M20J minimum hours to be insurable

[Becca]

On 8/9/2024 at 7:59 PM, BaldEagle said:

Happy Friday all,

Last year my wife passed her private checkride — yay!  Obviously she wants to fly the Mooney that she (we) own, but the insurance company says, “hell, no”.  Understandably. So she’s been flying an Arrow and Comanche on a club insurance policy, and has ~50 hrs retract, 200TT now.  At what point will she be insurable?  She is getting frustrated burning money flying club aircraft when we own a perfectly good Mooney that isn’t flying enough.  Obviously she will need some hours with a Mooney CFI, but that’s not an option until she is listed on the policy.  Chicken and egg situation…

Also - Avemeco has an insurance policy for married pilots where they set the price based on the more experienced pilot rather than the less experienced pilot in the couple. We didn’t like the Avemco policy for other reasons but something to consider. 

[jetdriven]

32 minutes ago, Becca said:

To be clear here - we actually saved money when we added my race partner. We ended up having to drop smooth limits (our insurer wouldn’t cover  her on the smooth policy), which resulted in a $300 refund.  There was no question we were always going to insure her for the race; but we asked the insurer if Byron (already named on policy) could instruct her to get her time in the plane before we added her to the policy, and the answer was no — both the instructor and the “student” had to be named on the policy or covered by the open pilot policy starting from day 1.

So we didn’t save money, then. We got a sublimits policy for 300$ a year less than a smooth policy.  The premium difference quoted earlier in the year was 600$ more for smooth limits. 
but they got to do the air race and both flew it. So we paid. 

[M20F-1968]

Short Answer:

Find a CFI that has sufficient Mooney time to satisfy the insurance company and list his/her on the policy.  Then have your wife fly the Mooney from the left seat, with the CFI acting as pilot in command in the right seat.  Your wife can then log that time as dual instruction received in the Mooney.

John Breda

[skykrawler]

This would be my understanding....

If one has a complex endorsement there is no reason you can't log time when not a named insured or not meeting the open pilot requirements.   You just don't have coverage.  Even if you meet the open pilot requirements the insurance company may subrogate and attempt to make your spouse or her estate cover any losses.  There is no 'disallowing' time logged time just because you're not a named insured at the time.

If you insist on complete coverage,  then meet the requirements.    Usually a few hours with a CFI in make and model and some more cash.  Often there is no flight with passengers until 10 hours or so.

Not sure I understand the big debate.

[Becca]

2 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

Short Answer:

Find a CFI that has sufficient Mooney time to satisfy the insurance company and list his/her on the policy.  Then have your wife fly the Mooney from the left seat, with the CFI acting as pilot in command in the right seat.  Your wife can then log that time as dual instruction received in the Mooney.

John Breda

That was absolutely disallowed by our constitution policy. We inquired with this exact question. Both CFI and “student” must be named on policy if plane is being used for flight instruction (or the student must be covered by open pilot) to be a covered operation by the insurance. We asked this question just recently for my ARC partner who was going to be taking instruction from my husband in our plane. She had to be named before instruction began.

Also at least with our old insurance, every pilot who is an owner of the plane (or owner of plane LLC) must be named on the policy to operate the controls (for example - one spouse meets open pilot so you drop them from insurance.)

Edited August 11, 2024 by Becca

[toto]

An owned aircraft policy can absolutely be written with conditions covering these situations. You can write a policy that says “Pilot X, no solo flight until after completing 10 hours dual with instructor” etc. So the new pilot is a named insured on the policy, the policy covers the transition training, and the policy covers solo flight after the minimum hours requirement is met. 

If concerned about the cost, working with a broker like Parker can be very helpful. Once you’ve met certain experience thresholds, your broker can rewrite or rebid a policy based on current experience and you won’t need to continue paying the “newbie” rate for an extended period. 

[jetdriven]

If a spouse meets the open Pilot warranty, but they’re not named on the policy, and that spouse was operating the aircraft, then you have a unique situation here, they can pay the claim to make the insured whole, and then they can subrogate against the spouse, which means it comes right back out of the same bank account that they granted you for the claim. Which means that it’s effectively uninsured all over again.

[midlifeflyer]

On 8/9/2024 at 7:59 PM, BaldEagle said:

Happy Friday all,

Last year my wife passed her private checkride — yay!  Obviously she wants to fly the Mooney that she (we) own, but the insurance company says, “hell, no”.  Understandably. So she’s been flying an Arrow and Comanche on a club insurance policy, and has ~50 hrs retract, 200TT now.  At what point will she be insurable?  She is getting frustrated burning money flying club aircraft when we own a perfectly good Mooney that isn’t flying enough.  Obviously she will need some hours with a Mooney CFI, but that’s not an option until she is listed on the policy.  Chicken and egg situation…

This isn't usually a chicken and egg situation. More typically, a pilot fills out an application to be added to a policy and provides relevant data. The insurer comes back with requirements the underwriters came up with..

So, two questions:

1. Has your wife filled out an application to be added to the policy? Your question makes it sound like she hasn't. 
2. If she did, did they say, "hell no," or "hell no until she meets the following requirements..."? 

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, Becca said:

To be clear here - we actually saved money when we added my race partner. We ended up having to drop smooth limits (our insurer wouldn’t cover  her on the smooth policy), which resulted in a $300 refund.

I don't know what your limits were, but if you went from, say, $1 Million smooth to $1 Million with an per occupant limit of $100,000, I'm not sure I'd consider a 90% reduction in liability protection for those most likely to be injured in an accident as a "savings."

[PT20J]

Insurance companies are in the business of insuring risks. You can usually insure just about anything. The insurance company will evaluate the risk and set a premium. So, just tell your broker exactly what you want to insure and let them work it out with the insurance companies to get you the best deal to cover your risk. That's what they do. Where people get in trouble is trying to figure out some clever way to avoid paying a higher premium. 

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, skykrawler said:

This would be my understanding....

If one has a complex endorsement there is no reason you can't log time when not a named insured or not meeting the open pilot requirements.   You just don't have coverage.  Even if you meet the open pilot requirements the insurance company may subrogate and attempt to make your spouse or her estate cover any losses.  There is no 'disallowing' time logged time just because you're not a named insured at the time.

If you insist on complete coverage,  then meet the requirements.    Usually a few hours with a CFI in make and model and some more cash.  Often there is no flight with passengers until 10 hours or so.

Not sure I understand the big debate.

Good post.

The 'debate', at least from my perspective, is that presently my wife is NOT a pilot and flys with me and I am completely insured.  Should she get her certificate, with low time, and is NOT insured, what happens if we have an incident?  How do I now PROVE to the insurance company that she was NOT flying?  (And, for the purposes of debate she was NOT flying; no fraud involved

It would seem that with this policy restriction (no one but a named pilot can manipulate the controls) you are set up for a claim denial anytime there is another pilot on board. Theoretically, even a passenger!  I'm sure we've all let a passenger manipulate the controls from time to time.

To me this opens up a cavernous 'gray area' where the insurance company can deny claims leaving the insured to prove a negative!  So what if the non-pilot or passenger manipulated the controls in cruise if it was a RLOC with the named pilot at the controls?  And, if that IS okay, then why shouldn't a rated pilot be able to log the time? As you say, perfectly legal but I have no idea how that would tie into an insurance claim.

@midlifeflyer Any comments/inputs?

[Becca]

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I don't know what your limits were, but if you went from, say, $1 Million smooth to $1 Million with an per occupant limit of $100,000, I'm not sure I'd consider a 90% reduction in liability protection for those most likely to be injured in an accident as a "savings."

Ok. Fair enough.  We’ve only been able to get smooth limits at all on our policy maybe 3 of my last 12 years of airplane ownership purportedly due to my lack of experience.  So losing smooth limits for the one month of the air race was what it was.  They wouldn’t give us smooth limits for my race partner at any price due to her lack of time in a Mooney (despite instrument, commercial, >500 TT, >50 hrs complex).

[Pinecone]

1)  To do dual with pilots not names on the policy requires a different policy, that costs a good bit more.  Even if it is dual only.

2)  If the spouse or other person meets the Open Pilot requirement, then they should be insured as a Open Pilot. 

Because of #1, you can't train the person to get to meet the Open Pilot clause in that plane.

[jetdriven]

51 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

1)  To do dual with pilots not names on the policy requires a different policy, that costs a good bit more.  Even if it is dual only.

2)  If the spouse or other person meets the Open Pilot requirement, then they should be insured as a Open Pilot. 

Because of #1, you can't train the person to get to meet the Open Pilot clause in that plane.

Change the term open Pilot to uninsured because if the spouse is covered under the open Pilot, they will pay for the claim, and then they will subrogate against the open Pilot, which is the spouse, which is really the same “husband and wife airplane owner group”  that they just paid the claim to. People confuse open Pilot with insurance, it’s not. Open pilot warranty clause  pays for the damage to the aircraft, but then the insurance company simply goes to the open Pilot For reimbursement. I don’t think a lot of people understand this. If you operate an aircraft covered under the pilot warranty. You are flying uninsured. Or put better you are the insurance guarantor. 

[Pinecone]

Hmm did not know that.   I will have to read my policy more closely.

Yes, it seems that liability is only for the Insured, which seems be the Name Insured.

[midlifeflyer]

On 8/11/2024 at 12:46 AM, MikeOH said:

Not a moot point; EXACTLY my point!

She is NOT on the policy and does NOT fly the plane, but we have an incident.  How do I prove a NEGATIVE to the insurance company?

I just don’t think the insurer saying, “you had a passenger. We think your passenger was flying and caused the accident. Prove it didn’t happen that way,” is a realistic scenario. There would be far more information available to indicate that was the case before an insurer took that position and was in a position to attempt to meet its burden of proving it.

[midlifeflyer]

11 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm did not know that.   I will have to read my policy more closely.

Yes, it seems that liability is only for the Insured, which seems be the Name Insured.

Think of it this way. The Open Pilot clause is a promise by the owner/primary insured to the insurer that only pilots meeting certain minimum requirements will be flying. It’s mostly there to protect the insurer. It does not make the “open pilot” an insured. 

(The open pilot - someone with permission to fly - might be an insured for third-party liability purposes, but that’s a different part of the policy)

[Becca]

12 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Change the term open Pilot to uninsured because if the spouse is covered under the open Pilot, they will pay for the claim, and then they will subrogate against the open Pilot, which is the spouse, which is really the same “husband and wife airplane owner group”  that they just paid the claim to. People confuse open Pilot with insurance, it’s not. Open pilot warranty clause  pays for the damage to the aircraft, but then the insurance company simply goes to the open Pilot For reimbursement. I don’t think a lot of people understand this. If you operate an aircraft covered under the pilot warranty. You are flying uninsured. Or put better you are the insurance guarantor. 

I’m interested in @Parker_Woodruff’s take on this.  Our agent has said she’s rarely seen insurance go after an occasional user open pilot in a privately owned plane with subrogation. She said it’s more common for flight school/rental policies to subrogate.

 

[Becca]

13 hours ago, Pinecone said:

1)  To do dual with pilots not names on the policy requires a different policy, that costs a good bit more.  Even if it is dual only.

2)  If the spouse or other person meets the Open Pilot requirement, then they should be insured as a Open Pilot. 

Because of #1, you can't train the person to get to meet the Open Pilot clause in that plane.

In addition to Byron’s comment on this, we *also* asked this very question on 2.  There was a year I was really busy and not flying very often, I have well over enough time to meet the open pilot, and we asked the insurance agent if it was a good idea to drop me from the policy (Byron’s much higher time would entitle him to a much lower rate without me being named).  The answer we got was every owner or member of the LLC must be named if they are going to manipulate the controls. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

22 hours ago, Becca said:

I’m interested in @Parker_Woodruff’s take on this.  Our agent has said she’s rarely seen insurance go after an occasional user open pilot in a privately owned plane with subrogation. She said it’s more common for flight school/rental policies to subrogate.

 

Good question.  My gut says per accident the insurance companies going after an operator on the open pilot clause of a personal aircraft policy would be less likely, but I can't confirm.

I'm inclined to agree with your agent, but skewing the perception could be the frequency of flight school losses.

All of the above said, there are, *generally speaking*, more protections in a personal aircraft policy for a non-owner operator than there are on a flight school's commercial policy.

Many times the non-owner is an insured for liability coverages but just has no protection from recourse for physical damage coverages. 

[BaldEagle]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:10 PM, Becca said:

Also - Avemeco has an insurance policy for married pilots where they set the price based on the more experienced pilot rather than the less experienced pilot in the couple. We didn’t like the Avemco policy for other reasons but something to consider. 

Interesting!  I just spoke with Avemco and they quoted us ~3k (married pilots / owner discount).  This is nearly double what I'm paying now with Old Republic, but came in a little less than expected so this is all rather encouraging now.  Very happy I can get a policy with both of us on it at last.  Parker is also working through some options as well so Avemco is likely a backup option.  Thanks all for the feedback.  Very interesting and informative thread.

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Becca said:

I’m interested in @Parker_Woodruff’s take on this.  Our agent has said she’s rarely seen insurance go after an occasional user open pilot in a privately owned plane with subrogation. She said it’s more common for flight school/rental policies to subrogate.

 

Depending on the extent of the damage, the preliminary information on how it happened (and the results of an asset investigation), it's often more trouble than it's worth.  Remember, this is not no-fault - the insurer has to prove negligence.  So, while it's done, it's not common. Even less likely with a pilot the insurer approved by name.  As one underwriter told me, "we don't sue pilots we've approved."

In the case of flight schools/renters, many schools/FBOs require their customers to have non-owner aircraft ("rental") insurance. So, many of those subrogation claims are company-to-company and they just work it out.

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Depending on the extent of the damage, the preliminary information on how it happened (and the results of an asset investigation), it's often more trouble than it's worth.  Remember, this is not no-fault - the insurer has to prove negligence.  So, while it's done, it's not common. Even less likely with a pilot the insurer approved by name.  As one underwriter told me, "we don't sue pilots we've approved."

In the case of flight schools/renters, many schools/FBOs require their customers to have non-owner aircraft ("rental") insurance. So, many of those subrogation claims are company-to-company and they just work it out.

I asked the Miasile client’s  insurance agent while we were on the phone driving up to the airport. I said “if we have an accident in this airplane, can you subrogate against me” and he said “well yeah but we never would”. I said “Let’s put that in writing then”  and he says no. Like I said it was like when the mafia says they won’t burn your restaurant. But what theyre saying is they won’t burn down your restaurant if you don’t pay them and they haven’t had to burn anybody’s restaurant down lately for nonpayment, but it doesn’t mean they won’t. And for some of us, the asset investigation is a couple of emails, you’ve got cash, they want it guess what they will just simply take it. 

  

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, BaldEagle said:

Interesting!  I just spoke with Avemco and they quoted us ~3k (married pilots / owner discount).  This is nearly double what I'm paying now with Old Republic, but came in a little less than expected so this is all rather encouraging now.  Very happy I can get a policy with both of us on it at last.  Parker is also working through some options as well so Avemco is likely a backup option.  Thanks all for the feedback.  Very interesting and informative thread.

The only deal with Avemco is  they quoted $100,000 sub limits  on passengers. And it’s also 100,000 sub limits on any person including people on the ground. And if you think about that for a minute, it’s not really a million dollar policy anymore it’s $100,000 per person.  You can at least try to control who you allow inside of your airplane and you have some kind of a deal for the hundred grand per passenger,  but you don’t have that same kind of deal for people on the ground.

[Pinecone]

9 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

(The open pilot - someone with permission to fly - might be an insured for third-party liability purposes, but that’s a different part of the policy)

From how I read my policy, the Open Pilot is insured against hull loss, but not liability.

But I think that could be covered by a Non-Owned Pilot policy.