Insurence Question

[A64Pilot]

Silly question but say my engine went bang as in threw a rod or something, I successfully glide it to a landing with no damage at an airport, insurence isn’t involved.

But what if same bang but I put it in a field with some but not enough to total damage, does insurence pay for the engine?

[philiplane]

No. They pay for retrieval of the airplane, and any damages to the plane as a result of the accident. But the engine is completely on you.

[201er]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

But what if same bang but I put it in a field with some but not enough to total damage, does insurence pay for the engine?

I think you’ll need to do at least as much damage to yourself as to the plane for there to be enough accident related engine damage.

[Bolter]

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

No. They pay for retrieval of the airplane, and any damages to the plane as a result of the accident. But the engine is completely on you.

If the off-field landing/crash is a "total" then would insurance pay the total insured value, which includes the engine?

[Utah20Gflyer]

Seems like is the off field landing involved a prop strike it may cover some engine work, ie post prop strike tear down and remediation.  I could certainly be wrong though. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

Seems like is the off field landing involved a prop strike it may cover some engine work, ie post prop strike tear down and remediation.  I could certainly be wrong though. 

That’s what they covered for me.

[A64Pilot]

10 hours ago, philiplane said:

No. They pay for retrieval of the airplane, and any damages to the plane as a result of the accident. But the engine is completely on you.

That’s logical and what I expected but you never know. Your covered for running out of fuel or other pilot mistakes I guess too.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

That’s what they covered for me.

You had one quit and they paid for R&R plus prop strike inspection as well as fixing the airplane?

[A64Pilot]

9 hours ago, Bolter said:

If the off-field landing/crash is a "total" then would insurance pay the total insured value, which includes the engine?

Another good question. I guess maybe depends on why it quit? If it destroyed itself as opposed to a fuel servo quit?

IF I understand mechanical failures are on you so if it threw a rod then I guess the engine value is subtracted from total value? Would anyone actually suggest a prop strike inspection on an engine with a rod sticking out of the case?

But unlikely they will total because back out 50K or more from insured value and can you get to insured value, or by definition can only come within 50K?

But if it caught fire from a busted fuel line they total it with I guess in theory less the cost of a fuel line?

This is why I’m a little confused, too much time on my hand and I get to thinking.

[redbaron1982]

I'm not an expert, but I think I remember a similar post here or in PoA and someone said that the insurance would cover all except the very thing that broke in the first place. So for instance if your engine issue comes from both fuel pumps failing, then insurance would cover all except those.

In the scenario of a connecting rod failing, could we argue that you should pay just for the connecting rod, and any other damage emerging from pieces of metal flying inside the crankcase would be on the insurance?

[philiplane]

9 hours ago, Bolter said:

If the off-field landing/crash is a "total" then would insurance pay the total insured value, which includes the engine?

Yes, of course. A total loss pays the agreed upon value of the hull. Which is different from auto insurance, which pays the market value of the vehicle at the time of the loss.

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Yes, of course. A total loss pays the agreed upon value of the hull. Which is different from auto insurance, which pays the market value of the vehicle at the time of the loss.

Yes but if the cause of crash was the engine destroying itself and they don’t pay for mechanical failures does total mean insured value less cost of an engine?

Then is value of the engine pro rated based on its time to overhaul?

[Parker_Woodruff]

37 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Yes but if the cause of crash was the engine destroying itself and they don’t pay for mechanical failures does total mean insured value less cost of an engine?

Then is value of the engine pro rated based on its time to overhaul?

I have never seen a case where someone gets the agreed value less the engine value...that's probably because the insurance co takes the engine with the total loss...so since you're not getting the engine back, they can't bill you for it.  Also, the occurrence (impact) quite often causes additional damage to the engine which is covered.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

You had one quit and they paid for R&R plus prop strike inspection as well as fixing the airplane?

Yes, a precautionary landing, prop strike, new prop, engine repairs, nose gear collapse, wheel pants, wing skin, painting, and they paid for the airframe repairs twice because the first shop screwed up so many things.  I can now tell you of another shop to avoid.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, philiplane said:

Yes, of course. A total loss pays the agreed upon value of the hull. Which is different from auto insurance, which pays the market value of the vehicle at the time of the loss.

My daughter’s car costs as much to insure as my other daughter’s C150 with 10 times the hull coverage.

[jwilcoxon78]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:55 AM, A64Pilot said:

Yes but if the cause of crash was the engine destroying itself and they don’t pay for mechanical failures does total mean insured value less cost of an engine?

Then is value of the engine pro rated based on its time to overhaul?

In that scenario, the claim would be evaluated on the covered loss amount.  If that amount renders it a total loss under the policy, you would receive the insured value, irrespective of the engine damage.  However, if the covered damage didn't render it a total, the policy would only pay for the covered repairs, even if the failed engine adds significantly to the cost.  

[skykrawler]

This is an interesting article that discusses the topic:

https://kingairmagazine.com/article/mechanical-breakdown/

 

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, skykrawler said:

This is an interesting article that discusses the topic:

https://kingairmagazine.com/article/mechanical-breakdown/

 

Never considered turbine over temps, they seemed to indicate that an over temp in flight was covered but one during starting was not?

I say seemed as they listed each possibility separately, except in flight, excluding it made me wonder if it was covered, FOD is covered,  the last statement in the article saying aircraft. insurence can be complex seemed correct

[skykrawler]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Never considered turbine over temps, they seemed to indicate that an over temp in flight was covered but one during starting was not?

I say seemed as they listed each possibility separately, except in flight, excluding it made me wonder if it was covered, FOD is covered,  the last statement in the article saying aircraft. insurence can be complex seemed correct

These were exclusions that could be added back....for a small fee no doubt.

[A64Pilot]

47 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

These were exclusions that could be added back....for a small fee no doubt.

As it should. If you don’t like it don’t purchase insurence. Not trying to be snarky I like having the choice as opposed to having to buy insurence I don’t want because it’s part of the package.

Thankfully it’s not yet mandated.

I keep considering dropping it myself, I’ve already gotten the letter that’s it’s going up again this year, this will be year three for me and every year has been more expensive than the year before.

From a liability concern would “Umbrella” insurence cover you, are aircraft often excluded?

[201Mooniac]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

From a liability concern would “Umbrella” insurence cover you, are aircraft often excluded?

I checked with the writer of my umbrella policy and they explicitly exclude aircraft.

[A64Pilot]

Figured that