Insurance creep

[Missile=Awesome]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, if they actually wanted to EXPLAIN a VALID rate increase it would be in their best interest, would it not.  To circumspectly imply it's old age (can't get insurance above, higher premiums, etc.) or "gear-ups" without data to back it up is disingenuous at it's best.

But, you are homing in on my point: They are SCREWING us simply because they can.

The rest of this posturing about "unsustainable rates" and "losses" (well, DUH, they ARE an insurance company) is just so much BS.  That's the business it has been since insurance was invented!

The other possibility that I will raise, yet again, that has not been addressed is the possibility that the secondary/reinsurance carriers have DRAMATICALLY raised their rates to our carriers which have no choice but to pass them on or exit the GA market.  At least I'd respect our carriers if they ADMITTED that....then we would know we were paying for claims in a completely different market (e.g. Boeing MAX payouts).  I'd still be upset, but not mad that I'm getting shafted "just because we can."

The consortiums that comprise aviation insurance are in business to make a profit.  Competition creates what is considered a reasonable vs. obscene.  They are DEFINITELY making up for losses within a smaller pool of writers or aviation risk.  They are there.  They are providing you coverage, a contract to pay in the event of loss.  They are NOT holding a gun to your head.  This is not “mandatory”.  What you define as “screwing” is a group that is providing a product in a catastrophic laden market for a price.  You don’t like the price.  I don’t like the price.  The market with change.  I want insurance providers to be profitable and remain solvent so I CAN HAVE COVERAGE.  We are just going to agree to disagree on the “screwing because they can”...I don’t think they much care about your respect.  They just want your check to cash and in turn to be there if/when the shit gets real. I hope it is you and not your family that can benefit if that bad day comes.

You can always fly bare if you have no loan...Gamble away brother airman, or bend over and lubricate.  KY is my friend when it comes to any and all insurance...BUT I just submitted a $25k deratio claim on my home.  THAT makes it a glide a little easier...

OR the GU under instruction in a “simulated emergency”...that became one years ago.  “IT” happens...

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, Missile=Awesome said:

The consortiums that comprise aviation insurance are in business to make a profit.  Competition creates what is considered a reasonable vs. obscene.  They are DEFINITELY making up for losses within a smaller pool of writers or aviation risk.  They are there.  They are providing you coverage, a contract to pay in the event of loss.  They are NOT holding a gun to your head.  This is not “mandatory”.  What you define as “screwing” is a group that is providing a product in a catastrophic laden market for a price.  You don’t like the price.  I don’t like the price.  The market with change.  I want insurance providers to be profitable and remain solvent so I CAN HAVE COVERAGE.  We are just going to agree to disagree on the “screwing because they can”...I don’t think they much care about your respect.  They just want your check to cash and in turn to be there if/when the shit gets real. I hope it is you and not your family that can benefit if that bad day comes.

You can always fly bare if you have no loan...Gamble away brother airman, or bend over and lubricate.  KY is my friend when it comes to any and all insurance...BUT I just submitted a $25k deratio claim on my home.  THAT makes it a glide a little easier...

OR the GU under instruction in a “simulated emergency”...that became one years ago.  “IT” happens...

True, we are going to disagree.

The amazing thing, to me, is the. way you and a few others rush to the defense of the insurance companies with only slight acknowledgement that it is unpleasant.  I understand capitalism and competition in a normal market...the price is going to fluctuate up and down for a variety of reasonable reasons.

I don't EVER recall either a 40% decrease, nor 40% increase in premiums in a SINGLE year.

I'm going to stand firm that something else is at work here.

And, I'm pretty damn close to going naked on hull.  While I have it insured for replacement cost, I paid way less; I could walk away from the loss without too much grief.  Of course, that would likely be the end of my flying days.  I'm sure the insurance company won't give a rat's hind-end about me... but, if enough owners do the same, let's hope they figure it out before they nuke their own market.

 

P.S.  I've heard of de-wreck-o (derecho) claims...but deratio is a new one  Filed a claim, did ya?  Can't wait to hear about your next premium increase!

[Hank]

5 hours ago, larrynimmo said:

Since gear up failures are driving the highest part of insurance cost, I for one am ok with the exclusion...hopefully carriers will disseminate the risk levels...like the say for Liberty Insurance...buy which coverage you need!  (I could do without the Emu)

Do you know that, or are you simply guessing (because the room is dark and windowless, and it's warm and fuzzy so it must be a black cat)? I've not seen or heard any insurance companies say that.

How many gear-up payouts does it take to equal the cost of two people in a burn unit, or even a single fatality? I'll bet it's at least several . . . And that the severe injuries and fatalities cost the insurance companies much more.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Hank

[Missile=Awesome]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

True, we are going to disagree.

The amazing thing, to me, is the. way you and a few others rush to the defense of the insurance companies with only slight acknowledgement that it is unpleasant.  I understand capitalism and competition in a normal market...the price is going to fluctuate up and down for a variety of reasonable reasons.

I don't EVER recall either a 40% decrease, nor 40% increase in premiums in a SINGLE year.

I'm going to stand firm that something else is at work here.

And, I'm pretty damn close to going naked on hull.  While I have it insured for replacement cost, I paid way less; I could walk away from the loss without too much grief.  Of course, that would likely be the end of my flying days.  I'm sure the insurance company won't give a rat's hind-end about me... but, if enough owners do the same, let's hope they figure it out before they nuke their own market.

 

P.S.  I've heard of de-wreck-o (derecho) claims...but deratio is a new one  Filed a claim, did ya?  Can't wait to hear about your next premium increase!

Mike, Go bare.  Like the insurance carriers, I could care less.  The “Pool” that is aviation insurance customers is not too big in comparison to residential/auto/commercial coverage.  The exposure/likelihood of a catastrophic event is higher.  Mooney specifically having the entire fleet be retract adds an additional all the time every time exposure to the brand.  Deratio is how it is pronounced Mike.  You see “funny business”.  I see a smaller pool getting some premium back from losing a lot of dough.  I want them solvent and there so I bitch, but I “take it”, because I WANT coverage.  You lose me when you talk about getting screwed.  It is a business and charges what competition dictates.  With regard to premium increase.  It is a peril...Wind.  State Farm had 25k+ claims in our City.  Perhaps the employees that handle the claims will feel “screwed” at bonus time?  A bigger pool can result in a smaller increase, but that’s life...

[Immelman]

Avweb recently posted a lengthy discussion between a few insurance brokers on the state of the market, I found it an interesting watch/listen:

https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/aviation-insurance-expensive-and-getting-worse/

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, Immelman said:

Avweb recently posted a lengthy discussion between a few insurance brokers on the state of the market, I found it an interesting watch/listen:

https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/aviation-insurance-expensive-and-getting-worse/

Kind of interesting what they didn't clarify. They stated that older pilots aren't crashing more yet fewer companies are willing to quote them. Same with experimental.

Avemco claims they haven't changed rates or requirements. That's hard to believe but I don't have avemco so I can't verify that.

-Robert

[ryoder]

I spoke with an agent from Avemco for about thirty minutes. She told me they don’t want to write LSA policies and really didn’t want to insure anything but a class three medical in a fixed gear with recurrent training or an instrument rating. They are trying to cover for 737 Max losses. They all buy into pools of money and it’s more expensive now. Something like that. They really don’t trust older pilots transitioning to light sport with no medical. LSAs are hard to land especially for older pilots and result in lots of accidents.

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

.So the insurance companies are looking at a business with a declining underwriting market/fleet yet basically steady claims/losses coupled with declining investment income trends. 

 

You’re saying risk is going up? Claims per plane are increasing?

 

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

A friend just got a quote for his flight school for a new 172. $1,700/month insurance. 
 

-Robert 

[RobertGary1]

As a comparison I generated a quote from Avemco. They were 40% higher than my broker found.  I've heard sometimes Avemco may be lower but that may be for lower time pilots.

 

-Robert 

[Immelman]

4 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

As a comparison I generated a quote from Avemco. They were 40% higher than my broker found.  I've heard sometimes Avemco may be lower but that may be for lower time pilots.

 

-Robert 

Robert, I did the same. A bit over 25% more for my airplane.

One thing caught my attention in the Avweb video, the Avemco representative mentioned that after a few claim-free years they reduce the rate. By as much as 15%.

Extrapolating, could it be that becoming an Avemco customer sometime in the next year or two will eventually result in a lower insurance cost?

I wonder how their rates have fluctuated over the past several years?

Edited October 2, 2020 by Immelman

[MooneyMitch]

My premium rate has nearly doubled since 2017.  I did cross the 70 age 2 years ago.  

I guess that rate acceleration could be called serious creeping . 

[philiplane]

16 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

What does it cost the insurance company every time somebody pulls the chute in a Cirrus?  $200K?...$300K?... after salvaging parts, avionics?

More?

It costs MUCH less than paying for dead people.

And it's extremely rare, a tiny fraction of the number of gear ups.

Edited October 2, 2020 by philiplane

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

My premium rate has nearly doubled since 2017.  I did cross the 70 age 2 years ago.  

I guess that rate acceleration could be called serious creeping . 

If you watch the aviation consumer interviews above they talk a lot about the challenge of insuring those in their 70’s. Some carriers simply refuse to even quote. In some cases underwriters are requiring annual class 3 medical and annual bfrs. 
 

-Robert 

[MooneyMitch]

8 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

If you watch the aviation consumer interviews above they talk a lot about the challenge of insuring those in their 70’s. Some carriers simply refuse to even quote. In some cases underwriters are requiring annual class 3 medical and annual bfrs. 
 

-Robert 

I’d say i’m most fortunate!! 

[thinwing]

my policy renewal is up this nov....latest quote from global via Travers avation...puts avemco quote competive!!.....I never thought i would live to see that!!

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, thinwing said:

my policy renewal is up this nov....latest quote from global via Travers avation...puts avemco quote competive!!.....I never thought i would live to see that!!

Yeah, I just got my renewal inquiry from Parker (Global, as well).  We'll see...Avemco may be getting a call from me; hope not!

Just watched a 40 minute Avweb interview (https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/aviation-insurance-expensive-and-getting-worse/) with two brokers and a rep from Avemco.  The brokers engaged in speculation and it was entertaining to watch the Avemco rep contradict the verbose broker with their data.  The Avemco rep stated that their actuarial data for the last 60 years doesn't show an increase in older pilots having accidents...no surprise there.  Their pricing has not been changing...of course, historically, they've been pricey.

The video is a bit long for the low content level...but, if you've got some time to kill...

[MikeOH]

On 10/1/2020 at 11:44 AM, 1980Mooney said:

Avemco doesn't insure 737 Max.  Look at their website.  

https://www.avemco.com/

They provide OWNER, RENTER, CFI, FLYING CLUB and TERM LIFE

They are not covering for 737 losses.  Bogus argument.

 

I don't think so.

Ryoder's post was not saying Avemco was paying for the 737 MAX.  The Avemco individual was speaking to what was affecting the market, "They are trying to cover for 737 Max losses. They all buy into pools of money and it’s more expensive now.".

"They all" was NOT referring to Avemco, but to the "pools of money," secondary reinsurers, that OTHER underwriters use.

This is EXACTLY what I've been positing all along: something RADICAL changed that is causing UNPRECEDENTED increases, and the MAX liability losses (I can't even fathom the settlement costs of all the passenger lawsuits)...it is NOT 'classic capitalism' at work this time around

[MooneyMitch]

43 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I don't think so.

Ryoder's post was not saying Avemco was paying for the 737 MAX.  The Avemco individual was speaking to what was affecting the market, "They are trying to cover for 737 Max losses. They all buy into pools of money and it’s more expensive now.".

"They all" was NOT referring to Avemco, but to the "pools of money," secondary reinsurers, that OTHER underwriters use.

This is EXACTLY what I've been positing all along: something RADICAL changed that is causing UNPRECEDENTED increases, and the MAX liability losses (I can't even fathom the settlement costs of all the passenger lawsuits)...it is NOT 'classic capitalism' at work this time around

Thank you for the “pools of money” aspect.  I wasn’t aware of that, and that it does affect underwriters.

[tmo]

On the other side of the pond, my policy did not change one bit, still the same 2130 EUR (about $2500) for 65k EUR hull and 6m EUR CSL (which I think is the equivalent of what you call "smooth"). Low hours, no IR, not too close to retirement age.

[Missile=Awesome]

12 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I don't think so.

Ryoder's post was not saying Avemco was paying for the 737 MAX.  The Avemco individual was speaking to what was affecting the market, "They are trying to cover for 737 Max losses. They all buy into pools of money and it’s more expensive now.".

"They all" was NOT referring to Avemco, but to the "pools of money," secondary reinsurers, that OTHER underwriters use.

This is EXACTLY what I've been positing all along: something RADICAL changed that is causing UNPRECEDENTED increases, and the MAX liability losses (I can't even fathom the settlement costs of all the passenger lawsuits)...it is NOT 'classic capitalism' at work this time around

How is this not Capitalism Mike?  There were massive reinsurance losses that forced some out of the market and forced increased costs that are passed on to the consumer.  Seems pretty “classic” to me.  You imply that insurance carriers and Capitalism is “all about greed”...It is about supply and demand and having a product or service that is needed/desired.  You can price based on supply and demand AND ultimately competition.  What am I missing?

[Parker_Woodruff]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

the MAX liability losses (I can't even fathom the settlement costs of all the passenger lawsuits)...

The passengers were the small bit. The Grounding Liability claims from all the operators for their unairworthy planes were the biggest segment of this whole deal.

[Davidv]

I think there are two perspectives here.  I'm not a statistics major so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I was looking at the GAMA GA flight operations statistics for 2019 and they show around 30 million GA tower operations for the year (including part 135).  They don't break it down for piston singles but I'm willing to haircut that number to 7 million which is the amount of local tower operations they expected in 2019.  There were 1155 part 91 accidents or incidents reported to the NTSB in 2019 including all aircraft classes.  Let's be generous and multiple that by 3x to account for non-reported damage and not haircut it even though some multi engine and jet accidents are included.

(Damage incidents - 3,465) / (Piston single flight operations - 7,000,000) = 0.000495 or 0.0049%.  I'm not sure what the hull value percentage rate is off hand, but I think it's around 1.5% or higher for VFR pilots.  These numbers aren't perfect, but they would have to be wildly wrong for it be close to amount insurance companies are charging.  Again, someone please point out if I made a large error here.

The other perspective is that if you fly 100 hrs per year in a $100,000 aircraft and your hull premium is $2,000, you're taking a $20 bill out of your pocket for every hour you fly for insurance.  Considering the cost of fuel and other aviation expendables, I don't think this is unreasonable for the peace of mind knowing that your $100,000 "investment" is safe whether its sitting in the hanger, ramp, or has a gear mishap. 

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Davidv

[Parker_Woodruff]

14 minutes ago, Davidv said:

I think there are two perspectives here.  I'm not a statistics major so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  I was looking at the GAMA GA flight operations statistics for 2019 and they show around 30 million GA tower operations for the year (including part 135).  They don't break it down for piston singles but I'm willing to haircut that number to 7 million which is the amount of local tower operations they expected in 2019.  There were 1155 part 91 accidents or incidents reported to the NTSB in 2019 including all aircraft classes.  Let's be generous and multiple that by 3x to account for non-reported damage and not haircut it even though some multi engine and jet accidents are included.

(Damage incidents - 3,465) / (Piston single flight operations - 7,000,000) = 0.000495 or 0.0049%.  I'm not sure what the hull value percentage rate is off hand, but I think it's around 1.5% or higher for VFR pilots.  These numbers aren't perfect, but they would have to be wildly wrong for it be close to amount insurance companies are charging.  Again, someone please point out if I made a large error here.

The other perspective is that if you fly 100 hrs per year in a $100,000 aircraft and your hull premium is $2,000, you're taking a $20 bill out of your pocket for every hour you fly for insurance.  Considering the cost of fuel and other aviation expendables, I don't think this is unreasonable for the peace of mind knowing that your $100,000 "investment" is safe whether its sitting in the hanger, ramp, or has a gear mishap. 

 

The Hull rate involves dollars the and accident rate involves a percentage of the fleet which may or may not return to service after the accident. And a lot of stuff goes unreported.

Current stats within my agency show about 1/40 airplanes I insure experiences a hull claim - and my agency’s loss ratio (in dollars) is much better than most agencies - I’m certain of that from my past experience as an underwriter.

[Jim Peace]

I don't like the gear up exclusion idea....what if the gear up landing was not my fault, my plane has had a lot of annuals and work done by MSC's, lots of stuff could not be right.....a bit of sarcasm but unfortunately the truth...A MSC recently messed up my gear pretty bad, had to have an old school mechanic fix their crap....

I just renewed....I was told if it were just me for my 1964 M20C at 75k hull that it would be 1400 a year...

But I have a couple low timers as named pilots that I pay for (my way of giving back)....total came out to 2760 for the year and they can still be subrogated.....and probably would be in todays environment.

I have 17000 total pro pilot, 50 years old etc....

I would like to have something larger and faster in the future but not at these rates.....

something has to give....

If the price of new airplanes does not kill off GA the insurance part if it will.....