Insurance up 20%

[irishpilot]

Out of curiosity, which company came back with a flat quote?

It actually went down $300 this year. $220k hull. This year's annual premium is $2,300. Insured through Old Republic Insurance. We go through Gallagher.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[hmasing]

Through Avemco, $110K hull value on a '68 M20F for $2150.  Lower than last year by about $650.  I got my instrument rating, and logged 250 hours in my Mooney, so that may play a role.

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, hmasing said:

Through Avemco, $110K hull value on a '68 M20F for $2150.  Lower than last year by about $650.  I got my instrument rating, and logged 250 hours in my Mooney, so that may play a role.

100 hours in my Mooney got a huge rate reduction, but I purchased it with 62 hours total time, 5 weeks after PPL checkride.

A couple of years and another several.hundred hours later, the IFR rating was good for ~30% reduction. Then Falcon saved me more; it's now higher than just after IFR addition by ~25%.  

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

This leads to a good question for @Parker_Woodruff- at what point, if any, do yearly hours start to penalize an owner?  More hours per year is generally good for competence and experience, but it also means increased exposure to an accident (or forgetting the gear.)

I have never seen an owner pilot penalized for flying too much. I have only seen high liability limits taken away for not flying enough and some underwriters even surcharge for lack of substantive recent flight time. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 hours ago, MIm20c said:

It would be interesting to see if many of the larger Mooney claims over the past couple of years had global as a underwriter. Might explain the jump. 

Up until a few months ago They have been the most competitive for almost every pre-J Mooney by 30-40% and given low rates to low time, non-instrument pilots.

That’s changed now. Global is a good company with good claims service. We want them to be committed to piston GA and there is no way those low rates were sustainable. When I worked for a competitor underwriting company to them we would have to let so many accounts go due to not being able to get near the rates they offered.

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

This leads to a good question for @Parker_Woodruff- at what point, if any, do yearly hours start to penalize an owner?  More hours per year is generally good for competence and experience, but it also means increased exposure to an accident (or forgetting the gear.)

Another anecdotal note...when I was an underwriter it seemed pilots flying less had more mechanical failures either from improper maintenance techniques or from deteriorating equipment.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

100 hours in my Mooney got a huge rate reduction, but I purchased it with 62 hours total time, 5 weeks after PPL checkride.

A couple of years and another several.hundred hours later, the IFR rating was good for ~30% reduction. Then Falcon saved me more; it's now higher than just after IFR addition by ~25%.  

I’ve got a batch of Airspeed T-shirts about to be made. At least that will make up for $6 of your increase this year.

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I have never seen an owner pilot penalized for flying too much. I have only seen high liability limits taken away for not flying enough and some underwriters even surcharge for lack of substantive recent flight time. 

Can you provide details?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, Hank said:

Can you provide details?

One carrier I know will have to go to underwriting review for long body Mooneys where the pilot hasn’t flown at least 50 hours in fixed wing aircraft in the previous year.

[MIm20c]

3 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

I’ve got a batch of Airspeed T-shirts about to be made. At least that will make up for $6 of your increase this year.

Please put me down for one!

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, MIm20c said:

Please put me down for one!

Will have an email going out soon to get an idea of the shirt sizes our clients wear in the near future with a hopeful delivery date in mid-late August.

Time to put my wife on the payroll, I guess 

[toto]

On 7/14/2020 at 6:44 PM, Missile=Awesome said:

A 51% increase is F.U. Territory.

I have two policies with Global.  The first one had the +51% quote, but the second one doesn't renew until the end of October so I haven't seen renewal paperwork yet (much less received quotes).  I'm curious to see whether they have a huge increase with the second ac.

[Missile=Awesome]

8 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Up until a few months ago They have been the most competitive for almost every pre-J Mooney by 30-40% and given low rates to low time, non-instrument pilots.

That’s changed now. Global is a good company with good claims service. We want them to be committed to piston GA and there is no way those low rates were sustainable. When I worked for a competitor underwriting company to them we would have to let so many accounts go due to not being able to get near the rates they offered.

A good company doesn’t undercut in an unsustainable fashion and then give >50% increases )based on their unsound underwriting practices) to LOYAL customers that have been flying safely for years with them.  We call them “whores” in the industry.  In P&C there is always one to reward bad insureds with an option...UNTIL they don’t.  They move to another street corner or “the John” puts them in the dumpster...

I would prefer steady Eddy to Dumpster Dan...

[donkaye]

I recently got my quote for this year.  I have been with Falcon since I got the plane in 1992.  I am over 70 years of age (how time flys!).  I was interested in seeing what this year would bring.  The quote came back from USAIG with a reasonable 12% increase, smooth, and the same full value as last year.  I'll be staying with Falcon.

[gsxrpilot]

I recently renewed with @Parker_Woodruff. The premium is up less than 4% over last year. I won't complain about that.

[rbridges]

5 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I recently renewed with @Parker_Woodruff. The premium is up less than 4% over last year. I won't complain about that.

I'm going with Parker, too. My rates did take a jump. I was using global, but he swapped me to someone else.  I guess the low rates I was enjoying with Global weren't meant to last.  At least I was mentally prepared from reading this thread earlier in the year. 

[mark21m20c]

Quotes from 1649 - 3249 . Last year 1098. M20c 1967 hull 90,000  with two listed pilots with a open pilot option. Both pilots have atp . 

[carusoam]

I’m looking forward to the day...

When asking a pilot his age is not part of doing business...

Sounds awfully biased to me...

And it doesn’t cull out the healthy guys having heart attacks at a much earlier age....

PP thoughts only... if we are fortunate, we will all get old one day.... probably different actual days when it happens...  

Best regards,

-a-

[M016576]

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

I’m looking forward to the day...

When asking a pilot his age is not part of doing business...

Sounds awfully biased to me...

And it doesn’t cull out the healthy guys having heart attacks at a much earlier age....

PP thoughts only... if we are fortunate, we will all get old one day.... probably different actual days when it happens...  

Best regards,

-a-

I look forward to the day that an insurance company doesn’t ask age as well.... because that would mean age wouldn’t be a factor in their risk calculations (ie... we, as a human population... would be so healthy that older age wouldn’t correlate with higher risk of accident/failure).  I hope that day comes sooner rather than later!

Edited August 15, 2020 by M016576

[carusoam]

MSer flying Septe and octogenarians are some of the Best pilots on and off the planet...

They didn’t get here accidentally...

Their sharpness(?) is what gets us all here...

 

Note for Parker... keep pushing this topic... when able...   now, imagine Parker as an old guy for a moment...  

Best regards,

-a-

[Captain Warbucks]

I locked in the insurance on my new J today.

200 hours logged no instrument. 0 complex time.

$159k hull value

$5608/y

Was actually less than I initially expected so that’s good!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Missile=Awesome]

18 hours ago, M016576 said:

I look forward to the day that an insurance company doesn’t ask age as well.... because that would mean age wouldn’t be a factor in their risk calculations (ie... we, as a human population... would be so healthy that older age wouldn’t correlate with higher risk of accident/failure).  I hope that day comes sooner rather than later!

Have you guys ever driven with an octogenarian or nonagenarian?  I have. Actuarial data for teenagers and seniors is real...We have not yet defeated the insidious impact of aging on sight, mental acuity and fine motor skills. Data is data... 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Missile=Awesome
Fixed it

[jlunseth]

3 minutes ago, Missile=Awesome said:

Have you guys ever driven with an octogenarian or nanogenarian?  I have. Actuarial data for teenagers and seniors is real...We have not yet defeated the insidious impact of aging on sight, mental acuity and fine motor skills. Data is data... 

Its “nona-“, mate. Nonagenarian. Nano is the prefix for a billionth, either that or a greeting in Orkian (usually said twice as in “nanoo nanoo”), but you would probably need to be a Septa or an Octo to have heard that in the original. 

[Missile=Awesome]

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

I’m looking forward to the day...

When asking a pilot his age is not part of doing business...

Sounds awfully biased to me...

And it doesn’t cull out the healthy guys having heart attacks at a much earlier age....

PP thoughts only... if we are fortunate, we will all get old one day.... probably different actual days when it happens...  

Best regards,

-a-

We are replacing jobs with automation like crazy, but we still issue licenses with no (autos) and minimal (aviation) reassessments on ability to pilot aircraft. Actuarial data says increased risk with age so increased premium. That seems reasonable to me. Medical disqualification also seems reasonable. Data is data -a- and they definitely look at liklihood of a 40 year old having a coronary infarction. Getting old is a bummer, but “it” happens to us all. Better have population control if we are going to live healthy active piloting lives infinity ...

[M016576]

17 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

Have you guys ever driven with an octogenarian or nanogenarian?  I have. Actuarial data for teenagers and seniors is real...We have not yet defeated the insidious impact of aging on sight, mental acuity and fine motor skills. Data is data... 

Yep- that’s the reason why the rates are what they are.... the statistics don’t lie.

Kind of like if all this self driving stuff actually does bring accident rates down and proves to be orders of magnitudes safer than non-self driving cars... the cost to insure a non-self driving car will skyrocket.  Imagine being priced out of being able to own an old Jeep or mustang... because you can’t afford the insurance.  Talk about opening up a whole new can of worms!  Imagine collector car clubs asking why young folks aren’t driving any more?  Why they don’t love working on cars anymore?  Don’t love racing cars anymore?   I can see what’s happened to GA happening to the “traditional auto” once self driving is widely propagated.  Maybe not tomorrow or in 5 years.  But check back in 15 years....

some guys love the progress @mike_elliott, and part of me can’t wait for it!  But part of me knows that there are some things that I love about “the way it currently is” that will be forever changed and possibly eliminated altogether for a wide swath of people.

sorry for the thread drift!