
insurance anyway, seems cheap compared to what's at stake.

xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation.

Are you talking aviation related insurance only? Because if not I've got two
work comp subrogation cases working right this second.

On Dec 5, 6:32 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation.

Are you talking aviation related insurance only? Because if not I've got two
work comp subrogation cases working right this second.

Aviation insurance only.

xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never. I know
an insurance broker who's been in the business for decades who tells
me he's never seen it happen, and it actually kind of annoys him
because he has seen some cases that really cried out for subrogation
(particularly stupid people with money being really negligent and
causing his clients' insurace to pay out large sums). They have the
right but don't for whatever reason don't exercise it.


It is rare, but it happens. A friend owns an FBO and his insurance company
has gone after renter pilots twice in the past 20 yrs. or so. In both
cases, the accidents were caused by obvious pilot stupidity, and the pilots
also had attractive assets. Seems that the renter has to pass both tests
before an insurance company will bother exercising their subrogation rights.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:12:05 GMT, "JGalban via AviationKB.com"
u32749@uwe wrote:

It is rare, but it happens. A friend owns an FBO and his insurance company
has gone after renter pilots twice in the past 20 yrs. or so.

When my instructor was teaching me how to do a wheelie, I
overestimated the forward stick required to plant the wheels, which
spread enough to ding the prop.

The instructor's insurance company thought it should be responsible
only for the airport's deductible. It lost the argument and paid for a
new prop and the engine tear-down.

(BTW, neither of us noticed the dinged tips. The instructor took off
again, went around the pattern, and landed on the mains to demonstrate
the correct technique. Then he gave me back the controls to taxi up to
the gas pump and shut down. What a weird feeling to see those curved
tips!)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:02:40 -0800 (PST), xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never.

That statement could save me $300 - $600 annually.

I'd love to see some official numbers, if they existed. I'm guessing
there's no place to get data like that.

--
Dallas

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...


Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never.

Someone I know fell asleep while smoking. The ensuing fire caused $70,000 in
damage. He was sued by the insurance company for the damage. When he
declared bankruptcy, he simply added that to his list of debts.

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

A pilot buddy who works for a law firm has rattled my cage over renter's
insurance and liability.
....you wouldn't want to have to maintain $100K of
hull coverage on top of the liability coverage.

I won't fly without renter's insurance. Furthermore, my FBO has a nice long
line of tempting newish G1000 $250,000 172's just waiting to be flown. I won't
touch any of them. You can't buy $250,000 of renter's hull insurance, and you
wouldn't want to pay for it if you could.

I only fly cheap airplanes.

Vaughn