FBO Insurance requirement for tie-downs

A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

In article , Chris
wrote:

A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

So they (FBO, airport authority, etc) don't have to pay for other
peoples mistakes.

Chris wrote:

A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

They want to make sure your insurance will pay up and not force them to
resort to using their insurance, if for example you don't tie your
plane down properly and it gets blown into their fuel truck by a gust
of wind.

Lawyers. That's why, lawyers.

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

Run it by your insurance company, many will laugh at you. No way in hell
will they name an FBO on your policy.



"Chris" wrote in message
om...
A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

Not true. We do it all the time.

Jon Howard
Aviation Insurance Underwriter

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Run it by your insurance company, many will laugh at you. No way in hell
will they name an FBO on your policy.



"Chris" wrote in message
om...
A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

Here.. the county airport authority rents the tiedowns.. and they are listed
as additional insured on the "renters" policy... this is to protect them if
they are included in a lawsuit for your negligence.. not theirs..

Example... you park your aircraft and do not tie it down or chock it while
you run to take care of natures call, you'll be right back and finish tying
it down.

Meanwhile a gust of wind, or something causes your aircraft to roll into
another aircraft. That aircraft owner then sues you and the county for
damage.. the county is covered under your policy for your negligence.

They are not covered under your policy for their negligence of driving their
fuel truck into yours or anyone else's aircraft.

BT

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK

Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do. While I know the
insurance company should investigate this they may not. It seems in
most instances like this if my plane damaged something the FBO's
insurance would cover this and then their insurance company would go
after my insurance for the claim. Typical scenario is an aircraft
renter damages an airplane. I don't like what appears to be the easy
ability to make a claim against my policy from a third party.

Thanks for the comments so far.

- CK

They are not making a claim against your policy to be listed as additional
insured.. They are asking to be covered under your policy if your aircraft
is involved in something where they could also be named at fault.

You replaced their tie down chain with a rope.. in a storm the rope fails
and your aircraft damages someone else's aircraft.. they get blamed for
allowing you to change the chain to a rope.. your poor choice of rope.. they
get covered by your policy for your error.. and in this case their error for
not catching that you swapped out their equipment (chains) for your own
(rope).

BT

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do. While I know the
insurance company should investigate this they may not. It seems in
most instances like this if my plane damaged something the FBO's
insurance would cover this and then their insurance company would go
after my insurance for the claim. Typical scenario is an aircraft
renter damages an airplane. I don't like what appears to be the easy
ability to make a claim against my policy from a third party.

Thanks for the comments so far.

- CK