Renter's Insurance?

On Dec 5, 9:10 am, "Peter R." wrote:
On 12/5/2007 11:53:39 AM, Dallas wrote:

Do you renters feel the need to pick up supplemental insurance? If so who
did you use and how much did it cost you?

Your buddy is correct. The FBO's insurance protects the FBO and the aircraft.
You need to protect yourself. When I rented I paid about $300 per year for a
renter's insurance policy from USAIG.

Or your buddy is right depending on the FBO. Several of the FBO's
around here have all pilots an open named so the insurance company is
obligated to defend them against any legal action.

-Robert

On Dec 5, 1:35 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Dallas wrote:
A pilot buddy who works for a law firm has rattled my cage over
renter's insurance and liability.

Do you renters feel the need to pick up supplemental insurance? If
so who did you use and how much did it cost you?

Here's his comments:

You should talk to me about FBO insurance too. Unless your FBO is
different than every other FBO I've ever been into, their insurance
provides them (and/or the aircraft owner if it is leased to the FBO)
with hull coverage and liability insurance. In the event of damage
to the aircraft, of harm to a person (but maybe not you), the
insurance will pay to repair the aircraft and defend and pay and
lawsuits that arise out of the event. However, when all is said and
done, to the extent that the incident is your fault (most are), the
insurance company will have the right to sue you to recover all the
amounts they paid to 'clean up your mess'. If you are renting from
an FBO, getting a renter's policy (sometimes called a non-owned
aircraft policy) is a good idea. I've never figured out how the
'hull' portion of those polcies work - if you were flying a $100K
aircraft, you wouldn't want to have to maintain $100K of hull
coverage on top of the liability coverage.

Is everything above after "Here's his comments:" really a lawyers comments?
If so he really needs to go do some remedial work on insurance law. Because
the last part about hull versus liability shows a significant cluelessness.

The liability covers the insured against damage done to OTHER's person or
property. The hull coverage covers the insured aircraft.

That said, if you need renter's insurance depends on two things. The policy
that to FBO has and your personal net worth. There are policies out there
that cover renters with no or limited right to subrogation. If your FBO has
one of those you don't need renter's insurance. Also, if you don't have
enough assets you don't need to worry about it either.

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never. I know
an insurance broker who's been in the business for decades who tells
me he's never seen it happen, and it actually kind of annoys him
because he has seen some cases that really cried out for subrogation
(particularly stupid people with money being really negligent and
causing his clients' insurace to pay out large sums). They have the
right but don't for whatever reason don't exercise it.

Last time this topic came up I asked if anyone could name any case
that they knew of where subrogation actually occurred, and the answer
was crickets.

That said, I belong to a club where I am a named insured so it's
academic to me. If not for that, I might take the plunge into renters
insurance anyway, seems cheap compared to what's at stake.

On 12/5/2007 3:56:26 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Or your buddy is right depending on the FBO. Several of the FBO's
around here have all pilots an open named so the insurance company is
obligated to defend them against any legal action.

So, are you saying that the FBO's insurance policy in these cases will
protect the pilot or pilot's estate from a $1 mil lawsuit brought against him
by the families of the children on that school bus who were killed when the
aircraft struck the bus? (for some reason this was always the example given
to me by my mentor instructor)

--
Peter

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

A pilot buddy who works for a law firm has rattled my cage over renter's
insurance and liability.
....you wouldn't want to have to maintain $100K of
hull coverage on top of the liability coverage.

I won't fly without renter's insurance. Furthermore, my FBO has a nice long
line of tempting newish G1000 $250,000 172's just waiting to be flown. I won't
touch any of them. You can't buy $250,000 of renter's hull insurance, and you
wouldn't want to pay for it if you could.

I only fly cheap airplanes.

Vaughn

xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation.

Are you talking aviation related insurance only? Because if not I've got two
work comp subrogation cases working right this second.

On 12/5/2007 5:31:03 PM, "Vaughn Simon" wrote:

I won't
touch any of them. You can't buy $250,000 of renter's hull insurance, and
you wouldn't want to pay for it if you could.

I would bet a paycheck that those airplanes are fully covered by the aircraft
owner's and/or FBO's insurance should a renter accident occur. Had you used
the excuse that you were avoiding those airplanes for the hourly rental fee,
that would be a more reasonable objection.

--
Peter

On Dec 5, 1:09 pm, "Peter R." wrote:
On 12/5/2007 3:56:26 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Or your buddy is right depending on the FBO. Several of the FBO's
around here have all pilots an open named so the insurance company is
obligated to defend them against any legal action.

So, are you saying that the FBO's insurance policy in these cases will
protect the pilot or pilot's estate from a $1 mil lawsuit brought against him
by the families of the children on that school bus who were killed when the
aircraft struck the bus? (for some reason this was always the example given
to me by my mentor instructor)

Yes.

On 12/5/2007 5:50:21 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

On Dec 5, 1:09 pm, "Peter R." wrote:
On 12/5/2007 3:56:26 PM, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Or your buddy is right depending on the FBO. Several of the FBO's
around here have all pilots an open named so the insurance company is
obligated to defend them against any legal action.

So, are you saying that the FBO's insurance policy in these cases will
protect the pilot or pilot's estate from a $1 mil lawsuit brought against him
by the families of the children on that school bus who were killed when the
aircraft struck the bus? (for some reason this was always the example given
to me by my mentor instructor)

Yes.

Impressive. Those are some caring FBOs.

The ones around these parts only protect themselves and the aircraft
leaseback owners.

--
Peter

On Dec 5, 3:05 pm, "Peter R." wrote:

Yes.

Impressive. Those are some caring FBOs.

The ones around these parts only protect themselves and the aircraft
leaseback owners.

Probably the difference between the come-lately FBO vs. the guys who
have build business from father to son.


-Robert

xyzzy wrote:

Technically it's true but as a practical matter insurers almost never
exercise their right of subrogation. I might even say never. I know
an insurance broker who's been in the business for decades who tells
me he's never seen it happen, and it actually kind of annoys him
because he has seen some cases that really cried out for subrogation
(particularly stupid people with money being really negligent and
causing his clients' insurace to pay out large sums). They have the
right but don't for whatever reason don't exercise it.


It is rare, but it happens. A friend owns an FBO and his insurance company
has gone after renter pilots twice in the past 20 yrs. or so. In both
cases, the accidents were caused by obvious pilot stupidity, and the pilots
also had attractive assets. Seems that the renter has to pass both tests
before an insurance company will bother exercising their subrogation rights.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com