Renter's Insurance?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
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.


Also a major factor in selecting an FBO. Just because one appears to have
cheaper for rental rates, it may actually cost more depending on the
insurance coverage they provide.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:57:26 -0500, Peter R. wrote:

Yeah, I am one of the many casualties of the war that has been going on
inside this group for the last year or so.

The war has pretty much faded away, you've got a steady green light to come
back. :-)


Really? I didn't realize. First, congratulations to you on your new
certificate. When did you get it?

Thanks, I'm not even a week old yet... it's just starting to sink in.
And.. I don't know what to do with all this new found free time.

Secondly, if you ever purchase your own airplane promise me you won't turn
that appreciation into loathing.

Don't worry about that, the wife gave me two choices:

1) Stay married
2) Buy an airplane

Pick one.

(I'll miss her. :-)

--
Dallas

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:02:40 -0800 (PST), xyzzy wrote:

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

That statement could save me $300 - $600 annually.

I'd love to see some official numbers, if they existed. I'm guessing
there's no place to get data like that.

--
Dallas

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:37:44 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

That was the end of that. I guess they weren't interested in my '69 Fury I.

So sad, too bad... for them. I got away with that when I was young. Today I
wouldn't take the chance... too much to lose now.

Yeah, that '69 Fury's got to be worth a lot more now.

:-)

--
Dallas

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:37:49 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It would somewhat concern me that you ae taking advice from someone that
doesn't understand the difference in what is covered by liability and hull
coverage.

That's why I come here.

:-)

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:37:44 -0500, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

That was the end of that. I guess they weren't interested in my '69 Fury I.

So sad, too bad... for them. I got away with that when I was young. Today I
wouldn't take the chance... too much to lose now.

Yeah, that '69 Fury's got to be worth a lot more now.



I have my doubts. I, on the other hand....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Dallas wrote in news:1mlyeehb35czz
:

Don't worry about that, the wife gave me two choices:

1) Stay married
2) Buy an airplane

Divorce is cheaper than flying...

It's hard to say which is a better value, though.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...


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

Someone I know fell asleep while smoking. The ensuing fire caused $70,000 in
damage. He was sued by the insurance company for the damage. When he
declared bankruptcy, he simply added that to his list of debts.

"Peter R." wrote in
:

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.

I have also heard of FBOs that have a no-subrogation clause. But even in
that case you would probably want your own coverage in case you were named
in a suit. As pilot, you would surely be blamed...

"Peter R." wrote in
news
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.


And if the insurance company decides to come after you as pilot after thay
pay the leaseback owner for the damage to the plane, where does that get you?