Renter Insurance

Cub Driver wrote:


They're about the same, for the same coverage, so I stick with my
current insurer since I get a 10 percent discount if I pay when
invoiced instead of waiting till the effective date. I pay about $600
for $40K hull insurance and $1 million liability, the most I can get.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:02:00 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote:

Ok Gang!
Who has the best rates for renter's insurance? I need 25,000 hull
liability, and pretty much basic injury and such. And a second question,
do any aircraft insurance companies allow payments like car insurance
companies do? Avemco's rate is $390/year, which is not bad, but they want
it all up front...which means I could not use the insurance because I
couldn't afford to fly for a few months! Kinda defeats the purpose
doesn't it!!?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


-- all the best, Dan Ford


Dan,

If you don't mind my asking:

Did you go with the company that the Hampton people recommended?


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

" That is a function of where you live. Here in North Carolina, I've never
had a
FBO ask me if I had insurance or to buy insurance. The subject never
comes up. I don't know anybody that they've (the FBO) asked. I've rented
extensively in South Carolina and I've rented in Florida as well; the
subject never comes up.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE



This whole thread got me to thinking about mine. I realized I never read
the insurance stuff at my FBO, but new I was covered. I called just now,
and was told that I would be responsible for the deductible (off the top of
her head she couldn't remember the exactly amount the deductible was, but
thought it was $1000).

Fred

"Fred Choate" wrote in message
...

This whole thread got me to thinking about mine. I realized I never read
the insurance stuff at my FBO, but new I was covered. I called just now,
and was told that I would be responsible for the deductible (off the top
of her head she couldn't remember the exactly amount the deductible was,
but thought it was $1000).

Fred:

That's what mine always said as well. Someplace else (can't recall) told me
that if that is truly the case, then see if the FBO's insurance company will
issue a "waiver of subrogation." My FBO called, and got an earfull from
their insurance company. They're now considering changing their prior
stance of recommending only getting insurance to cover their deductible ($5K
in this case).

Carl

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:08:16 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

OtisWinslow wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to negligence
the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for any
claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)

If you ball up a plane due to negligence, some companies will simply refuse to
pay. There was a case in litigation about 10 years ago in this part of the
country. The pilot crashed after going below minimums on an IFR approach. The
owner's on the hook for the entire bill.

Do you have a link or additional details? Sounds like an interesting
case?

I would expect insurance to pay in this type of accident, unless it
could be proven that the pilot knowingly and intentionally went below
minimums.

-Nathan

I believe you could of got out of paying any money with a good lawyer. I
could be wrong, but I dont think so.
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:31:20 -0700, "Aluckyguess"
wrote:

You really dont need the renters insurance. The most you would probably
have
to pay is 1000.00 if you smashed it up.

Dream on!

When I was in training, I had a prop strike while learning to make
wheelies in the Cub. The instructor's insurance company thought he was
on the hook for just the $2,000 deductible, but no, that's not how it
works. You're responsible for all the damage you do (or in the case,
that your student does), and the FBO's insurance company will shake
you until your pockets are empty.

He paid (his insurance company paid) for a new prop and an engine
tear-down.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

"Barney Rubble" wrote in message
...
Do you really think the insurance co give a flying sh1t about "bad word of
mouth"? Your'e making a mistake in believing the insurance company have
any morals or scruples. I know of someone who did not have renters
insurance, landed short, took out some runwany end identifier lights, prop
strike, engine teardown and new landing gear. The costs were well north of
$40K, and they came after that person for every penny. Had to sell car and
house to pay it. He thought he was insured. To the OP, look at AOPA. I
think I pay about $200 PA, for the basic deal.

So no one had any insurance on the plane? Something doesnt sound right. The
owner of the plane has some liabiltiy. Again it sounds like this guy needed
a good lawyer.
Sounds like the FBO didnt pay their policy they had no money and went after
the pilot.
- Barney

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
with no money (orig poster) will be sued?

Being low on cash is not the same as having zero assets or zero net
worth
and no anticipated future cashflow source.

Agree there, but if someone does $5,000 damage to an airframe, that
amount won't go far at all to pursue it to see if collection is even
practically possible, much less establish the facts of the case. Can
you answer my question about the ins co's business sense, for a mere
$5K minus costs, spreading such ill will in the pilot community over
the matter?

Fred F.

Aluckyguess wrote:
I believe you could of got out of paying any money with a good lawyer. I
could be wrong, but I dont think so.

Well, I'm not certain when Dan was training, but he's in the Northeast. Ten
years ago it was cheaper to pay out $3,000 in penalties than to hire a decent
attorney to try to avoid it in New Jersey.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Nathan Young wrote:

Do you have a link or additional details? Sounds like an interesting
case?

No. The case was mentioned in a safety meeting about ten years ago. The speaker
was Inspector Ryan of the Allentown, Pennsylvania FSDO.


I would expect insurance to pay in this type of accident, unless it
could be proven that the pilot knowingly and intentionally went below
minimums.

Don't know about "proven", but the insurance company claimed the pilot did
exactly that. Sorta hard for a pilot to claim otherwise when a radar track and
ATC tape is available. The aircraft was worth something like 1.5 million, and
I'm sure that's a factor in the situation.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:07:03 -0400, "TaxSrv"
wrote:

"OtisWinslow" wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble .. but if you bust an airplane due to
negligence
the insurance company will be expecting you to reimburse them for
any
claims they paid on it. (Subrogration)


Has that ever happened in the case where an uninsured renter pilot
with no money (orig poster) will be sued? Why would they incur legal
fees to do that? It also seems stupid from a business standpoint to
spread bad "word of mouth," by hassling a pilot who'll tell other
pilots/owners which insurance company to avoid like a plague.

Fred F.


Ah, I think you may be forgetting that the insurance company has
lawyers on staff or on retainer. There is no extra cost involved
for them to pursue a law suit. As for "bad word of mouth" they
couldn't care less... all insurance companies have the same policy,
namely, recover costs and minimize losses in their quarterly report.

Ron

"OP" wrote:
Ah, I think you may be forgetting that the insurance company has
lawyers on staff or on retainer. There is no extra cost involved
for them to pursue a law suit. As for "bad word of mouth" they
couldn't care less... all insurance companies have the same policy,
namely, recover costs and minimize losses in their quarterly report.

Ron


My only argument is experiernce in tax and accounting since 1960.
Lawyers on staff or retainer have a real cost, according to what
workoad you give them by company policy on how much potentially
wasteful activities they should pursue. And to suggest to that bad
public reputation has no effect on profits is really naive. If you
drop and break merchandise in a store, what's the better decision in
approaching that embarassed customer? That's small dollars, so that's
easy.

But airframe damage to aircraft are small dollars per incident too in
the industry, relative to the big payouts on personal injury/death
liability. The latter is so potentially deleterious to shareholder
interests, the industry has to universally lay it off with like Lloyds
of London, the "reinsurance" market under the concept of large pooling
of risk. It's actually all explained in detail in the SEC 10-K
filings of aircraft insurers, unlike the auto insurance industry where
this isn't necessary. Even there, have you ever heard of an auto
insurance company going after an uninsured motorist for the insured's
vehicle damage with litigation? Keep it real.

Fred F.