Aviation Insurance Market Update

[RobertGary1]

I guess I don’t know what you accomplish by collecting data on what other people pay unless it’s just curiosity or academic. The only numbers that matter are the ones the underwriters give your broker. There are only 6-10 underwriters who write in the United States depending on pilot hours etc. if you’re curious ask your broker to forward what the other underwriters quoted him that he didn’t pick. 
 

-Robert 

[RogueOne]

4 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I guess I don’t know what you accomplish by collecting data on what other people pay unless it’s just curiosity or academic. The only numbers that matter are the ones the underwriters give your broker. There are only 6-10 underwriters who write in the United States depending on pilot hours etc. if you’re curious ask your broker to forward what the other underwriters quoted him that he didn’t pick. 
 

-Robert 

And comparisons that are merely curiosity or academic are O.K. On an aviation forum right Bob?  It is clearly obvious that what ultimately matters is what YOU pay.  There are differences in carriers, coverage, experience of pilots as well that of course must be taken into account.  It appears that this “bothers” you on some level?  Why is that?

I like a curious mind.

I like discussion.

Discussion about insurance is valuable EVEN if it is just curiosity IMO.

[RobertGary1]

4 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

And comparisons that are merely curiosity or academic are O.K. On an aviation forum right Bob?  It is clearly obvious that what ultimately matters is what YOU pay.  There are differences in carriers, coverage, experience of pilots as well that of course must be taken into account.  It appears that this “bothers” you on some level?  Why is that?

I like a curious mind.

I like discussion.

Discussion about insurance is valuable EVEN if it is just curiosity IMO.

Go back and reread what I said. You may have just read it too quickly.

 

-Robert

[kortopates]

35 minutes ago, RogueOne said:

And comparisons that are merely curiosity or academic are O.K. On an aviation forum right Bob?  It is clearly obvious that what ultimately matters is what YOU pay.  There are differences in carriers, coverage, experience of pilots as well that of course must be taken into account.  It appears that this “bothers” you on some level?  Why is that?

I like a curious mind.

I like discussion.

Discussion about insurance is valuable EVEN if it is just curiosity IMO.

I am of the same opinion as Robert simply because whenever pilots discuss insurance the numbers tossed around are an apples to orange comparison and frankly the discussion loses all relevance to me. You can't compare liability between Joe's plane that carries per person sub-limits compared John's policy that is smooth with twice the coverage. Nor can you compare hull value to someones under insured J model to someone else's over insured fancy J model. You can get better just telling us $'s per 1K of hull value but even that loses meaning  when the geographical coverage limits only include US for one policy and someone else's includes Central America to Canada & Caribbean etc. Then the big one, a very large faction of pilots sharing their rate information and can only tell us who their broker is; apparently they don't know who their underwriter is - the real insurance company. 

Bottom line,  from a discussion standpoint, I am much more interested in what is happening in the insurance market overall, such as what Parker has been writing about here. Secondly, all pilots need educating on what our policies cover and don't cover, and who is covered, differences between sub-limits and smooth and on an on. That's the kind of discussion we all have an interest in. But when it comes to rates, I can get the real facts that matter, and have relevance to me, from my broker, not here.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by kortopates

[chriscalandro]

So... I’m still interested in what others are paying, what their qualifications are, and what their coverage is. 

[0TreeLemur]

50 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

So... I’m still interested in what others are paying, what their qualifications are, and what their coverage is. 

So- create a well thought out anonymous survey.   I'll participate.

[larrynimmo]

While getting my instrument took almost a full year, I am looking to get a “certificate” bonus in June when I renew my policy....currently I am paying $2k a year for a 135k hull value...after seeing the exposure of Mooneys in accidents in 2019 I will be very lucky to stay at $2k

[RobertGary1]

17 minutes ago, larrynimmo said:

While getting my instrument took almost a full year, I am looking to get a “certificate” bonus in June when I renew my policy....currently I am paying $2k a year for a 135k hull value...after seeing the exposure of Mooneys in accidents in 2019 I will be very lucky to stay at $2k

True. While your factors may put downward pressure on your rates at the moment there are systemic factors pressuring rates up. I was happy to only see a 10% increase. Unfortunately I'm max'ed out on discounts on my policy so there isn't anything more I can do. I did ask if getting my ATP would help things but apparently not.

-Robert

[Frank B.]

On 9/25/2019 at 5:10 PM, Herlihy Brother said:

That's very true, and really worth it when loans and thin balance sheets are involved. And it seems most people want insurance. I agree with you and I don't buy extended warranties either. I believe that the extended warranties are not a good value proposition for me because I believe that the premiums are set a  level to cover not just the administrative costs of the insurance, but also the claims made by other purchasers who, and I would like to think unlike me,  abuse their tools, do not know how to operate their tools, are not proficient with their tools, may not have been educated properly on the proper use of their tools, loan their tools to potentially unqualified users, leave their tools laying around exposed to the elements etc.   And I agree with you too, that airplane insurance is no different than any other kind of insurance.  But with aircraft insurance, the premiums can be so incredibly high--for example I recently had quotes from 4% to as high as 14% of my hull value. That high quote was $12k per year on a $85k aircraft.  I bought the $4k policy but that policy had such low limits that I would not have been protected in the scenario presented above where the litigation was over $1m.  And that policy excluded gear up claims... When I go naked, or even with a policy that excludes gear up events, I find myself taking a lot of interest in the landing gear condition and maintenance and upkeep.  Thanks to Parker for helping navigate the caveats and gotchas--I learned a few things here.

I have both of my planes (hull coverage) insured for well north of $100K and I am paying less than 1.5% of the insured value for the hull coverage. The $1M smooth liability costs is such a minimal amount that it’s unbelievable . Both planes combined, although paid in one lump sum annually, works out to less than $350 per month if averaged over 12 months. I am also not an IFR rated pilot but do have 32 years of flying experience with probably 99% of my time being HP / Complex. I also have never had an insurance claim.

[tigers2007]

Is it possible to get a non-emergency gear-up landing exclusion? That would probably cut my premium by 33%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Is it possible to get a non-emergency gear-up landing exclusion? That would probably cut my premium by 33%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given a gear up is likely the #1 cause for totaling vintage Mooney’s why not just self insure the hull entirely if you’re okay absorbing a gear up loss? Enjoy 100% discount. Do the math and see how many years of premiums it takes to earn the hull. I am only at about 1% so I’ll keep it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertGary1]

23 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Given a gear up is likely the #1 cause for totaling vintage Mooney’s why not just self insure the hull entirely if you’re okay absorbing a gear up loss? Enjoy 100% discount. Do the math and see how many years of premiums it takes to earn the hull. I am only at about 1% so I’ll keep it.
 

Not quiet 100% as there is still liability. I have a friend who rents a twin Aztec for dual only. Since the premium for hull is about 50% of the value he only insures it for liability. As with most GA twins if it gets wrecked its probably worth more as salvage than flying.

-Robert

[kortopates]

6 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Not quiet 100% as there is still liability. I have a friend who rents a twin Aztec for dual only. Since the premium for hull is about 50% of the value he only insures it for liability. As with most GA twins if it gets wrecked its probably worth more as salvage than flying.

-Robert

Yes, I never intended to imply to drop Liability, just Hull coverage. I should have been more clear.

[tigers2007]

I’m not sure how that is possible as my vintage won’t slow down unless the gear is down...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

We had a long thread on this at one point that I believe I started... but I can't find it now. I posted the formula which was something like...

(Premium/Hull value)x100=% cost.         1.1%
Mooney Experience                                    900 hours
IFR or VFR                                                     IFR
Smooth or Limits                                         Limits

That seemed to get to a pretty good comparison.

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

We had a long thread on this at one point that I believe I started... but I can't find it now. I posted the formula which was something like...

(Premium/Hull value)x100=% cost.         1.1%
Mooney Experience                                    900 hours
IFR or VFR                                                     IFR
Smooth or Limits                                         Limits

That seemed to get to a pretty good comparison.

That's pretty good. We're paying about 50% more than that in California with twice the hours.

Or maybe the premium just isn't linear.

-Robert

[kortopates]

9 hours ago, tigers2007 said:

I’m not sure how that is possible as my vintage won’t slow down unless the gear is down...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously?? Most mooney pilots become very proficient at slowing their Mooney down quite well after several hundred hours. After all, Mooney gear ups happen equally to both the manual gear and electric gear Mooney's virtually every week and often with multiples during the good flying weather. @mike_elliott just made the following comment this morning as well:

"...yet maxwell has repaired more gear ups on johnson bar equipped planes. Dont be lulled into thinking it cant happen to you. Very few Johnson bar equipped planes have not been geared up already. "

IMO, the reality is we're all but just a timely bad distraction away from a gear up - we're still human, be vigilant!

[kortopates]

10 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That's pretty good. We're paying about 50% more than that in California with twice the hours.

Or maybe the premium just isn't linear.

-Robert

Fellow Californian here and my entire premium is a bit under that 1.1%.

I suspect you're right about it being non-linear. I seriously doubt someone buying say $50K or less of hull gets the same rate as someone buying over $200K. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Economy of scale may be a better description.  The P46T annual hull policy cost is about 0.6% of value.  

[jetdriven]

It’s a more professional pilot that flies that airplane, in general, than many piston singles.  If you had to go to flight safety every year and get recurrent in your 201 you’d like to see a similar loss ratio and insurance rate

[Jerry 5TJ]

46 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It’s a more professional pilot that flies that airplane,

Thanks 

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Thanks 

You clipped off the , in general, part.  
it’s a million dollar airplane that requires part 135 style recurrent annually.  Not as many 100 hour private pilots show up with their instructor to take it home as we have with small piston singles.  

Edited November 2, 2019 by jetdriven

[Jerry 5TJ]

True.  
Also true that even Part 91 ops of such AC are driven by the insurers to type-rating-like mandatory initial and recurring training. 

[larrynimmo]

Point of fact....when I first bought my plane avionics were old and engine tired....insured hull at 65k...insurance was 2,600....installed new avionics, installed Lycomming rebuilt engine and raised my hull value to $135k....almost double...cost was under $400 a year extra.  Last June rate for same hull value was $1950.  It will be interesting to see where rates go when I apply next year with my new minted IR 

[kortopates]

6 hours ago, larrynimmo said:

Point of fact....when I first bought my plane avionics were old and engine tired....insured hull at 65k...insurance was 2,600....installed new avionics, installed Lycomming rebuilt engine and raised my hull value to $135k....almost double...cost was under $400 a year extra.  Last June rate for same hull value was $1950.  It will be interesting to see where rates go when I apply next year with my new minted IR 

Limited to no time in type with also little to no retract time has a very large impact on rates with retractable gear. The IR can have a significant impact as well but is more tempered by the aircrafts capabilities; at least  from my limited experience. For example, its a much bigger deal in a turbo that likes to operate in Class A airspace than it is in a trainer aircraft. How much it will help in your J is a good question for your broker.