On Jun 21, 9:29*am, " David Ecentral news"
wrote:
Maybe I am in error, and if so I apologize, but I cannot help but think the
good ol' insurance companies may be trying their usual rip-offs. As a renter
I am asked to have $20,000 hull insurance on an FBO G-103 so I can take the
occasional friend up into the aerospace - no problems - seems fair to the
FBO.

As a practical matter I am *not even in the USA for six months/year. So what
I want is a six-month policy for a single sailplane only. Seems there are
two companies that do this but:

* * Supposedly I must be insured for SEL as well as gliders. Maybe I am
mistaken, but it seems to me that the risk and loss numbers for powered A/C
must be much higher than for a glider. Why should I pay to be insured for
SEL night instrument weather risks instead of "round the flagpole" soaring?
Thus, if correct (and I admit I may be way off base here) I may be
subsidizing SEL pilots via my artificially high-cost soaring policy. But
maybe not so - any comments here - anyone know (independent of what an INSCO
might tell you) what real accident/payout statistics show on SEL vs. glider?

* * I note on the SSA website that apparently soaring insurance is very hard
to get. WHY? Are our claims experiences so awful?

Neptune

I think it's more that we're such a small and insignificant market
that few insurers find it worth their while to bother with us.