Renter's Insurance?

How many of you guys carry renter's insurance? I never have in the past but I'm
older and wiser now and have been thinking about it. Specifically, that offered
through AOPA.

How much hull insurance is necessary? I'm pretty sure the FBO insures their
aircraft but surely there's a deductible I need to consider.

Your thoughts?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

You need to talk to the FBO and do a risk analysis of how much risk you
want to take vs. how much you are willing to pay for insurance. You
can't deligate all risks in life to insurance co's, you just need to
decide how much risk you are willing to take vs. how much you are
willing to pay to deligate. If the FBO is a business their insurance
may or may not cover you, the renter, for liability (in my experience
most policies do). If the FBO is a club it almost certainly will cover
you for liability. There are a lot of trolls in this news group that
believe you should continue to buy insurance until you run out of
money. Please don't listen to them and do your own risk analysis.
-Robert

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:51:32 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
wrote in
: :


Your thoughts?

The Non-owners Policy should probably cover the FBO's deductible
amount, and loss of service as a minimum. There is also the issue of
subrogation to address.

Mortimer,

Renter's insurance is not terribly expensive. Make sure you get enough
hull insurance to cover the value of the airplane you fly, not just the
FBO's deductible. Check with your FBO, because the odds are that you
are NOT covered under its insurance, so if you prang and it's your
fault, the FBO's insurance will pay the FBO, then come after you.

Interestingly, the hull portion of insurance is pretty cheap, however,
they package it with liability coverage, which is more expensive. I
carry a policy that covers the value of aircraft I rent and I just got
a policy for my daughter as she recently soloed. Cost wasn't bad and
it gives a lot of piece of mind. I've seen too many folks suddenly
facing a $50,000 bill from an insurance company after they lost it in a
crosswind and tore up an airplane. Being able to hand it over to your
insurance company to handle is a heck of a lot better than trying to
set up a payment program or processing through bankruptcy.

All the best,
Rick

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
How many of you guys carry renter's insurance? I never have in the past but I'm
older and wiser now and have been thinking about it. Specifically, that offered
through AOPA.

How much hull insurance is necessary? I'm pretty sure the FBO insures their
aircraft but surely there's a deductible I need to consider.

Your thoughts?




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

I carry renters insurance. It's not expensive, and covers me when I
(gasp) rent an airplane. I also belong to a club, but when I'm away,
I'll rent from an FBO. The club insurance covers me as a named pilot on
their policy, but I don't have control of their policy, and one "oops"
can leave me uncovered.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Larry Dighera wrote:
The Non-owners Policy should probably cover the FBO's deductible
amount, and loss of service as a minimum. There is also the issue of
subrogation to address.


The base policy (with AOPA's company) covers damage to others and property but
not the aircraft itself. Depending on how much hull insurance I add, the
premium goes up *very* rapidly and significantly. That's why I thought to only
cover the FBO's deductible.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

I carry $50,000 hull damage coverage plus the $1,000,000 liability with
Avemco. I hate writing the check every year, but I would not fly without
it. I've also noticed FBOs react nicer to renters who show up with
insurance. I don't think it's because they are worried about getting their
money back in case of an accident, but maybe it shows a sense of
resposibliity.

On a side note, a friend of mine who is partners in a 172 discovered during
his insurance renewal that he was not covered for flying a non-owned
aircraft. Apparently the insurance covered the main insured party, which is
a corporation that owns the plane, for flying non-owned planes and he and
his son and partner, as named insured to fly their plane, were not covered
for flying non-owned planes.. Not sure if I'm getting the insurance terms
correct. So the few times he rented on vacation, and the four years his son
rented at college, they were not covered.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

The base policy (with AOPA's company) covers damage to others and property but
not the aircraft itself. Depending on how much hull insurance I add, the
premium goes up *very* rapidly and significantly. That's why I thought to only
cover the FBO's deductible.


It may be expensive, just realize that you could be on the hook for
whole hull value if you were to blame for the damage. The way it
(normally) works is that the FBO's insurance covers the FBO. They will
pay the FBO for the loss of the hull, minus the deductible. The
insurance company can then go after you to recover their loss
(subrogation that Larry mentioned). That's why renters' insurance
exists. It protects you, the renter, from having to cough up for the
hull.

From a marketing standpoint, I think the insurance companies'
motivations to offer renters' insurance was a stroke of genius.
Liability and hull for renters costs nearly as much as if you owned.
In the old days before renters insurance, the companies could only make
money from one policy on each aircraft. Now you have what amounts to
multiple people, paying multiple premiums to insure the same aircraft
for the same risk.

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

From a marketing standpoint, I think the insurance companies'
motivations to offer renters' insurance was a stroke of genius.
Liability and hull for renters costs nearly as much as if you owned.
In the old days before renters insurance, the companies could only make
money from one policy on each aircraft. Now you have what amounts to
multiple people, paying multiple premiums to insure the same aircraft
for the same risk.

To be fair to the companies, the risk (for any given aircraft) goes up
(or at least is less controlled) if there are multiple pilots flying it.
If I own a plane and fly it myself, I can get one rate based on my
experience. But if I let all comers fly it, then the special deal I got
because of my incredibly perfect flying ability shouldn't be expected to
hold. I have no control over what the next dolt will do to my plane,
and neither does the insurance company.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Jose posted:

To be fair to the companies, the risk (for any given aircraft) goes up
(or at least is less controlled) if there are multiple pilots flying
it. If I own a plane and fly it myself, I can get one rate based on
my experience. But if I let all comers fly it, then the special deal
I got because of my incredibly perfect flying ability shouldn't be
expected to hold. I have no control over what the next dolt will do
to my plane, and neither does the insurance company.

Yes, but the insurance company has only one aircraft to repair or replace,
regardless of how many people are flying it. Their total hull loss costs
are fixed. Unlike the income from renter pilots who buy insurance, their
liability doesn't increase in a multiplicative relationship. For example,
if 100 renters' premiums were $1k/year for a $100k hull coverage, there is
no risk. 110 renters' premiums = $10k pure profit, and *each year* that
the plane isn't totalled, the whole amount is pure profit (the numbers
used are just for convenient math).

Neil