Hull/Liability Insurance Recommendations

I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.



"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Doug wrote:

No harm in getting a quote from Avemco.

If your time isn't worth anything.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

Wouldn't the FBO/Club have liability on the airplane?

Mike
MU-2


"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
Jose,


The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
carry insurance.


I find that position morally reprehensable.

Jose

I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
for them to carry to protect their potential victims?

I have not given the perspective you raise a great deal of thought
and, as I said, I'm interested. For the last several years, I've
looked at insurance issues from the point of view of airplane owners
managing risk in an appropriate manner as it applies tho them and
their families. You raise a point worth exploring as, with
automobiles, most states require drivers to carry some insurance to
provide for their potential victims and automobiles (per accidents per
million miles traveled) have been shown to be significantly safer than
general aviation aircraft.

I'm also concerned with the fact that the cost of flying has always
seemed to increase at a rate much faster than inflation, and mandating
insurance for pilots would spike it once again. It's a heck of an
interesting area for discussion.

All the best,
Rick

The college kids I work with ask about insurance for their flying.
Unless one is a trust fund baby, there is no reason for them to
carry insurance.


I find that position morally reprehensable.

Jose

I'm very interested in your reasoning, and I'd appreciate it if you
would expand on your thoughts. Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance? If so, what would you consider to be adequate insurance
for them to carry to protect their potential victims?


Anybody engaging in an activity which is reasonably capable of causing serious
harm (define this any way you like, but the existance of an insurance market is
indicative) owes it to the public to minimize this potential so much as
possible. This is one of the reasons we attempt to fly safely, especially with
passengers in the plane. Our passengers have entrusted their lives to us, and
it is incumbant upon us to take this trust seriously. The public below us is
entitled to the same level of trust. Flying aerobatics above Manhattan, even
if we are a pretty good pilot, would be an example of not taking this trust
seriously.

Part of this involves mitigating harm should it occur. Insurance money can fix
a broken leg, a busted living room, and pay for other forms of harm that may
come to a victim. True, it can never bring back a loved one, but it is not for
us to decide what would be appropriate for a victim.

College kids and other young pilots probably don't own an airplane. They
probably rent at the FBO or the college flying club. They should carry renters
insurance at the highest limit. It costs several hundred a year - the
equivalent of four or five hours of flying. Fotr those that do own an
airplane, insurance is just part of the cost of flying, and protecting the
nonflying public from some of the effects of the harm that might come their
way, should the worst happen.

To think of insurance as just a way to protect your own assets, victims be
damned, is very bad karma.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Wouldn't the FBO/Club have liability on the airplane?

Maybe. The renter doesn't typically have access to that policy and can't be
sure it's in force. Also, it might not cover pilot-induced accidents (but only
maintanance-induced ones. I don't know, and unless the renter calls the broker
each flight, the renter doesn't know either. The FBO is protecting themselves,
not the renter or the victims.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net...
I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial


It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
interest.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

Bill Hale

"Bill Hale" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to
be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to
trial


It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is
to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth
their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your
best
interest.

Don't kid yourself, the insurance company is going to defend their interest.
They could care less about your assets.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

Bill Hale

Very, very few college kids and other
young pilots can afford insurance of any sort. Is it your position
that they should be prohibited from flying unless they carry
insurance?

I don't know about the person to whom you directed this post, but that
would be my position, yes.

I pay $600 a year for insurance. That is my obligation to society. If
I break somebody, I should pay for it, even if I'm not around to write
the check.

If you can afford to fly, you can afford to insure. If you can't
afford to insure, you shouldn't fly.

On the road, sensible people are protected from idiots who drive
without insurance (at least in my state, where the policy carries an
"uninsured dirver" clause). Unfortunately there is no protection
against idiots who fly without insurance.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:16:03 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

The jury doesn't care about the insurance company but is
likely to be sympathetic to the pilots widow and children.

Well, at least in my state, the jury CAN'T know about the insurance
comany. They can guess (we had a pretty good idea, the time the woman
is suing her boyfriend and now husband who was driving the car, and he
didn't say a peep in his own defense but if anyone mentions
insurance, the judge is very unhappy, with the possibility of a
mistrial or sanctions.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
the blog www.danford.net

Bill Hale wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net...

I assume that they all start by suing the pilot's estate. That hast to be
the starting point to find the pilot liable. If it actually goes to trial



It always seemed to me that the reason you purchase liability insurance is to
have some skin in the game other than yours.

You not only get the coverage but help on the defense.

So how much you buy is mostly a function of how aggressive you want your
defense to be.

If the ins co has $100k in the game, they pay up and leave you to swing.
For a million dollars, they have a lot more interest. It becomes worth their
time and effort to defend the two of you. That's significantly in your best
interest.

Buying $1m smooth may make you a target... but not a nice one.

Maybe one of you net gurus can find the fault in this logic.

I don't think there is any logic at all when it comes to our tort system...

Matt

Dude wrote:

I don't know, they were lower than AOPA when I called.

That's the first time I've heard anyone say that. In that case, I withdraw my remark,
but I will state that my experience with AVEMCO has been that they are very high. The
last quote I got from them was over double what I am currently paying.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.