Insurance woes

[Parker_Woodruff]

There are some incorrect descriptions in this thread of who is covered and who is not covered when someone is a named pilot or flying under the Open Pilot Warranty (OPW).

PLEASE talk to your licensed insurance agent who has specific access to your specific insurance policy before relying on information from this board.

[flight2000]

42 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

I agree completely. Nothing worse on a relationship that assessing blame. Forget it and move on. The Avemco quote was $2000 less than the other quote. It seems like almost everyone's premiums are going up this year. Your portion of the increased premium is probably +/- $1250 extra. In aviation terms that's almost free.

 Things happen that's why we have insurance. If you were flying it and the engine stopped and you had to land it in a field how would you feel? I agree a bad decision lead to this, but some people take off with a slightly rough running engine and wish they hadn't. If the relationship is worth something forget about it and don't bring it up again. Your partner is probably beating themself up worse than anyone else ever would anyway.

Sorry, but I disagree.  No one should have to assess blame or even bring it up and you're right, he's probably beat himself up about it plenty by now.  But that is where I have the fundamental difference of opinion.  He should step up and accept his portion of the increase and be done with it.  It's called accountability.  Running off a runway after landing long is not the same as losing an engine in flight.   I'm basing this solely on that fact alone, since I don't know the full circumstances for what happened.  Maybe something happened beyond his control, I just don't know. 

It may only be $1,250 this time, but where does it stop?  Does he get a free pass if he accidentally puts a huge scratch in a side window or the windshield after putting something up there he shouldn't have?  Does he get a free pass if he locks up the brakes after landing long and blows a tire trying to stop?   Once the Genie is out of the bottle you ain't getting her back in...

Take it for what it's worth, I know nothing of the dynamics of the partnership/relationships.  Not accepting personal responsibility though would just leave a really bad taste in my mouth....

Brian

[jaylw314]

18 minutes ago, flight2000 said:

Sorry, but I disagree.  No one should have to assess blame or even bring it up and you're right, he's probably beat himself up about it plenty by now.  But that is where I have the fundamental difference of opinion.  He should step up and accept his portion of the increase and be done with it.  It's called accountability.  Running off a runway after landing long is not the same as losing an engine in flight.   I'm basing this solely on that fact alone, since I don't know the full circumstances for what happened.  Maybe something happened beyond his control, I just don't know. 

It may only be $1,250 this time, but where does it stop?  Does he get a free pass if he accidentally puts a huge scratch in a side window or the windshield after putting something up there he shouldn't have?  Does he get a free pass if he locks up the brakes after landing long and blows a tire trying to stop?   Once the Genie is out of the bottle you ain't getting her back in...

Take it for what it's worth, I know nothing of the dynamics of the partnership/relationships.  Not accepting personal responsibility though would just leave a really bad taste in my mouth....

Brian

I think this argument is akin to splitting the bill at dinner among friends/family. 

• Splitting it evenly benefits simplicity
• Splitting it up in proportion benefits fairness

The key here is that both techniques can benefit good will as long as there is good will to begin with.  If that's the case, I don't think either will be wrong.  If it's not, I don't think either will be right.

Fortunately, it sounds like the former is the case. 

[flyboy0681]

Thanks for all of the responses guys. To reiterate, I have two great partners and think it's best to bite the bullet and split the insurance by three. If AVEMCO fulfills my initial inquiry and offers us the policy at stated, at $4,500, we'll consider ourselves getting off lucky and just go on with things.

FWIW, the partner that incurred the loss is looking to sell his share, but Mooney partners don't come along every day. So if any of you know of someone in South Florida who is looking to get into a great plane with a very low time engine (100 hours), drop me a PM.

[jwilcoxon78]

14 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

There are some incorrect descriptions in this thread of who is covered and who is not covered when someone is a named pilot or flying under the Open Pilot Warranty (OPW).

PLEASE talk to your licensed insurance agent who has specific access to your specific insurance policy before relying on information from this board.

YES!  Read your policy.  Ask questions. 

With respect to the OPW, folks need to be careful here.  By folks I mean those flying under the OPW.  Generally, the policy will provide liability coverage to the OPW pilot.  However, they may be held liable for the damage caused to the Named Insured's aircraft.  This is why a Non-Owned policy is important. 

[RobertGary1]

10 hours ago, jwilcoxon78 said:

YES!  Read your policy.  Ask questions. 

With respect to the OPW, folks need to be careful here.  By folks I mean those flying under the OPW.  Generally, the policy will provide liability coverage to the OPW pilot.  However, they may be held liable for the damage caused to the Named Insured's aircraft.  This is why a Non-Owned policy is important. 

In this scenario the OPW pilot is the owner, so a bit of a different scenario than you are referring to and a bad idea for the reasons we've mentioned. OPW is not a way to reduce the insurance rates for a high risk owner.

-Robert

[81X]

On 9/12/2018 at 5:05 PM, flight2000 said:

Sorry, but I disagree.  No one should have to assess blame or even bring it up and you're right, he's probably beat himself up about it plenty by now.  But that is where I have the fundamental difference of opinion.  He should step up and accept his portion of the increase and be done with it.  It's called accountability.  Running off a runway after landing long is not the same as losing an engine in flight.   I'm basing this solely on that fact alone, since I don't know the full circumstances for what happened.  Maybe something happened beyond his control, I just don't know. 

It may only be $1,250 this time, but where does it stop?  Does he get a free pass if he accidentally puts a huge scratch in a side window or the windshield after putting something up there he shouldn't have?  Does he get a free pass if he locks up the brakes after landing long and blows a tire trying to stop?   Once the Genie is out of the bottle you ain't getting her back in...

Take it for what it's worth, I know nothing of the dynamics of the partnership/relationships.  Not accepting personal responsibility though would just leave a really bad taste in my mouth....

Brian

I also tend to agree here.  A good partner would realize that his actions caused this increase and should therefore eat the diff and should be the one putting in the work to shop it around. This good partner would also realize this and proactively offer to cover the spread. 

Lack of individual accountability is a non-starter for me in business and to s lesser extent, in personal life. 

Now, if the other partners want to help someone out when they are down, that’s a different story. 

 

Aside from accountability and interpersonal relationships, Falcon in Kerrvill got me a great rate for a low time Retract pilot, underwritten bu USAIG via their USAA program. 

[thinwing]

Is this the accident where partner was attempting to move aircraft out of harms way?..Landed at shorter unfamiliar airstrip (while running from a hurricane)and landed long with wing damage.After listing to all the responses...it doesn't take a rocket scientist who I would partner up with ...

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/12/2018 at 1:17 PM, RobertGary1 said:

Most brokers will do the math for you. Just tell them you want to split the premiums. When I’ve had partnerships there was never the intention that we’d split insurance down the middle although in sometimes works out that way.  

I had a friend who wanted to buy a taylorcraft with me but I wasn’t willing to pay more than 1/2 the insurance I’d pay on my own. He didn’t think that was fair so we didn’t pursue the plane. 

-Robert

Ying

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/12/2018 at 2:06 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

You formed a partnership to reduce costs and risks overall. 

If the pilot who bent metal is otherwise a good partner then I’d say you should all split the costs evenly and carry on.  

Like an unexpected maintenance event you could view unintentional damage as a shared risk.  Next time it may be your turn.  

Yang

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/12/2018 at 2:06 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

You formed a partnership to reduce costs and risks overall. 

If the pilot who bent metal is otherwise a good partner then I’d say you should all split the costs evenly and carry on.  

Like an unexpected maintenance event you could view unintentional damage as a shared risk.  Next time it may be your turn.  

Life’s individual decisions have consequences.  You and your group choose to absorb the costs of the individual that made a poor decision.  (Go around).  There is another entity that works in a similar fashion.  As long as all agree and it is in writing...O.K.

[MyNameIsNobody]

On 9/12/2018 at 4:28 PM, jaylw314 said:

I think this argument is akin to splitting the bill at dinner among friends/family. 

• Splitting it evenly benefits simplicity
• Splitting it up in proportion benefits fairness

The key here is that both techniques can benefit good will as long as there is good will to begin with.  If that's the case, I don't think either will be wrong.  If it's not, I don't think either will be right.

Fortunately, it sounds like the former is the case. 

You may “think” that, but they are absolutely NOT the same.  If you get a burger and your wife gets a salad and the other couple gets Surf and Turf is splitting the bill evenly fair?  No is the answer.  If the couple that eat meals that were way more expensive do say “No, lets just split by couple ours was WAY more”, THEY are either ignorant or taking advantage of your good nature.  

[flyboy0681]

Guys, time to put this distraction to bed.

[jwilcoxon78]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 6:05 PM, RobertGary1 said:

In this scenario the OPW pilot is the owner, so a bit of a different scenario than you are referring to and a bad idea for the reasons we've mentioned. OPW is not a way to reduce the insurance rates for a high risk owner.

-Robert

I'm not sure I follow your reply.  I was adding to Parker_Woodruff's comment. 

[mike_elliott]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:02 AM, Hank said:

Having flown friends planes before under their Open Pilot clause, I was not aware of either of these points . . . . . . and I don't they were, either!!

Hank, if you would have had an incident in your friends plane, the open pilot warranty would have covered the damage to the plane and the insurance company most likely would have sued you to recover their losses (subrogation). Think carefully before flying an aircraft if you are not a named pilot with a waiver of subrogation, have a non owned policy or non owned clause in your policy.

[flyboy0681]

So as my partners and I decide which company to go with, does anybody have anything to say about AVEMCO, good or bad?

[kortopates]

The only drawbacks are the obvious - they won't write smooth limits, only sub-limits and their coverage area is more restrictive if one wants to fly internationally south (I forget exact limits). But the huge plus is they will ensure pilots with a claim history that most others won't touch at fairly reasonable rates. After 3-5 yrs without a claim one can go back to more competitive market including smooth limits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pdxphil]

1 hour ago, flyboy0681 said:

So as my partners and I decide which company to go with, does anybody have anything to say about AVEMCO, good or bad?

Curious, did you ever call Travers?

[flyboy0681]

2 minutes ago, pdxphil said:

Curious, did you ever call Travers?

No I didn't, for the simple reason that there are a finite number of carriers and the few brokers that I had looking into this contacted the same carriers and they were starting to get pissed hearing our tail number with each inquiry.

[jetdriven]

6 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

So as my partners and I decide which company to go with, does anybody have anything to say about AVEMCO, good or bad?

 I think they pay claims OK but they are usually the highest quote out there..  Maybe they got to pay for that slick advertising budget with all those magazine ads and all those free hats and stuff I don’t know but they’re usually a 3rd to half as much more than everybody else. 

[jetdriven]

5 hours ago, flyboy0681 said:

No I didn't, for the simple reason that there are a finite number of carriers and the few brokers that I had looking into this contacted the same carriers and they were starting to get pissed hearing our tail number with each inquiry.

I hear that a lot and I think it’s anti-competitive behavior. What if you want to the third Chevy dealer and they refused to give youa price  on a newCorvette because you went to 2 others first.

[Don Heene]

When you're partners it's like a marriage you are in it together.  You have to eat it.  When I take my plane in to get it worked on or when my wife says I'm going to buy this dining room set for a room we never use I just eat it.  Happy wife happy life.   I always say if it Flies, Floats or F*#ks it's cheaper to rent.   

[flyboy0681]

6 minutes ago, Don Heene said:

  I always say if it Flies, Floats or F*#ks it's cheaper to rent.   

Amen brother.

[RobertGary1]

8 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Hank, if you would have had an incident in your friends plane, the open pilot warranty would have covered the damage to the plane and the insurance company most likely would have sued you to recover their losses (subrogation). Think carefully before flying an aircraft if you are not a named pilot with a waiver of subrogation, have a non owned policy or non owned clause in your policy.

Yep. And if you intend to fly the plane regularly the best approach is to be named. As CFI's we often ask to be named on student's policies.

-Robert

[TNIndy]

I recently asked 5 companies for a quote. There was significant differences. Travers was the least expensive, Falcon was the highest. AOPA and Avemco were in the middle. Still waiting on USAIG to quote. I think it's worth your time to give John Travers a call.