Insurance Q&A Thread

[David_H]

17 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Some policies only Name pilots to keep the policy in effect for the Named Insured and leave the possibility for subrogation open.

There is value to be had with certain carriers and their broader language.

I'm curious: What is the value of broad language that leaves the option of subrogation open?

Every time I've asked for a Waiver of Subrogation, the person on the other end of the phone has acted as if I just placed the phone to my backside and started talking through my pants.

 

[jwilcoxon78]

26 minutes ago, David_H said:

I'm curious: What is the value of broad language that leaves the option of subrogation open?

Every time I've asked for a Waiver of Subrogation, the person on the other end of the phone has acted as if I just placed the phone to my backside and started talking through my pants.

 

Broad language gives you, the owner and actual insured, the most protection.  Subrogation allows the company to recover from the liable party with respect to the hull in this context.  However, if one wants to have a $60K gear up on their policy record when it wasn't their fault, I suppose that's their call.

[David_H]

1 minute ago, jwilcoxon78 said:

Broad language gives you, the owner and actual insured, the most protection.  Subrogation allows the company to recover from the liable party with respect to the hull in this context.  However, if one wants to have a $60K gear up on their policy record when it wasn't their fault, I suppose that's their call. 

OK, let's use a a gear-up incident as an example:

In a case where there are no injuries, the "Named Pilot" is now on the hook for the Hull Value and Additional Damages. The Insurance company can potentially (and likely choose to) go after the "Named Pilot" to minimize or eliminate their losses. In this case, being a "Named Pilot" carries very little value and intentionally provides a very false sense of security.

I truly hope I never make the mistake of flying with someone with the mindset that I should hedge their liabilities so that they don't ever have a gear-up on their policy record.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, David_H said:

I'm curious: What is the value of broad language that leaves the option of subrogation open?

Every time I've asked for a Waiver of Subrogation, the person on the other end of the phone has acted as if I just placed the phone to my backside and started talking through my pants.

 

I'm referring to value/broad language that adds waiver of subrogation for named pilots.

If you own a plane and you add your  close friend as a named pilot, it's a good to have broadform coverage that includes WOS for named pilots.

[jwilcoxon78]

10 minutes ago, David_H said:

 In this case, being a "Named Pilot" carries very little value and intentionally provides a very false sense of security.

The false sense of security is exactly why I talk about this very subject with pilots when I can.  It is just that, but it's not intentional.  The intent of adding the pilot as a Named Pilot is to solidify the fact that the policy is in effect while that person is PIC.  However, some policies do provide a Waiver of Subrogation against Named Pilots so there can be value there as well but only value to the Named Pilot.  In those cases, the Named Insured now bears the financial burden of the Named Pilot's mistake.  It's actually a great value for the Named Pilot because it implies that they've contributed nothing to the premium and have no adverse effects, as it financially relates to insurance, after the loss. 

If you loan me a drill and I break it, I now owe you another drill.  Sure, you allowed me to use it but that is not consent for me to damage it and walk away.  I borrow it knowing that risk. 

At the end of the day, these are the circumstances we all are subject to.  That being the case, I think it's really important to keep everyone aware as to the dynamics involved so that they can manage themselves accordingly. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

25 minutes ago, David_H said:

OK, let's use a a gear-up incident as an example:

In a case where there are no injuries, the "Named Pilot" is now on the hook for the Hull Value and Additional Damages. The Insurance company can potentially (and likely choose to) go after the "Named Pilot" to minimize or eliminate their losses. In this case, being a "Named Pilot" carries very little value and intentionally provides a very false sense of security.

I truly hope I never make the mistake of flying with someone with the mindset that I should hedge their liabilities so that they don't ever have a gear-up on their policy record.

Or just get a policy that provides waiver of subrogation to all named pilots or includes named pilots as Insureds.  Policies like this are not hard to find.

[mike_elliott]

 

1 minute ago, jwilcoxon78 said:

The false sense of security is exactly why I talk about this very subject with pilots when I can.  It is just that, but it's not intentional.  The intent of adding the pilot as a Named Pilot is to solidify the fact that the policy is in effect while that person is PIC.  However, some policies do provide a Waiver of Subrogation against Named Pilots so there can be value there as well but only value to the Named Pilot.  In those cases, the Named Insured now bears the financial burden of the Named Pilot's mistake.  It's actually a great value for the Named Pilot because it implies that they've contributed nothing to the premium and have no adverse effects, as it financially relates to insurance, after the loss. 

If you loan me a drill and I break it, I now owe you another drill.  Sure, you allowed me to use it but that is not consent for me to damage it and walk away.  I borrow it knowing that risk. 

At the end of the day, these are the circumstances we all are subject to.  That being the case, I think it's really important to keep everyone aware as to the dynamics involved so that they can manage themselves accordingly. 

When a CFI is sitting in the right seat, he most likely will get charged with the incident. If he has any sense at all, he will want to protect himself. This is done by being added as named insured additional pilot with a waiver of subrogation, whether as a separate endorsement or as part of the policy language. 

Why should the CFI cover your butt when you mess up? If you are with me when I break my drill (plane) why should you have to pay for it because you happen to be with me and be a machinist who know how to properly use a drill?

 

[kortopates]

Broad language gives you, the owner and actual insured, the most protection.  Subrogation allows the company to recover from the liable party with respect to the hull in this context. However, if one wants to have a $60K gear up on their policy record when it wasn't their fault, I suppose that's their call.

If it leaves the option of subrogation open to the insurance company its really not coverage at all - at least not coverage under the open pilot definition we can count on.

On the gear up claim example, you imply that if the company subrogates to recover their loss, blaming someone that falls under the open pilot, that it isolates the named insured from fault? How so, it does nothing to erase the claim and the named insured will have to declare it on future insurance apps and I suspect take the same hits for having the claim regardless of whether their company was successful subrogating.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jwilcoxon78]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

 

When a CFI is sitting in the right seat, he most likely will get charged with the incident. If he has any sense at all, he will want to protect himself. This is done by being added as named insured additional pilot with a waiver of subrogation, whether as a separate endorsement or as part of the policy language. 

Why should the CFI cover your butt when you mess up? If you are with me when I break my drill (plane) why should you have to pay for it because you happen to be with me and be a machinist who know how to properly use a drill?

 

And this is where the rubber meets the road.  All losses are different.   If it is a CFI with a student pilot and they bounce it in on the nose, you're right.  If it is a commercial student who is properly rated for the flight and they bounce it in on the nose, the Commercial student is at fault. 

You've added to the "drill" example though.  I was pointing it out in it's purest form.  In your scenario, if you said, do it precisely this way, and it breaks, I'd agree you're at fault.  If the user ignores your instructions, they would be on the hook for it. 

 

[jwilcoxon78]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:

If it leaves the option of subrogation open to the insurance company its really not coverage at all - at least not coverage under the open pilot definition we can count on.

On the gear up claim example, you imply that if the company subrogates to recover their loss, blaming someone that falls under the open pilot, that it isolates the named insured from fault? How so, it does nothing to erase the claim and the named insured will have to declare it on future insurance apps and I suspect take the same hits for having the claim regardless of whether their company was successful subrogating.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parker might be able to better answer but one part of the evaluation is the total amount of the claim, not just that there was a claim.  What I'm saying in my example is that it reduces the loss ratio for the Named Insured. 

[David_H]

4 minutes ago, jwilcoxon78 said:

And this is where the rubber meets the road.  All losses are different.   If it is a CFI with a student pilot and they bounce it in on the nose, you're right.  If it is a commercial student who is properly rated for the flight and they bounce it in on the nose, the Commercial student is at fault.

Lets say: Your close friend pays for an increase in your annual premium to be added as a "Named Pilot" to your policy to help keep your plane flying regularly and in good flying condition for you. Since all insurance policies are all written differently, the "Named Pilot" is likely unaware of his liability exposures. The Insurance Company has absolutely no incentive to inform him of this. This close friend who is properly rated for the flight and "Named Insured" bounces it in on the nose, resulting in a prop strike. Your friend must now write a very large check or prepare for a very uncomfortable legal battle.

[mike_elliott]

8 minutes ago, jwilcoxon78 said:

 

You've added to the "drill" example though.  I was pointing it out in it's purest form.  In your scenario, if you said, do it precisely this way, and it breaks, I'd agree you're at fault.  If the user ignores your instructions, they would be on the hook for it. 

 

If you are PIC, do you agree you should be responsible? or should the CFI who advised you always take the hit? If your CFI told you to always fly at exactly 1.3 VSO on final, slow to stall speed in the flair, and you bounced it in and busted the prop because of your technique while your CFI was off working his paper route so he could eat, you followed his directions with poor technique and he should not be held accountable, or do you disagree and still would go after him? Do you expect a lifetime warranty from your CFI against any incidents since they are the "gods" that can be caught in subrogation?

It is important for the student to interview the CFI, and equally if not more important for the CFI to interview the student. Personally, i do not fly right seat with anyone who has not provided me a certificate showing me as named additional insured pilot and a waiver of subrogation. This prevents the ca ca from hitting the rotating oscillator if/when things go pear shaped. If you are worried about your insurance record, go get a CFI you feel wont bust your plane, not one who is ignorant of the consequences of the verbiage for your insurance history's sake. Once, about 10 years ago, I did have one guy say he didnt want to dilute his basic 1m/100K policy by adding me, so that was that. His call. He couldnt tell me how it diluted it from those limits but so be, I am plenty busy for a retired guy. Mooney has me on their 5M smooth policy.

 

[jwilcoxon78]

7 minutes ago, David_H said:

Lets say: Your close friend pays for an increase in your annual premium to be added as a "Named Pilot" to your policy to help keep your plane flying regularly and in good flying condition for you. Since all insurance policies are all written differently, the "Named Pilot" is likely unaware of his liability exposures. The Insurance Company has absolutely no incentive to inform him of this. This close friend who is properly rated for the flight and "Named Insured" bounces it in on the nose, resulting in a prop strike. Your friend must now write a very large check or prepare for a very uncomfortable legal battle.

I'd have to let my close friend know how my policy works and, if it didn't include a waiver, request a waiver.  My close friend would also ask the question as to subrogation because they've been involved in this very conversation:) 

The Carrier's duty is to it's Named Insured first and foremost. 

[jwilcoxon78]

9 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

If you are PIC, do you agree you should be responsible?

 

If I'm PIC, I'm legally responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. 

 

11 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Do you expect a lifetime warranty from your CFI against any incidents since they are the "gods" that can be caught in subrogation?

 

Nope.  If I'm PIC (not in the Student Pilot solo flight context) it's on me. 

 

13 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Personally, i do not fly right seat with anyone who has not provided me a certificate showing me as named additional insured pilot and a waiver of subrogation.

Perfect!    This is exactly what I hope other's take the mindset of so that THEY are protected. 

 

15 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

If you are worried about your insurance record, go get a CFI you feel wont bust your plane, not one who is ignorant of the consequences of the verbiage for your insurance history's sake.

The crux of the discussion is not about an individual's record, but that THEY are properly covered. 

[carusoam]

So...

I insured my plane using Falcon...

I needed a CFI for a few hours, so I hired a MAPA CFI, who is an MSer... and f,ew a very similar LB as mine...

My insurance company needed him to be named on my insurance which needed a few details including CFI number and number of flight hours he had...

The man is clearly a more skilled pilot than me... I am PIC while flying my plane...

The additional cost was zero... a mere formality to who is on the documents...

 

Now the automotive comparison... all the kids in my house are named as drivers on all my cars in the house... because the insurance company wants it that way... then there is a multi car discount.... 

PP thoughts only, not an insurance guy...

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

So...

I insured my plane using Falcon...

I needed a CFI for a few hours, so I hired a MAPA CFI, who is an MSer... and f,ew a very similar LB as mine...

My insurance company needed him to be named on my insurance which needed a few details including CFI number and number of flight hours he had...

The man is clearly a more skilled pilot than me... I am PIC while flying my plane...

The additional cost was zero... a mere formality to who is on the documents...

 

Now the automotive comparison... all the kids in my house are named as drivers on all my cars in the house... because the insurance company wants it that way... then there is a multi car discount.... 

PP thoughts only, not an insurance guy...

Best regards,

-a-

Anthony, that has been my experience with about 400 Mooney pilots, excepting just one who was an 0 hr Mooney pilot insured with Avemco. They took the opportunity to hose him for another 200 to add me on an E model. Since then, when asked of who to get insurance from, the word "avemco" is not given. I recognize I dont have a lot of weight in this area, but I am asked often about who I have found to be a good carrier and I happily tell of the agencies and carriers I like.

[Hank]

4 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Anthony, that has been my experience with about 400 Mooney pilots, excepting just one who was an 0 hr Mooney pilot insured with Avemco. They took the opportunity to hose him for another 200 to add me on an E model. Since then, when asked of who to get insurance from, the word "avemco" is not given. I recognize I dont have a lot of weight in this area, but I am asked often about who I have found to be a good carrier and I happily tell of the agencies and carriers I like.

I was also hosed for my first Mooney year as a 62-hour PPL with zero complex at purchase. But I attended a MAPA PPP, and my agent gave me the requested papers for their instructor at no charge. With the PPP and 100 Mooney hours under my belt, the renewal was 50% lower; with IA, premiums fell another 30%; then I moved and switched to Falcon and saved another 20%. At my renewal last July, it went up about 10% . . . . . I have put several CFI / CFIIs on short term with appropriate requested waivers, never paid anything to protect them while instructing me. 

[xcrmckenna]

I’m about to bind with Old Republic, has anyone had issues with them? 

[59Moonster]

So what insurance companies are Mooney Friendly?

[Mcstealth]

30 minutes ago, Rinj said:

So what insurance companies are Mooney Friendly?

Welcome to the Forum. Please go to General page and post a hello. Please stick around and see how incredibly useful and entertaining this family is.

@Parker_Woodruff will be around shortly to assist you with any insurance questions.

Thanks for joining.

[Mcstealth]

On 3/21/2019 at 7:06 PM, xcrmckenna said:

I’m about to bind with Old Republic, has anyone had issues with them? 

@Parker_Woodruff Parker is probably not all knowing and all seeing, but maybe he has experience?

[Hradec]

Insurance and anxiety, that's me right now. I bought a fixer  upper 64 m20e dont expect it to fly for another year.

I am 48 and working on my ppl, about to solo in a c172,  expect to have my license by the end if the year.

I'm afraid to call the insurance  companies. Thought about insuring it while working on it. Any idea which company I should call. What could I expect to pay as a new pilot?

Thanks

Glenn

Villa park, IL 

[David_H]

1 minute ago, Hradec said:

Insurance and anxiety, that's me right now. I bought a fixer  upper 64 m20e dont expect it to fly for another year.

I'm afraid to call the insurance  companies. Thought about insuring it while working on it. Any idea which company I should call.

 

Insurance is generally purchased to cover risk. Based on where you live, do you think something will happen while it's tucked away in the hangar (assuming it is hangared)?

It may be a reasonable financial decision to wait until you are close to having the plane airworthy before insuring it. Insurance is not inexpensive. Some Insurance salesman may advise you to purchase as much insurance as you're able to. This may be beneficial in some cases... and perhaps not so much in other cases.

Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Insurance Industry. That said, I fly regularly and my annual Insurance premiums are up-to-date.

[DonMuncy]

1 hour ago, Hradec said:

Insurance and anxiety, that's me right now. I bought a fixer  upper 64 m20e dont expect it to fly for another year.

I am 48 and working on my ppl, about to solo in a c172,  expect to have my license by the end if the year.

I'm afraid to call the insurance  companies. Thought about insuring it while working on it. Any idea which company I should call. What could I expect to pay as a new pilot?

Thanks

Glenn

Villa park, IL 

PM Parker Woodruff. Very knowledgeable, a nice guy, and will give you straight answers. He started this thread. Airspeed Insurance Agency.

 

[kortopates]

Insurance and anxiety, that's me right now. I bought a fixer  upper 64 m20e dont expect it to fly for another year.
I am 48 and working on my ppl, about to solo in a c172,  expect to have my license by the end if the year.
I'm afraid to call the insurance  companies. Thought about insuring it while working on it. Any idea which company I should call. What could I expect to pay as a new pilot?
Thanks
Glenn
Villa park, IL 

You wouldn’t be insuring for flight since it’s not flyable, but against fire, damage, theft etc while you are working on it in the hangar. So why not? Your lack of pilot certs or experience doesn’t matter. Experimental builders do this all the time to protect their investment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk