Renter Insurance

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 02:20:45 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

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?

My sense is that you get to keep the house AND the mortgage, provided
your equity isn't huge.

In New Hampshire, the "homestead" can be worth $125,000 if recently
acquired, more if older. There's a whole lot of other exemptions,
including books up to a value of $800! One sewing machine! Etc etc. I
don't see any explanation of what happens when there's a mortage on
the homestead.


-- 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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:32:58 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote:

Well, I paid the ****ing deductible without whining. Does that count?

Well, it's certainly a good start!

But what if you took the arm off the gas jockey by taxiing into him?
Do you have a way of reimbursing him for his diminished capabilities
for the rest of his life, perhaps 70 years?

We carry insurance for events that are devastating, either to us or to
someone else. Paying the FBO's deductible isn't an insurance matter;
it's a financing matter. You could borrow the money from your brother,
if need be. But if buying a whole new Cessna would really crimp your
lifestyle, then you should be insured for that. And if buying the gas
jockey a new way of life is beyond your credit card limit, you damned
well should be insured for that.



-- 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

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:41:35 -0400, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

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

And of course the injured party's attorney would add your name to the
list of defendants.


-- 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

Richard Kaplan wrote:

That may be true but it almost always makes sense to have SOME level of
liability insurance. First, that means you are entitled to a legal defense
paid by the insurance company. Second, it creates the likelihood that any
suit will be settled for policy limits.

There is also a third reason. If I crippled somebody and destroyed his
life, I would be very unhappy of course. But if I were not insured and
could not compensate his "inconvenience" at least to some degree, so
that he not only was crippled, but on top of this also financially
ruined, I would sleep pretty bad for the rest of my life. But maybe this
thinking is too European.

Stefan

"OP" wrote:
...
But if you get a prop strike or bend a wing spar and the damages
go upward of $30,000 or $40,000, I think the insurance company
is coming after the renter to recoup as much of their cost as they
can.


On average, these suits are halfway across the country; jurisdiction
is where you live and generally crash. So they have to engage counsel
in your state, and who don't mind charging a big corporation at all.

Your first filing with the court costs little or nothing, a simple
denial of the complaint. It's then the plaintiff who gets to spend
big money first, in a factual investigation to cover all possible
defenses you might raise later. Aviation cases are expensive, because
every little thing has to be explained to a jury, which means also
lining up experts. In auto accidents, they don't have this problem
because jurors drive cars. While they're spending all this money, the
defendant need do little. Say at a nontowered field you run into the
freakiest turbulence and wind shear on short final you've ever
encountered there. They have to prove against this defense. Find
others landing at that time. Experts on pilot proficiency expected
for handling this stuff.

So they know they're not taking a $30K case to trial, where it gets
really expensive. The experts clock in at $5K a day plus first class
airfares. Defendant knows that too. Insurance company must assume
that maximum money for them will be a fraction of $30K in a
settlement. It's very easy for them to wind up with a net loss
through litigation. So again I want to know how even occasional such
suits are.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote settlement. It's very easy for them to
wind up with a net loss
through litigation. So again I want to know how even occasional such

An airplane could easily cause $1M or more in damage or personal injury.
This is rare but not unheard of. The costs you mention would be negligible
vs. such a claim. Even pilots who do not have visible assets will generally
have a visible future income stream that can be attached.

Insurance is not to cover anticipated, common occurrences; it is to cover
the risk of rare but catastrophic losses.

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

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:

An airplane could easily cause $1M or more in damage
or personal injury.

You changed the facts from $30K to $1M and still haven't sold me.
Grieving widows and disfigured plaintiffs can get $1 million PI
judgments OK; much tougher for a big insurance company who has
collected premiums to make the payout to get sympathy from a jury
relative to sympathy for you. Unless you have enough cash or
equivalent they'll take the chance you'll settle w/o going near trial.

Even pilots who do not have visible assets will generally
have a visible future income stream that can be attached.

That's good for small claims court stuff. Look up the law for wage
garnishment in your state, which likely places a low limit on the
amount per pay period. Then look for protections the wage earner has
which can reduce their recovery further, and that amount can be a mere
agreement, not a court order. Change jobs and the litigation starts
all over. Meanwhile, some law firm in your town is freely sending big
legal bills to like Avemco.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message

You changed the facts from $30K to $1M and still haven't sold me.
Grieving widows and disfigured plaintiffs can get $1 million PI
judgments OK; much tougher for a big insurance company who has
collected premiums to make the payout to get sympathy from a jury

Perhaps so. Perhaps not if they can portray you as a "rich pilot" -- that
is the public perception of ALL pilots.

And if the issue is property damage then the dollar amounts are pretty clear
and can easily be $1M.

That's good for small claims court stuff. Look up the law for wage
garnishment in your state, which likely places a low limit on the
amount per pay period. Then look for protections the wage earner has

And it is worth it to have someone go after you in this manner?

This is particularly significant if -- as it not unusual -- a pilot has a
professional job where such a judgment could raise questions in an
employer's mind about the employee's integrity and/or financial solvency.
Credit checks are not unusual as part of pre-employment screening. Even
if someone were hired, I suspect an employee with garnished wages of this
nature might well raise red flags in the mind of supervisors regarding their
fitness for advancement in the company.

** All that aside, if nothing else a judgment is worthwhile for an insurance
company to get to protect themselves against some future windfall you may
receive. Insurance companies can be patient. Many, many people will
eventually receive an inheritance or acquire assets over a period of time.
Do you really want to live your life playing a cat and mouse game avoiding a
financial judgment?


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

www.flyimc.com

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
There is also a third reason. If I crippled somebody and destroyed his
life, I would be very unhappy of course. But if I were not insured and
could not compensate his "inconvenience" at least to some degree, so that
he not only was crippled, but on top of this also financially ruined, I
would sleep pretty bad for the rest of my life. But maybe this thinking is
too European.

Unfortunately, if the injury is to a passenger, then the insurance policies
available in the US (at least the ones I know of, such as what AOPA offers)
only cover up to $100,000 (per passenger). That won't make much of a dent in
the case of a badly disabling injury.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

Unfortunately, if the injury is to a passenger, then the insurance policies
available in the US (at least the ones I know of, such as what AOPA offers)
only cover up to $100,000 (per passenger). That won't make much of a dent in
the case of a badly disabling injury.


Gary,

Policies without the $100K submlimit are not as rare as you seem to
think. My aircraft liablility policy (and every one I've had for the
last 10 yrs) is $1 million with no sublimits. AOPA is not an insurance
agency, they're just a policy writer for a single underwriter. Talk
to a real aviation insurance agent and you'll find that just about
anyone can get a policy with no sublimits. The catch? While they
provide 10 times the potential coverage for a passenger, they do cost
an average of 25% - 30% more than a policy with sublimits.

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