Renter Insurance

Cub Driver wrote:
Then I'll make it a flat statement: you are lacking in integrity if
you knowingly go uninsured and are unable to pay any potential bill
for damages.


Well, I paid the ****ing deductible without whining. Does that count? If the
FBO doesn't ask me to carry insurance and in fact tells me my liability is
limited to the deductible and I can and do pay that deductible, I fail to see
any further liability. You may kiss my ass now.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message

FBO doesn't ask me to carry insurance and in fact tells me my liability is
limited to the deductible and I can and do pay that deductible, I fail to
see any further liability.

My comment here is not judgmental but rather practical.

I think the main risk to a renter without renter's insurance is not hull
damage but rather a claim for liability, i.e. damage to 3rd party property
or person. The FBO's insurance may very well only cover the FBO. If you
were to injure someone or damage someone else's plane or property, it is
quite possible the FBO's insurer would hire a lawyer to defend the FBO and
in turn put the blame on you. You would not only be lacking insurance
coverage to pay damage but also would need to pay for a lawyer out of your
own pocket to defend you in court.

Even if you do not have substantial assets, an obvious licensed profession
linkable to a revenue stream is all it takes to get a judgement in the form
of a lien against payroll.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

Myself I think insurance is a rip off in general. I think back on the outrageous premiums paid for auto insurance for all those years and WOW I could buy a very nice sports car with all that money...since I have never filed a claim.

Yep. A big ripoff. Especially when you don't file a claim. They
should have it so that you don't pay any premiums in the years you don't
have claims. Then, if you have an accident, you can pay the $300
insurance policy after the fact, and be covered for the accident. That
way, you don't pay for insurance you don't use (keeping those mooching
insurance companies from making huge profits at your expense), and you
are covered when you do need it.

The only downside I see with this kind of policy is that the insurance
limits would be no greater than the insurance premiums, but that's just
a minor issue that I'm sure can be easily fixed with a ballpoint pen.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup what
subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible, well
informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's plane WILL
come after you in most cases.

- Barney

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...

"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.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the big
huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.


Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things homeowner's
policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in an earthquake
fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going to happen it is a
matter of when.

Absolutely agree with you, except homeowners insurance should be exactly
that..no more no less. You should not need any other type of rip off
insurance to cover your home. One policy, one coverage..anything happens to
your home it's covered period! But NOOOOOOO we can't do that because the
insurance company whose sole purpose is to cover "accidents" and "mishaps of
nature" think there is supposed to be no risk involved . The only reason we
get insurance is to cover the "chance" of something happening,...well and
because our government makes us get it( cars especially), which in turn lets
the insurance vultures set whatever rate they wish. Think about it, have you
ever seen a full-coverage car insurance policy that did not pay for a cars
water damage, or being destroyed by a tornado, earthquake ? Why should the
homeowner's policy be any different?

Patrick

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:C9yBe.40269$DC2.25482@okepread01...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the big
huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.


Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things homeowner's
policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in an
earthquake fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going to
happen it is a matter of when.

That house is going to be in the same place for a lot longer than my car is
going to be. And outside of a covered damage destruction odds are it will be
there when (NOT IF) an earthquake or flood happens.

With a house in a "danger area" the insurance isn't betting that nothing
will happen to it ever they are betting that it will be some X amount of
time before it happens. As opposed to my homeowners insurance who is betting
that it won't burn down because most houses historicly haven't burned down.

I don't live in an earthquake area or a flood plain and I'm very happy that
I don't have to pay into the pool like those that do. All you have to do to
get out of a "danger area" is move and you won't have to pay for those
coverages.


"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Absolutely agree with you, except homeowners insurance should be exactly
that..no more no less. You should not need any other type of rip off
insurance to cover your home. One policy, one coverage..anything happens
to your home it's covered period! But NOOOOOOO we can't do that because
the insurance company whose sole purpose is to cover "accidents" and
"mishaps of nature" think there is supposed to be no risk involved . The
only reason we get insurance is to cover the "chance" of something
happening,...well and because our government makes us get it( cars
especially), which in turn lets the insurance vultures set whatever rate
they wish. Think about it, have you ever seen a full-coverage car
insurance policy that did not pay for a cars water damage, or being
destroyed by a tornado, earthquake ? Why should the homeowner's policy be
any different?

Patrick

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:C9yBe.40269$DC2.25482@okepread01...

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

Homeowner's insurance that is supposed to cover your home,..but WAIT you
must have earthquake insurance and flood insurance extra!!!! Nothing but
price gouging, IMHO. If the insurance is just we pick and chose what we
cover, then is it really insurance,...or just flushing money down the
big huge toilet!!! Sometimes I wonder.


Eathquake and Flood are different beasts than the other things
homeowner's policies cover. If you live in the 100 year flood plain or in
an earthquake fault area it's not an issue of if those things are going
to happen it is a matter of when.

Sure they will. I have been sued by insurance companies twice. I won both
times. The problem is most people cave in because they don't take the time
to actually figure out the law. Only a moron lets himself be conquered by an
insurance company.
One time it would of been cheaper to settle. I learned from that and the
next time they paid. I go for the juggler right from the start. Let them
know you will fight to the end.
Let me know how the FBO's insurance can come after you. I thought the reason
they had it was exactly for that reason.
Its sounds like you need to understand how things work. If I ask you for
money it doesn't mean you owe it to me.
Please don't call me a troll. I can only tell you my experiences. I had a
decent size company and dealing with insurance is one of the biggest
expenses. You have workers comp, health, product liability, building
insurance, car insurance, death and I am sure I am forgetting a few.
I also was not asking any question just stating my opinion and that's all it
is my opinion. If you have never owned your own company you have no way of
knowing how things work. I can also tell you this you can be dead right and
still lose in court or vice a versa it all comes down to the judge.

"Barney Rubble" wrote in message
...
I'm out of this debate, I smell a troll . Aluckyguess - go and lookup what
subjugation actually means, and then come back asking sensible, well
informed questions. The insurance company underwriting the FBO's plane
WILL come after you in most cases.

- Barney

"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...

"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.

Cub Driver wrote:

They didn't recommend one, that I know of. I use AIG. I checked their
quote against AOPA (possibly they use AIG also?)

I believe they do not. When I had the Maule, it was insured with AIG. AOPA was
higher, and they told me that they could not compete with AIG for policies on
Maules.

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.

Cub Driver wrote:

Individuals go through a different bankruptcy "chapter" than
businesses do. Used to be Chapter 7, probably still is.

Serious question, Dan. Used to be that, when you declared bankruptcy, most of
your assets were sold and all of your creditors (including the mortgage company)
were paid off from the proceeds. Now the mortgage company gets special treatment?

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.