FBO Insurance requirement for tie-downs

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Despite what others have posted, this is a very common requirement and
insurance companies always grant it. It is not, however, in your best
interest, since it dilutes your insurance coverage.

My concern is the FBO could make a claim without anything actually
happening. I.E. blame me for something I didn't do.

That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

- CK

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

If they got every aircraft on the ramp to do this then they would be
completely insured without paying a dime. They also do not have any
responsibility. Their accidents count against your insurance record, not
theirs.

On 14 May 2004 08:00:40 -0700, (Chris) wrote:

That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance, because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

- CK

If they do this thry may not need insurance. There is something
called Hangar Keepers Insurance which airports/FBOs have to protect
themselves. It has gotten pretty expensive (like all insurance), so
if they can ride your coat tails they may be able to drop it. Might
be interesting to ask if they have Hangar Keepers, it may add a piece
to the puzzle.

z

Chris wrote:
: "All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
: additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
: "Best" rating of A or better....."

This is pretty mild. At the happy little airport that I'm based at the
rule was changed so that (1) The FBO, (2) The town, (3) The airport
comission, (4) the airport comissioners by name, (5) the selectmen by name
were to be listed as "additional insured". I (and some others) balked, and
the rule was withdrawn, after a very acrimonious debate.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:rVUoc.18179$k24.6372@fed1read01...


You replaced their tie down chain with a rope..

Boy, what a bad example. Anybody who ties their plane down with a chain
deserves to get sued.



agreed.. but that is what the county provides..

BT

you guys got this all backwards... they are not covered by just your
policy...

if there is an accident / incident in which YOUR AIRCRAFT is not involved..
THEY are not covered...

it is only when YOUR AIRCRAFT is involved.. and they are "named" in a claim
against YOU because THEY ALLOWED you to park there.

BT

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
om...
That is the least of your concerns. Here is what happens:

You think you have $1 million liability insurance. Now that the FBO is
a
named insured, you really only have $500,000 liability insurance,
because in
the event of an accident the FBO is entitled to coverage under your
policy.
Basically, you are paying for the FBO's liability insurance.

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice. I don't understand why they would
not rely on their insurance company to sue me/my insurance if an issue
ever arose. My guess is they are saving lots of money on premiums by
doing this with every aircraft on the ramp.

If they got every aircraft on the ramp to do this then they would be
completely insured without paying a dime. They also do not have any
responsibility. Their accidents count against your insurance record, not
theirs.

Aaron Coolidge wrote in message ...
This is pretty mild. At the happy little airport that I'm based at the
rule was changed so that (1) The FBO, (2) The town, (3) The airport
comission, (4) the airport comissioners by name, (5) the selectmen by name
were to be listed as "additional insured". I (and some others) balked, and
the rule was withdrawn, after a very acrimonious debate.

This is at a private airport and I believe the policy has been in
existence for well over a year. While I can't say everyone has
complied without asking each and every aircraft owner I believe they
have.

- CK

Now that sounds more in line with what I was thinking. It certainly
gives me second thoughts. The issue is this airport is only 5 minutes
from my house which would be nice.

So be a responsible owner, always tie/chock your a/c down so it
doesn't blow into someones million $ plane, and enjoy the fact you're
five minutes away! The gas savings alone makes this a no-brainer; I'm
35 mins away and I know there are lots here who are way more than
that.

Greg

Not true. We do it all the time.

Jon Howard
Aviation Insurance Underwriter

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Run it by your insurance company, many will laugh at you. No way in hell
will they name an FBO on your policy.



"Chris" wrote in message
om...
A local FBO has the following requirement in its contract to rent
tie-down space. I would like to solicit opinions on who thinks this is
a reasonable request and why? My take is the FBO should have its own
insurance and not rely on mine for anything.

Besides the general requirement of proving you have insurance on the
aircraft the following is also listed:

"All such insurance shall name the Landlord (FBO Name) as an
additional insured, and shall be written by insurance companies have a
"Best" rating of A or better....."

I understand why the bank needs to be on the insurance paperwork but
why this?

Thanks,
CK