Insurance Q&A Thread

[Parker_Woodruff]

Insurance is a topic that creates anxiety in many people.  Most importantly, they want to know that the Insurance Company will be there in the case of an unfortunate event.  On a related note, they want to know they're getting the right coverage - paying for what they need and not paying for what they don't need.  For the first time in awhile, rates are increasing - even for those that have never filed a claim.

As a MooneySpace Sponsor, we're starting this thread to answer questions about anything aviation insurance related. 

What's on your mind as you come up for policy renewal?  Do you have questions about transitioning to a Mooney?  Want to know some general things about how claims are handled?  Why did my rate change?  Do you have a specific coverage need that needs to be addressed?

Ask away!

[David_H]

When a Mooney lands gear-up due to pilot error... does the Mooney insurance market take a hit since it has almost nothing to do with the plane being a Mooney?

[Parker_Woodruff]

7 minutes ago, David_H said:

When a Mooney lands gear-up due to pilot error... does the Mooney insurance market take a hit since it has almost nothing to do with the plane being a Mooney?

Great question.

In short, the normal frequency of pilots forgetting to lower the gear is already baked into retractable gear aircraft insurance rates.

However, the specific Insurance Company that insures Mooneys will typically group their losses by Make and/or Model.  They also have loss codes that show the general facts of the claim.  If the loss trend goes up for a specific make/model or retractable gear models in general, the product line manager (Personal Pleasure and Business Aircraft manager) may decide to amend rates accordingly.

A more likely scenario where gear-related losses cause Mooneys to experience rate increases would be aging airframes which are more susceptible to landing gear failures and more years of bad maintenance procedures adding up into more losses.

Now compare insurance rates for Piper Comanches to Mooneys.  The Pipers will be more expensive to insure due to the more failure-prone gear.

 

[Mcstealth]

On 2/22/2019 at 4:09 PM, Parker_Woodruff said:

Great question.

In short, the normal frequency of pilots forgetting to lower the gear is already baked into retractable gear aircraft insurance rates.

However, the specific Insurance Company that insures Mooneys will typically group their losses by Make and/or Model.  They also have loss codes that show the general facts of the claim.  If the loss trend goes up for a specific make/model or retractable gear models in general, the product line manager (Personal Pleasure and Business Aircraft manager) may decide to amend rates accordingly.

A more likely scenario where gear-related losses cause Mooneys to experience rate increases would be aging airframes which are more susceptible to landing gear failures and more years of bad maintenance procedures adding up into more losses.

Now compare insurance rates for Piper Comanches to Mooneys.  The Pipers will be more expensive to insure due to the more failure-prone gear.

 

I assume the same logic is applied for prop strikes?

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

2 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

I assume the same logic is applied for prop strikes?

 

Yes.

Also, Prop strikes are experienced frequently in nose-heavy aircraft with student pilots. One reason some carriers won’t insure a student in an aircraft like a C182, while in general a C182 is one of the least expensive aircraft to insure.

[mooniac15u]

How do the carriers treat hours in different Mooney models when looking at time in type?  For example do hours in an M20C count the same as hours in an M20J for insurance in the J?

[Parker_Woodruff]

6 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

How do the carriers treat hours in different Mooney models when looking at time in type?  For example do hours in an M20C count the same as hours in an M20J for insurance in the J?

Most carriers treat each model individually.  There are some exceptions.  If a pilot was lower time where time in any M20 could be of benefit in determining rates, it's easy for an insurance agent to pick up the phone and call an underwriter.

Look at your declarations page - if the model is written "M20" versus "M20[insert letter here]" then that's typically how the underwriter viewed the aircraft model.

When in doubt, ask your agent.  If they're in doubt, they can ask the company.

[Culver LFA]

On 2/24/2019 at 6:49 PM, Parker_Woodruff said:

...while in general a C182 is one of the least expensive aircraft to insure.

When my Mooney was down waiting for major engine work, I renewed the insurance policy with ground only since I knew it would be parked in the hangar for a while.  In conversation with my neighbor (who owns a 182) he thought it was pretty funny that his 182 with air and ground, being flown by him and his kids (who were using it to build flight time), was almost 1/2 the price of my Mooney ground only policy.  How any airplane parked in a privately owned hangar can be a larger risk than a 182 being tossed about by multiple pilots I will never know.

[mooniac15u]

41 minutes ago, Culver LFA said:

When my Mooney was down waiting for major engine work, I renewed the insurance policy with ground only since I knew it would be parked in the hangar for a while.  In conversation with my neighbor (who owns a 182) he thought it was pretty funny that his 182 with air and ground, being flown by him and his kids (who were using it to build flight time), was almost 1/2 the price of my Mooney ground only policy.  How any airplane parked in a privately owned hangar can be a larger risk than a 182 being tossed about by multiple pilots I will never know.

The insurers have probably seen all the pictures of homemade jacks on this site. 

[Culver LFA]

2 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

The insurers have probably seen all the pictures of homemade jacks on this site. 

No way, mine are from The Jack House and I even use the correct jack pads. 

Maybe I should have done the DIY Harbor Freight jacks lifting the airplane on the tiedown eyelets, with all the money saved I could have applied it towards my engine and insurance premium!

[Mcstealth]

19 hours ago, Culver LFA said:

When my Mooney was down waiting for major engine work, I renewed the insurance policy with ground only since I knew it would be parked in the hangar for a while.  In conversation with my neighbor (who owns a 182) he thought it was pretty funny that his 182 with air and ground, being flown by him and his kids (who were using it to build flight time), was almost 1/2 the price of my Mooney ground only policy.  How any airplane parked in a privately owned hangar can be a larger risk than a 182 being tossed about by multiple pilots I will never know.

Yeah, but, he's flyin' 182......

 

 

[Mcstealth]

How does "Named insured" non owners affect the policy? Or, how does "buying time" in another's plane affect the insured?

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, Mcstealth said:

How does "Named insured" non owners affect the policy? Or, how does "buying time" in another's plane affect the insured?

On the first question - do you mean Named Pilots and to what degree are they covered?

Regarding the second question, some policies allow for reimbursement of basic operating costs by Named Pilots and some allow for rental to Named Pilots.  All of this is on a limited basis.  For rental to the general flying public, a commercial policy insured for Instruction and Rental operations would be necessary.

[Mcstealth]

14 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

On the first question - do you mean Named Pilots and to what degree are they covered?

Regarding the second question, some policies allow for reimbursement of basic operating costs by Named Pilots and some allow for rental to Named Pilots.  All of this is on a limited basis.  For rental to the general flying public, a commercial policy insured for Instruction and Rental operations would be necessary.

Okay, named pilots non owner, not a partner, with the policy not being a commercial policy. How does that circumstance affect the owners policy?

Edited February 27, 2019 by Mcstealth

[mooniac15u]

There seem to be lots of discussions on MS about adding non-owner pilots for a variety of reasons.  Let's say for an MSer whose rates have stabilized in the $1000-$2000 range on a non-turbo Mooney, how much hit on insurance would we take for adding a low-time pilot (<500 hours, complex endorsement, zero Mooney time)?  I think this is the scenario I hear about for keeping your Mooney flying when you don't have enough time to fly.

[Vance Harral]

1 hour ago, mooniac15u said:

how much hit on insurance would we take for adding a low-time pilot (<500 hours, complex endorsement, zero Mooney time)?  I think this is the scenario I hear about for keeping your Mooney flying when you don't have enough time to fly. 

Over the course of the last 15 years, we have on three separate occasions added new partners to our policy who had no instrument rating, no Mooney time, and essentially zero complex time.  This is on a 1976 M20F with a hull value of about $60K, and the traditional $1M/$100K sublimit liability.  In each case, the cost of our policy for the first year of participation by the new partners increased from the $1200-ish range to the $2700-ish range.  Assuming the market hasn't changed in the last 5 years (which may be a bad assumption), I'd guess the hit would be somewhere between $1000-$1500 for the first year.

[Parker_Woodruff]

4 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

Okay, named pilots non owner, not a partner, with the policy not being a commercial policy. How does that circumstance affect the owners policy?

Some policies will afford a broad amount of coverage to the non-owner Named Pilot, including giving that pilot a Waiver of Subrogation for hull losses and making that pilot an Insured.

Other policies do not go so far and naming that pilot only ensures the Policyholder is insured while that pilot is flying the aircraft.

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

There seem to be lots of discussions on MS about adding non-owner pilots for a variety of reasons.  Let's say for an MSer whose rates have stabilized in the $1000-$2000 range on a non-turbo Mooney, how much hit on insurance would we take for adding a low-time pilot (<500 hours, complex endorsement, zero Mooney time)?  I think this is the scenario I hear about for keeping your Mooney flying when you don't have enough time to fly.

Primary drivers of change in premium will be if that pilot is instrument rated and how much retractable gear time the pilot has. How much premium difference will be dependent on many other factors.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

Over the course of the last 15 years, we have on three separate occasions added new partners to our policy who had no instrument rating, no Mooney time, and essentially zero complex time.  This is on a 1976 M20F with a hull value of about $60K, and the traditional $1M/$100K sublimit liability.  In each case, the cost of our policy for the first year of participation by the new partners increased from the $1200-ish range to the $2700-ish range.  Assuming the market hasn't changed in the last 5 years (which may be a bad assumption), I'd guess the hit would be somewhere between $1000-$1500 for the first year.

Not an unreasonable guess.  A chance the number could be lower than what you think, but it will depend on which insurance company presently insures the aircraft.

[Awful_Charlie]

Good timing for a thread of this direction - thanks for starting it.

I'm hoping to make it over the the US the coming summer, and my current insurance is "Worldwide excluding USA and territories" for 3rd party, but they will graciously extend my hull coverage (albeit with a much higher excess), so need to sort something out. Given that I'm not at all familiar with the US insurance requirements or norms, a bit of direction as to what the "standard" and recommended are for a 4 seater would be most appreciated, as well as a ballpark figure for say 4 weeks in the US

FWIW, over here for 3 passenger seats and SDR 6M of CSL (Combined Single Limit - I have a feeling this is what you call a "smooth"?) is just under EUR1000 pa, and hull is 0.85%

[Hank]

Many of us have 1M per event and $100,000 per seat, but 1M smooth is available. I initially thought 1000€ was a super price for you (6M€???), then saw the additional 0.85% of agreed value for hull coverage. I'm paying 1.4% of hull for 1M / 100K after the recent rate increase. 

Let us know when your schedule firms up!

[mike_elliott]

Parker, for the first time in 20 years I have encountered a carrier wanting to charge $200 additional to have me added as named insured pilot with a waiver of Subrogation. The carrier was avemco. The new owner was a 80 hr pilot without any Mooney time they were wacking for close to 4K  to insure an E  as it was.  This is considerably more than my 2M smooth 800K non owned as it is, and I realize  it is based on the low time/low MM risk profile. Adding me actually would mitigate some of that risk profile so I am confused to the additional premium.

Previously, with all other carriers, this has been done without charge (One agent wanted a "vig"  once, but not the carrier, and he lost the bus because of his greed glands) to the owners. 

Do you notice a trend in the avemco direction of carriers wanting to hedge their insurance bets with the assets of the cfi, or is this just a carrier to be avoided?

[carusoam]

Message light for @Parker_Woodruff...  ^^^^

-a-

[David_H]

This is an informative thread. Thanks for stepping up to take a shot at answering some questions Parker.

Everyone knows there isn't a single correct answer usually.... but dealing with airplane insurance seems like a shootout in the Wild West. It seems as if some form of luck ends up being being the deciding factor when premiums are discussed. It doesn't seem to make much sense to anyone.

 

 

[David_H]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

The new owner was a 80 hr pilot without any Mooney time they were wacking for close to 4K  to insure an E  as it was.

Unless the pilot has an accident history, $4K for annual premiums for an E doesn't make very much sense.