Insurance Renewal

[Ron McBride]

Global Aerospace Vs USAIG Insurance.    Any thoughts, comments or experience with either Company.  I currently have Global Aerospace but never and claims in over 44 years of flying.

Here are my Quotes:

 

1969 Mooney M20F N803RM - Offered through Global Aerospace, Inc. (current carrier)

 Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability at $ 1,000,000 per occurrence, limited to $100,000 per passenger

 Ground and Flight Hull at $90,000 with deductibles of $0 not-in-motion / $0 in-motion / 5% Hurricane

 Medical payments of $10,000 each seat including crew

 Additional Insured: Mariposa County

 Lienholder: NONE

 TOTAL ANNUAL PREMIUM: $980 (same as last year)

 Alternate Liability at $1,000,000 Single Limit: $1711

NAMED PILOTS: Ronald A. McBride

OPEN PILOT WARRANTY: Private License / Instrument / 500 TT / 50 RG / 25 MM

OR

 ALTERNATE QUOTE - Offered through USAIG:

 Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability at $ 1,000,000 per occurrence, limited to $100,000 per passenger

 Ground and Flight Hull at $90,000 with deductibles of $0 not-in-motion / $0 in-motion

 Medical payments of $10,000 each seat including crew

 Additional Insured: Mariposa County

 Lienholder: NONE

 TOTAL ANNUAL PREMIUM: $1188

 Alternate Liability at $1,000,000 Single Limit: $1515

NAMED PILOTS: Ronald A. McBride

OPEN PILOT WARRANTY: Private License / Instrument / 500 TT / 50 RG / 25 MM

[kortopates]

Hi personally don't think you can do better than USAIG as a underwriter. They provide excellent coverage and their coverage territory is the best in that it includes Central America and Caribbean. But I just got my renewal and they are now excluding Cuba - I flew there this last January and was covered by them so I was surprised to see that.

Also USAIG gives smooth limits at 1mil, and perhaps 2 mil. I personally don't consider 100K per person adequate and I can see USAIG has the best deal for you at $1515 for 1 mil smooth - that would be my choice.

[DonMuncy]

I didn't compare every line, but it seems to me like identical coverage for a few hundred less. I had USAIG for several years, but they raised their rates for this coming year. I would go with global unless you have some reason I don't see.

[RobertGary1]

I switch everytime my agent says I can save a few bucks. Never noticed much difference between companies the couple times I had claims. I don't think my broker would offer a quote from a company that didn't handle claims well. 

I've heard that once you get old there are reasons to  not switch underwriters but otherwise I don't think it matters  

-Robert

[kortopates]

6 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I switch everytime my agent says I can save a few bucks. Never noticed much difference between companies the couple times I had claims. I don't think my broker would offer a quote from a company that didn't handle claims well. 

I've heard that once you get old there are reasons to  not switch underwriters but otherwise I don't think it matters  

-Robert

Exactly what I have heard as well - that underwriters have an age limit that they will no longer accept new policies for. But it varies with the underwriter but this suggest before you get to that age you want to end up with someone that meets all your needs, like smooth liability limits, territorial limits, etc. or you'll find yourself with no other options.

[peevee]

curious who you got the quotes through? AOPA quotes USAIG but I hadn't heard of the other one

[RobertGary1]

Global Aerospace was who I switched to last year. Broker says they're trying to increase their portfolio of high time pilots and offering good deals. 

-Robert

[KLRDMD]

Definitely 1MM smooth

[ArtVandelay]

2 hours ago, peevee said:

curious who you got the quotes through? AOPA quotes USAIG but I hadn't heard of the other one

AOPA switch me to global last year from AIG

[jdrake]

I've been USAIG for several years and have no experience with global.  In my opinion, the true test of an insurance company is how they handle claims.  In 30 years of flying I've had just one claim.  In 2014 a shop left a tool inside the engine cowl.  When it slid out, it was struck by the prop and caused some damage to the prop, cowl, landing light and gear door.  After changing pants, I called my agent who initiated a claim.  Moments later the assigned adjuster from USAIG called.  I advised that I turned over the keys to my local MSC and they were in the process of developing an estimate.  He was familiar with the shop and in the end USAIG wrote a check for the entire event.  It couldn't have been simpler.  They seemed genuinely concerned about my wellbeing and that of my plane.  There was no haggling or nickel and diming.  As I wasn't at fault, there was no increase in premium.  Candidly, if my premium does go up due to market conditions and there are more competitive offers on the table, I'd probably stay with USAIG based on this experience.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, jdrake said:

I've been USAIG for several years and have no experience with global.  In my opinion, the true test of an insurance company is how they handle claims.  In 30 years of flying I've had just one claim.  In 2014 a shop left a tool inside the engine cowl.  When it slid out, it was struck by the prop and caused some damage to the prop, cowl, landing light and gear door.  After changing pants, I called my agent who initiated a claim.  Moments later the assigned adjuster from USAIG called.  I advised that I turned over the keys to my local MSC and they were in the process of developing an estimate.  He was familiar with the shop and in the end USAIG wrote a check for the entire event.  It couldn't have been simpler.  They seemed genuinely concerned about my wellbeing and that of my plane.  There was no haggling or nickel and diming.  As I wasn't at fault, there was no increase in premium.  Candidly, if my premium does go up due to market conditions and there are more competitive offers on the table, I'd probably stay with USAIG based on this experience.

I also had a good experience with a claim with USAIG. However, once Global Aerospace jumped into the high time pilot market I switched. The difference in premium was almost 50% for the same coverage for a company with a similarly good reputation. A few bucks; I may have felt otherwise.

-Robert

[SpeedyJoe]

Curious: In the context of insurances - what is considered a high time pilot? And is that TT or time in make and model?

Thanks

Johannes 

[Marauder]

Curious: In the context of insurances - what is considered a high time pilot? And is that TT or time in make and model?
Thanks
Johannes 

I'm sure there are tables they use to determine the rates. I also believe TT in make and model has an influence on the rate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[thinwing]

>1000 hrs TT,500 hrs in type ( not make and model)

[Browncbr1]

global was by far less expensive for me also, albeit there is a small deductible.  But even with a deductible, the total was several hundred less for me.  So I switched from Star to Global this year.  

[NotarPilot]

I like the idea of smooth coverage but do you guys think you really need smooth coverage if say 90% of your flying is solo, 8% with family and maybe 2% with friends? Such as in my case.

Smooth coverage is basically a good idea in case you get sued by pax or their medical expenses exceed $100k, right? 

[kortopates]

12 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

I like the idea of smooth coverage but do you guys think you really need smooth coverage if say 90% of your flying is solo, 8% with family and maybe 2% with friends? Such as in my case.

Smooth coverage is basically a good idea in case you get sued by pax or their medical expenses exceed $100k, right? 

Excellent question, I am by no means an insurance professional but its been my understanding the sub-limits apply to all third party bodily injury damages as well as each passenger - meaning it applies to people in another plane or people on the ground. This leaves you with only 10% sublimit coverage for each person that may make bodily injury claims which is nothing in todays litigious environment; especially if more than one person has severe injuries. Here is the best definition I could find

smooth limits, aircraft

Some aircraft insurance policies contain a smooth limit, which is a combined single limit that applies to all bodily injury and property damage that arises out of a single occurrence. A smooth limit offers flexibility as it applies to any combination of third-party bodily injury, bodily injury to passengers, or property damage.

Also see the following article at the end under Liability which shares my notion that there is a huge difference: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_54_how_much_insurance_do_you_need_197082-1.html 

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Excellent question, I am by no means an insurance professional but its been my understanding the sub-limits apply to all third party bodily injury damages as well as each passenger - meaning it applies to people in another plane or people on the ground. This leaves you with only 10% sublimit coverage for each person that may make bodily injury claims which is nothing in todays litigious environment; especially if more than one person has severe injuries.

I'm pretty sure that is not true. The sub limits only apply to passengers. Those on the ground or in other planes would be liabilities that can share the full limit. I didn't see anything in the link that contradicts that. Also, I believe Avemco has additional famility limits, or at least at one point they did. They told me they assumed family wouldn't need full sub limits. 

 

-Robert

[kortopates]

38 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I'm pretty sure that is not true. The sub limits only apply to passengers. Those on the ground or in other planes would be liabilities that can share the full limit. I didn't see anything in the link that contradicts that. Also, I believe Avemco has additional famility limits, or at least at one point they did. They told me they assumed family wouldn't need full sub limits. 

 

-Robert

Indeed you are right, I did some more digging and found this at http://avioninsurance.com/faq/ which shows third party liability is covered under the full limit rather than sub-limits:

What is the difference between a Smooth Liability Limit and a Sub-limit?
Sub-Limit
The most common liability limit for Pleasure & Business aircraft in today’s aviation insurance market is a liability limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence limiting each passenger to a maximum of just $100,000. This limit allows for Property Damage claims or Bodily Injury claims to non-passengers (People on the ground or in other aircraft) of up to $1,000,000 limit, however your passengers in your aircraft are limited to just $100,000 per passenger. This is called a “Sub-Limit” policy. This liability limit is less expensive than a ‘Smooth’ limit for the obvious reason that the insurance company’s liability exposure is significantly reduced.
Smooth
A “Smooth” Liability limit is $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit ‘CSL’ per occurrence including passengers. This limit allows for Property Damage claims or Bodily Injury claims to Passengers or Non-Passengers of up to $1,000,000. The ‘Smooth’ limit does not limit your passenger liability to any lower sub-limit. This option is more expensive than the sub-limited liability option, however, is greater protection and always recommended, if available, for aircraft owners who carry passengers.

I also saw Avemco mention its covers liability between other insured like plane partners, flying club members and any family members as you mention but I couldn't tell if sub-limits applied. 

So it appears to boil down to passengers that are only covered by up to the 10% sub-limit. But it only takes one critically injured pax to possibly easily go over the 100K.

Edited January 11, 2017 by kortopates

[RobertGary1]

Are you referring to partners liability by being partners or a liability claim if they are injured? Partners are typically each individually named insured. At least when I've had partnerships. So the insurance co is committed to defending each and everyone. Now a big club may have subjugation clauses for members that are not individually named. I know that's the norm for FBO rentals.  

-Robert

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Are you referring to partners liability by being partners or a liability claim if they are injured? Partners are typically each individually named insured. At least when I've had partnerships. So the insurance co is committed to defending each and everyone. Now a big club may have subjugation clauses for members that are not individually named. I know that's the norm for FBO rentals.  

-Robert

I was referring to this faq Q&A that included this bit on partners (https://avemco.com/owned-aircraft-insurance/faq.aspx Question #9) . I think they are referring to the latter if you have an injured partner on board. I assume too that they would also be a named insured - but I interpreted this reference is to say pax partners are covered for a liability claim against the pilot who is likely also a named insured but I assume could be a pilot operating under the open pilot provision of the policy too.  

Q: Is there liability coverage if I injure a co-owner of my aircraft? 

A: This coverage varies significantly among insurance companies. The Avemco policy does provide liability coverage between insured persons like partners or flying club members when they fly together. This is a very important feature to look for since it is likely a partner or another flying club member will be with you in the aircraft on numerous occasions.

[Bravoman]

15 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I'm pretty sure that is not true. The sub limits only apply to passengers. Those on the ground or in other planes would be liabilities that can share the full limit. I didn't see anything in the link that contradicts that. Also, I believe Avemco has additional famility limits, or at least at one point they did. They told me they assumed family wouldn't need full sub limits. 

 

-Robert

 Insurance companies are free to write their policies as they see fit, as long as they do not derogate from a statute that requires certain provisions to be in a specific type of insurance policy, or for there  be a certain minimum level of coverage.  All states have statutes which regulate automobile insurance policies in this manner. Insurance companies are generally free to write coverage, terms, and exclusions which provide greater coverage and benefits to the insured than the minimum mandated by such statutes, but cannot provide less.

 That being said, although it is entirely possible that some insurance companies only apply sub limits to passengers, I do believe that sub limits generally apply to any claimant,  and that generally any individual claim would only be paid to the maximum of the sub limit.  I do agree that a sub limit of $100,000 really provides illusory coverage, given the type of injuries one might expect arising from what we are talking about here. Keep in mind that notwithstanding corporate entity ownership of an aircraft, etc., the pilot in command is fully liable up to the limit of his or her assets in the event of a mishap.  Also, although I do not believe that it exists in the context of these types of policies insuring aircraft, it is important to make sure that defense and other costs arising from the claim are not deducted from the indemnity limit thereby eroding your coverage that you would need to pay an injured claimant in the event of an accident. 

 As a personal injury trial lawyer who has done it for 30 years on both sides of the table, I can tell you that I have seen many wealthy individuals that were grossly under insured facing huge exposure after a bad accident with significant injuries  and deaths.  You definitely do not want to be there. 

 

Regards, Frank