Renter Insurance

Take a look at the coverages, too. For me, I will liekly go with AVEMCO
when it is my time for insurance because my flying club uses them AND
they automatically include CAP operations, which AOPA (AIG) doesn't.
Since I have plans to fly with CAP later on, that makes sense for me.

I would *NEVER, EVER* fly without insurance. There is waaaayyyy too
much at risk. You think auto insurance companies can go nuts, the
aviation insurance companies have a lot mmore risk and financial burden
when there is an incident or accident (NTSB definitions). I also can't
afford to lose my house and all of my other assets because I couldn't
spend a few hundred dollars a years on a plane.

That being said, I fly with a local flying club (an option I would
suggest looking into) because it's less expensive than an FBO and their
insurance covers me to fly there planes. I was very careful to check
out the insurance issues before I joined.

Chris


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

I am limited to sport planes, and have not seen any clubs yet with them.
Flight School I was flying with here at home I was covered under their
policy, just 1000 deductible for myself. But I can't solo any of their
planes If I were a rich fellow I may even think about making my own sport
flying club!!

Patrick

That being said, I fly with a local flying club (an option I would suggest
looking into) because it's less expensive than an FBO and their insurance
covers me to fly there planes. I was very careful to check out the
insurance issues before I joined.

Chris

"TaxSrv" wrote in message

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?

A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.

Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to 3rd party
person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.

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

www.flyimc.com

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

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.

If you have no resources, then you can safely go without insurance--if
the FBO will permit. (Mine won't.) The same is true of course of
medical and automobile insurance, which is why a lot of states have
mandatory insurance, thus doubling the cost for everyone.

Then the question arises as to whether your integrity is so low that
you would put other people in hazard of catastrophic loss because you
fly or drive uninsured.

It's feasiable, but it ain't admirable.



-- 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 Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:52:18 -0400, "TaxSrv"
wrote:

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?

There's no ill will. Every pilot knows the score, and a reasonable
pilot would cheer the insurance company on, knowing that the less
money it loses in such cases, the cheaper insurance will be for the
rest of us.

It's purely a business decision. They might be content with wrecking
your credit rating.


-- 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:
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.

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.

Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to
3rd party
person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.


So, make it $100,000. Or $6 million -- taxi accident on the ramp and
ensuing fire consumes a bizjet. For someone without big money in the
bank, and any significant amount of judgment, he'll just declare
bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.
Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.

Fred F.

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.

- 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.

Good luck. Once again it's your money and your risk, but in this litigious
society, you would have to be absolutely crazy to fly a rented plane without
your own renters insurance. Didn't the senate just pass a new bill to
prevent people declaring bancrupcy to avoid paying their obligations?

- Barney
"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
A pilot can do lots more than $5K damage to an airframe.

Then if you consider potential 3rd party liability, i.e. damage to
3rd party
person or property, the exposure is dramatically higher.


So, make it $100,000. Or $6 million -- taxi accident on the ramp and
ensuing fire consumes a bizjet. For someone without big money in the
bank, and any significant amount of judgment, he'll just declare
bankruptcy. He gets to keep his house, its contents, and his car.
Nothing for the plaintiff but more wasted legal bills to pay.

Fred F.

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.


I dinged a C-210 back in the early 1980s and was told at the time that I should
expect to hear from the FBO's insurance company as they would try to subrogate
their money out of me. Back in those days I didn't have a pot to **** in. I
owned no real estate and I drove a 1969 Fury I.

As it turned out, nothing happened on any front. No FAA ding, no insurance
problems. They apparently decided to cut their losses as I had nothing they
wanted. What they did want I didn't have. So sad, too bad.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE