More on High Performance Insurance

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:41:37 GMT, "Matthew Waugh"
wrote:


He/She said that decreasing
the hull value is a way of raising the deductible. So in your example, by
cutting the hull value in half on a $300,000 plane they had decided on a
$150,000 deductible. So in the pay-off you describe they got what they paid
for, a $150,000 deductible and a $150,000 payout. You may not think that's a
good idea, but to each their own set of choices.

That means you are paying too much for insurance. If I bought a
$150,000 policy with $150,000 deductible, I would expect to pay a lot
less than a $150,000 policy with no deductible.

One fundamental of insurance, is you should insure for what you cannot
afford to replace. For example, WalMart does not carry fire insurance
on their stores. It is less expensive for them to rebuild the
occasional store that burns down than to insure. This should not seem
surprising, as insurance companies have overhead and profit added to
the insurance premium.

In that vein, I have a $10,000 deductible. The above reason, combined
with the fact that insurance companies tend to just raise your rate to
cover small claims, led me to this decision. (I have considered not
carrying hull insurance, but decided against it due to I really can't
afford to go out and just replace the whole plane without some
difficulty).

So now for the question. Am I in danger of suffering the consequences
of being "underinsured"? I have the aircraft insured for slightly more
than I could go out and buy one in TAP for. But I have a 10k
deductible. So I am not underinsured in terms of picking a too small
hull value. Can this high deductible somehow work against me?

"ArtP" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:57 -0700, "Tom" wrote:

.
Insurance actuaries do not base their rates on "lately".

They doubled in one year because there were a lot of accidents
"lately". When you have a new model plane, "lately" is all there is.


Correct: I should have said "reduce", not "base". Once a pattern is in, I'd
say it's going to take a long time for it to be reversed. OTOH, a series of
crashes, a new model or not, is likely to kick the rate up into the attic.

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:41:57 -0700, "Tom" wrote:


"ArtP" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:55:13 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


While this is considerably better than the "$15K per year" I was told
earlier, it's still an astounding amount to pay for insurance, IMHO.
And
it
sounds like Cirrus owners will be looking at some pretty big
increases.

Actually there have not been any crashes lately and some people are
reporting that their rates have gone down. I have 400 hours and I am
paying $6,000 per year.


That is about what you could expect in a really high performance home
built/retract. (when you could find insurrance and have over 600
retract time)

Roger, would you please exercise some caution in snipping previous
statements? The part you left in was "ArtP", not me. I want nothing to do
with a Cirrus.

Tom
---
F33A @ 00V

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:33:18 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:



Roger, would you please exercise some caution in snipping previous
statements? The part you left in was "ArtP", not me. I want nothing to do
with a Cirrus.

Me neither, but when I snip I leave the top sig which should be the
last person to post. Sorry.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

Tom
---
F33A @ 00V

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:33:18 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:



Roger, would you please exercise some caution in snipping previous
statements? The part you left in was "ArtP", not me. I want nothing to do
with a Cirrus.

Me neither, but when I snip I leave the top sig which should be the
last person to post. Sorry.


For your pennance...three Our Father's and three Hail Mary's! :~)


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

Tom
---
F33A @ 00V