M20J minimum hours to be insurable

[midlifeflyer]

12 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

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.

Yep. The choice not to subrogate is based on considerations other than the legal right to subrogate.

[midlifeflyer]

14 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

they quoted $100,000 sub limits  on passengers. And it’s also 100,000 sub limits on any person including people on the ground.

Is that what it says? The Avemco policies I've read apply the sublimits to people in the airplane, not to people on the ground.

[jetdriven]

The policy they offered us was sublimits to all parties, not just passengers. They may offer different people different terms, but that was the best we could get from them. And it was probably 100 or 200 bucks a year cheaper than old Republic is who we have now but sub limits on passengers  is one thing and sub limits to everybody else is quite another. 

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

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

Reading my policy, that is backwards.

The question I have is, is someone flying under the Open Pilot requirements a "Insured"?????

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

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.

My local FBO requires coverage for the aircraft of a minimum of $25,000.  I am assuming that is their deductible on the hull.

Any liability coverage is up to you, but I carry $1 million on that also

[kortopates]

Yep. The choice not to subrogate is based on considerations other than the legal right to subrogate.

That’s a big problem IMO, as i agree with Byron. I need far better assurance than a brokers opinion that they won’t come after me as the CFI so require being a named pilot or additional insured with waiver of subrogation before i give transition training. it’s very rarely an issue. But i can’t afford to risk all my assets just to give flight instruction. i also carry separate non-owner insurance but it’s not always enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Reading my policy, that is backwards.
The question I have is, is someone flying under the Open Pilot requirements a "Insured"?????

Only when they are on the policy, otherwise the open pilot clause is protecting the owner!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pinecone]

1 minute ago, kortopates said:

Only when they are on the policy, otherwise the open pilot clause is protecting the owner!

Here are some quotes from my policy

"Insured the unqualified word insured wherever used in this policy with respect to Coverages A, B, C and D, includes not only the named insured but also any person while using or riding in the aircraft and any person or organization legally responsible for its use, provided the actual use is with the express permission of the named insured."

FYI,  Coverages A, B, C, and D are the liability coverages.  Bolding is as per policy document.

"This policy is⠀COMPLETED ⠀ as follows:
It is a condition of this insurance that when in flight, the aircraft will be operated only by pilot(s) specified below.
WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1986 MOONEY 252TSE (M20K) N252VM
NAMED PILOT(S): TERRY CARRAWAY, OR
ANY PILOT WHO HOLDS A CURRENT AND VALID PRIVATE PILOT CERTIFICATE OR BETTER WITH SINGLE ENGINE LAND AND INSTRUMENT RATING PRIVILEGES AND HAS A MINIMUM OF THE FOLLOWING HOURS OF FLIGHT EXPERIENCE AS RECORDED IN HIS OR HER LOGBOOK:
750 TOTAL LOGGED FLYING HOURS
100 HOURS IN AIRCRAFT HAVING RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
25 HOURS IN THE INSURED MAKE AND MODEL"

So this looks like Open Pilots ARE covered.

What IS excluded is:

"who is engaged in the activity of instruction, evaluation, examination or certification of any pilot or crew member or prospective pilot or crew member;"

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

That’s a big problem IMO, as i agree with Byron. I need far better assurance than a brokers opinion that they won’t come after me as the CFI so require being a named pilot or additional insured with waiver of subrogation before i give transition training. it’s very rarely an issue. But i can’t afford to risk all my assets just to give flight instruction. i also carry separate non-owner insurance but it’s not always enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would take nothing for granted unless it's in writing because you are providing aviation services which can carve out coverages otherwise afforded to non-owners.

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Is that what it says? The Avemco policies I've read apply the sublimits to people in the airplane, not to people on the ground.

Hmm, interesting...I specifically avoided AVEMCO as the pro-forma policy I reviewed applied the $100K sublimits to EVERYONE: passengers and people on the ground.

I wonder if they've changed to match most other carriers?

[midlifeflyer]

15 hours ago, Pinecone said:

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

The open pilot clause insures you for hull loss. I’ve never seen a policy that insures (protects) the Open Pilot.

[Pinecone]

For my policy, it comes down to what is the definition of Insured.  And it seems to include Open Pilots.  But only for hull.

[LANCECASPER]

2 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

The open pilot clause insures you for hull loss. I’ve never seen a policy that insures (protects) the Open Pilot.

Meaning that they will pay you, the policy holder, the hull value if an Open Pilot totals the airplane?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, Pinecone said:

For my policy, it comes down to what is the definition of Insured.  And it seems to include Open Pilots.  But only for hull.

You had it right in your policy quote above.  Pilots flying for their personal use are insureds for liability, but not for aircraft physical damage.  Named Pilots are afforded a Waiver of Subrogation in your policy by endorsement.

[midlifeflyer]

15 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Reading my policy, that is backwards.

The question I have is, is someone flying under the Open Pilot requirements a "Insured"?????

I agree with @Parker_Woodruff on this. 

Keep reading the policy. If it’s like the ones I’ve read, there is probably something in there that treats a pilot flying with your permission as an insured for liability purposes. 

[Pinecone]

Just now, Parker_Woodruff said:

You had it right in your policy quote above.  Pilots flying for their personal use are insureds for liability, but not for aircraft physical damage.  Named Pilots are afforded a Waiver of Subrogation in your policy by endorsement.

Thanks.

[midlifeflyer]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

Meaning that they will pay you, the policy holder, the hull value if an Open Pilot totals the airplane?

Exactly. And you the clause is violated, they don’t have to.

[Pinecone]

Just now, midlifeflyer said:

I agree with @Parker_Woodruff on this. 

Keep reading the policy. If it’s like the ones I’ve read, there is probably something in there that treats a pilot flying with your permission as an insured for liability purposes. 

I already quoted that.

And then it says that the insurance is in force is based on that ONLY me (named pilot) or pilots meeting the open pilot requirements are flying the plane.

[midlifeflyer]

3 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

For my policy, it comes down to what is the definition of Insured.  And it seems to include Open Pilots.  But only for hull.

If you post your policy (removing personal information) I’m sure @Parker_Woodruff or I or someone else can show you the language.

[Pinecone]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Meaning that they will pay you, the policy holder, the hull value if an Open Pilot totals the airplane?

Of course.  They would not pay the open pilot, they pay the owner.  And if you have a lien, they pay them first, then the rest to you.

 

[LANCECASPER]

3 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Of course.  They would not pay the open pilot, they pay the owner.  And if you have a lien, they pay them first, then the rest to you.

 

That was the point I was making is that they are insuring you the policyholder, making you whole, not insuring the open pilot, as you mentioned, who does not have a contract with them.

[Pinecone]

Just now, midlifeflyer said:

If you post your policy (removing personal information) I’m sure @Parker_Woodruff or I or someone else can show you the language.

Look at what I posted, which are exact quotes.

 

[Pinecone]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

That was the point I was making is that they are insuring you the policyholder, making you whole, not insuring the open pilot, as you mentioned, who does not have a contract with them.

Yeap.  The open pilot does not have a loss if the aircraft is damaged or destroyed, the owner does.

[Z W]

Be very careful reading your insurance policy and thinking you understand it.  They are crafted by specialist lawyers and usually give rights up front, then take them away, either in the definitions section or in an exclusion or endorsement.  You have to read the whole thing and remember each part and compare them.  And if it conflicts or is ambiguous, which is surprisingly common, you may have to read caselaw to guess what would happen in the event of a claim.

Some of the confusion here comes from people mixing up two different types of policies.  We mostly all have owner-operator policies.  The insurance company vets each person who will be flying the plane and quotes accordingly (lower) for the known risks.  They aren't intended to cover flight instruction or unknown, unnamed pilots manipulating the controls.  

If you are a flight school or want to instruct in your plane, you'll get a different policy and a different, higher price.  It will cover damage to the airplane, and possibly others, if an unknown, unnamed pilot is manipulating the controls when an incident happens.

There's a strange gap sometimes where a new pilot has a hard time getting approved on a personal policy and may have trouble finding a Mooney with a flight school policy to log the required hours in.  The best plan is probably to call a good agent and get a personal policy at whatever it costs.  The other option is to fly uninsured.

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Z W said:

Be very careful reading your insurance policy and thinking you understand it. 

This. Unlike homeowner, auto, and some other consumer-specific policies, aviation policies are not state-regulated to meet some public-policy considerations. They are commercial policies which can have language confusing to the unindoctrinated. Some are getting better with using plain language, but you still have to read carefully.

I won't paint a broad brush, but I've even run into an agent who didn't understand what the policy said.