F’n insurance

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

This is a snap from a Paul Bertorelli video:

 

Really falls into only three statistical categories: 20%, 10%, and 5%

The anomalies are the 210 and the Mooney.  Interesting, however, that twins at that same 10% with Mooneys.  I wonder if it is some kind of 'complexity' issue, but no idea why Bonanzas, for example, would be less 'complex'???  And, Piper Twins???  Very confusing data.  Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology.

Anyway, curious if insurance premiums reflect this breakdown?  @Parker_Woodruff

[kortopates]

9 hours ago, N204TA said:

I bought my’68 F in July 1995.  Over the years, I saw insurance premiums slowly come down and paid $725 in 2017 for $65K hull, $1M liability, zero deductible.  Then, it started going up rapidly.

When it broke $1,000 in 2020, I called the broker and asked what was going on.  He said that the underwriter loved me and that just over $100 was liability and the rest was hull.  He speculated that supply chain issues, general lack of replacement parts, etc. was making it easier to just call damage a total loss rather than try to get repairs so payouts were getting more expensive.

FWIW, my policy just renewed at the end of June and actually went down a few bucks to $1,387.  I still only insure for $65K because, at this point in my life, I’m not sure if I’d ever buy another airplane if something happened to this one and I just want what I feel I have in it back.  I’m 57 with almost 4,000 hours and over 3,500 in my Mooney alone.

I'd suggest increasing its value to market value if only to protect you from a gear up, or other relatively significant claim. Right now  the insurance company is going to total your aircraft with any gear up claim. They figure on average your salvage value is 1/3 of your hull value, but in your case with such a low hull value compared to market, they might figure more like 50% salvage value and not be willing to fund repairs at over $32K since it will be cheaper to cash you out. But if so, you won't be able to replace it with the settlement funds. 

[Schllc]

10 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

.."there have been many gear-ups in Mooneys in the last couple of years".   It is not just the last couple years. It has been all the time.  A lot of people here are in denial that gear-ups are the main reason that Mooney's have high insurance rates and why they are nearly uninsurable for new pilots due to rates. 

You just provided the proof.  You have a $200k hull Cirrus with ZERO time in MAKE & MODEL.  And only $2,400/year. 

I’m not sure it’s denial, probably more like resignation.  At least for me anyway…
How exactly is this incidence rate going to be addressed?   
It’s obviously a problem, and also obvious that it affects rates, but not sure anyone has proffered a solution. 
My perspective is that it’s analogous to insurance rates on a sports car, it is what it is, and if you want to fly a Mooney you have to accept the reality. 

That being said, the insurance market is really broken.  
I had a very difficult time getting insurance the second year of ownership in my Aerostar. No real explanation why it went from 9k year one, when I had zero time and didn’t even have my rating yet!  Then, when I went to renew, with my rating and pic time, it goes to 48k in year two?
When I tried to shop, no one would touch it.  Avemco said call back when you have 100hrs in make and model. I had to fly with no hull for a few months to re apply. 
When I hit 150 hours I called Avemco back and they said no way with only 150 hours. 
Huh!?

We see the broken system here, in “plane” view, with rates all over the place, and no good explanation as to why.  Gear up damage claims is likely a part of the equation, but it is not the only factor.  It would be nice to know what portion of the premium is because of these incidents. Insurance companies have the data if they chose to analyze and apply, but my suspicion is it all goes into a pot, and the market is too small to parse out that finely. Lastly they know we are captive, and there isn’t much competition so….

[Schllc]

50 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Really falls into only three statistical categories: 20%, 10%, and 5%

The anomalies are the 210 and the Mooney.  Interesting, however, that twins at that same 10% with Mooneys.  I wonder if it is some kind of 'complexity' issue, but no idea why Bonanzas, for example, would be less 'complex'???  And, Piper Twins???  Very confusing data.  Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology.

Anyway, curious if insurance premiums reflect this breakdown?  @Parker_Woodruff

This is only as valuable as the actual data.  The number of planes in service, along with hours flown is really important for this chart to mean anything. 
Without quantifying the data set, it doesn’t mean much. 
I bet the damage cost from that Mooney that flew into the tower was equivalent to the cost of 20+ gear ups….
 

Edited August 21 by Schllc

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, Schllc said:

This is only as valuable as the actual data.  The number of planes in service, along with hours flown is really important for this chart to mean anything. 
Without quantifying the data set, it doesn’t mean much.

Uh, pretty sure I pointed that out, " Very confusing data. Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology."

[Schllc]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Uh, pretty sure I pointed that out, " Very confusing data. Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology."

I was referring to the pic you posted, didn’t come across that way when it didn’t repost..

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I was referring to the pic you posted, didn’t come across that way when it didn’t repost..

Ah, got it.

[Parker_Woodruff]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Really falls into only three statistical categories: 20%, 10%, and 5%

The anomalies are the 210 and the Mooney.  Interesting, however, that twins at that same 10% with Mooneys.  I wonder if it is some kind of 'complexity' issue, but no idea why Bonanzas, for example, would be less 'complex'???  And, Piper Twins???  Very confusing data.  Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology.

Anyway, curious if insurance premiums reflect this breakdown?  @Parker_Woodruff

I don't know how these numbers were calculated, but the Cessna 210 and Cessna twins most certainly are up there.

Gear ups aren't even NTSB reportable in most instances...

[Fly Boomer]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Maybe we shouldn't read too much into this without knowing more about the population sizes and methodology.

My fear is that a more rigorous examination of the data would make it worse because of the relatively small number of our airplanes generating the absolute number of gear-up landings.