Maintenance rash

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

So, your PREMIUM remained UNCHANGED the next year?

Does your premium ever remain UNCHANGED the next year?

Premiums go up and down every year based on the number of factors including claims made by the insured. The smart question would be did your premium go up appreciably at renewal after the claim? I can tell you that my premium actually went down slightly at renewal after my bird strike claim.  Did it go down because I had a bird strike? Hell no, it went down because renewal coincided with a softening of the insurance market and the birdstrike didn’t count against me.

[toto]

6 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Does your premium ever remain UNCHANGED the next year?

Premiums go up and down every year based on the number of factors including claims made by the insured. The smart question would be did your premium go up appreciably at renewal after the claim? I can tell you that my premium actually went down slightly at renewal after my bird strike claim.  Did it go down because I had a bird strike? Hell no, it went down because renewal coincided with a softening of the insurance market and the birdstrike didn’t count against me.

Fwiw, my premium for 25-26 is the same to the cent as the premium for 24-25. 

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Does your premium ever remain UNCHANGED the next year?

Of course not. THAT was my point; you have no way of knowing what caused the change.  You act like making a claim will NOT raise your premium.

Again, why would I make a claim for something NOT my fault when it could raise my premium?  I'm going after the party that caused the damage!  I'd file a small claims action before I gave my insurance the opportunity to raise my premium over it!

[PT20J]

43 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Of course not. THAT was my point; you have no way of knowing what caused the change.  You act like making a claim will NOT raise your premium.

Again, why would I make a claim for something NOT my fault when it could raise my premium?  I'm going after the party that caused the damage!  I'd file a small claims action before I gave my insurance the opportunity to raise my premium over it!

I always deal with my insurance company when I have a claim because, the other party's company has an incentive to lowball me because I am not their customer. My insurance company has the incentive to deal with me fairly because they would like to keep me as a customer. I asked the adjuster if it would affect my rate and he said no because it was not my fault. (Ultimately USAIG did collect from the FBO's insurer, but it was due to a quid pro quo involving an unrelated claim). 

I understand that many do not like insurance companies, don't trust them, and believe that they are getting screwed on premiums. That just has not been my experience.

[IvanP]

31 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I understand that many do not like insurance companies, don't trust them, and believe that they are getting screwed on premiums. That just has not been my experience.

I am glad that at least one person here has a positive experience with insurance companies. I deal with various insurers in my line of work quite often and, regrettably, my expeirence has not been that great. When I had a personal claim on my plane few years ago, the insurance did pay the claim and offered me a renewal for the same plane at a greatly inflated premium (something like 4x what I was paying before the claim) and declined to insure additional plane that I acquired.   

After all, most insurances appear to be represented by the famous law firm Dowey, Screwem & Howe  

Edited yesterday at 01:56 AM by IvanP

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

I always deal with my insurance company when I have a claim because, the other party's company has an incentive to lowball me because I am not their customer.

No question, no argument from me. Yes, you are going to have to work harder; both individuals and corporations are not, unfortunately, going to take responsibility on their own.

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

My insurance company has the incentive to deal with me fairly because they would like to keep me as a customer.

I admire your optimism, but I think it odd that any company WANTS to spend their money on you if they believe won't recoup their losses from YOU, if necessary.  OTOH, paying your claim, raising your premium more than they otherwise would, allows them the opportunity for a NEVER ending higher revenue stream...you will never see the premium drop after they have recouped their claim payout.  Maybe that's why they want to keep you

 

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

I asked the adjuster if it would affect my rate and he said no because it was not my fault

I'll bet that felt good.  But do you honestly believe an adjuster has anything to do with how premiums are determined? Or, why he would be privy to even knowing how they are determined?

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

I understand that many do not like insurance companies, don't trust them, and believe that they are getting screwed on premiums.

Some of the animus may be towards a type of insurance (aircraft vs. home vs. auto) and the State we are discussing.  I'm not sure if your examples were aircraft or some other policy?  Thankfully, I've not had any incidents/accidents/claims with my airplane so I only have California insurance examples.

In California there is a law forcing drivers to purchase auto insurance; that certainly sets the stage for higher premiums!  I just received renewal for my auto policy: It went from $1,7000/year to $2,700/year...no claims, accidents, or tickets.  I'm not aware of a 59% increase in statewide auto claims in the last 12 months!  Kind of seems like being screwed to me!  Maybe you'd feel differently.

Next example is my homeowner policy: up 33%!  Again, no claims. Ah, but look at all the recent fires in Los Angeles, you say!  So, insurance should have ALREADY collected premiums for just that kind of eventuality; not exactly news that California has bit of a history of FIRE and flood. You can bet they have NOT paid out much of those claims at this point, yet premiums have already been jacked up!  Do you honestly think we are going to see a 33% reduction of premiums after all those claims have been settled?  What do you suppose the premiums are going to be for those people that rebuild their homes after getting paid out (payouts which will likely NOT cover their cost to rebuild, but sufficient that their lender will be paid in full!)?  Do you think their adjuster is going to tell them their premiums won't increase because the fire was not their fault?

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

No question, no argument from me. Yes, you are going to have to work harder; both individuals and corporations are not, unfortunately, going to take responsibility on their own.

I admire your optimism, but I think it odd that any company WANTS to spend their money on you if they believe won't recoup their losses from YOU, if necessary.  OTOH, paying your claim, raising your premium more than they otherwise would, allows them the opportunity for a NEVER ending higher revenue stream...you will never see the premium drop after they have recouped their claim payout.  Maybe that's why they want to keep you

 

I'll bet that felt good.  But do you honestly believe an adjuster has anything to do with how premiums are determined? Or, why he would be privy to even knowing how they are determined?

Some of the animus may be towards a type of insurance (aircraft vs. home vs. auto) and the State we are discussing.  I'm not sure if your examples were aircraft or some other policy?  Thankfully, I've not had any incidents/accidents/claims with my airplane so I only have California insurance examples.

In California there is a law forcing drivers to purchase auto insurance; that certainly sets the stage for higher premiums!  I just received renewal for my auto policy: It went from $1,7000/year to $2,700/year...no claims, accidents, or tickets.  I'm not aware of a 59% increase in statewide auto claims in the last 12 months!  Kind of seems like being screwed to me!  Maybe you'd feel differently.

Next example is my homeowner policy: up 33%!  Again, no claims. Ah, but look at all the recent fires in Los Angeles, you say!  So, insurance should have ALREADY collected premiums for just that kind of eventuality; not exactly news that California has bit of a history of FIRE and flood. You can bet they have NOT paid out much of those claims at this point, yet premiums have already been jacked up!  Do you honestly think we are going to see a 33% reduction of premiums after all those claims have been settled?  What do you suppose the premiums are going to be for those people that rebuild their homes after getting paid out (payouts which will likely NOT cover their cost to rebuild, but sufficient that their lender will be paid in full!)?  Do you think their adjuster is going to tell them their premiums won't increase because the fire was not their fault?

I don't believe that everyone is a liar. I lived in California from 1975 until 2017 and all of my few claims were in California except for the nose gear claim for USAIG. My home and auto insurers (CSAA, State Farm) always treated me fairly. Insurers in California got royally ripped off with the Oakland fire when people bought replacement value insurance and then only declared their home value at a fraction of it's actual replacement value. So, the insurance companies should have checked. But the homeowners actually committed a fraud and were never prosecuted because the stupid insurance companies agreed to the value. I only point this out because it works both ways. I never blame pilots that screw up -- we all make mistakes. But, amphibian insurance is expensive because sooner or later these airplanes seem to end up upside down in the water and retractable gear airplane insurance is expensive because so many end up on their belly. If you want cheap insurance, buy a C-172.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

I don't believe that everyone is a liar. I lived in California from 1975 until 2017 and all of my few claims were in California except for the nose gear claim for USAIG. My home and auto insurers (CSAA, State Farm) always treated me fairly. Insurers in California got royally ripped off with the Oakland fire when people bought replacement value insurance and then only declared their home value at a fraction of it's actual replacement value. So, the insurance companies should have checked. But the homeowners actually committed a fraud and were never prosecuted because the stupid insurance companies agreed to the value. I only point this out because it works both ways. I never blame pilots that screw up -- we all make mistakes. But, amphibian insurance is expensive because sooner or later these airplanes seem to end up upside down in the water and retractable gear airplane insurance is expensive because so many end up on their belly. If you want cheap insurance, buy a C-172.

Nor do I believe everyone is a liar; I don't think your adjuster was lying, he may well have believed your premiums wouldn't increase. My point is that he really didn't know for certain; not his job.

I think we're getting off track.  The original issue is if filing claims with YOUR insurance, for something NOT your fault, would increase your premium more than it otherwise would.

Interesting debate, but I don't think there is any way to prove it either way.

[PT20J]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Nor do I believe everyone is a liar; I don't think your adjuster was lying, he may well have believed your premiums wouldn't increase. My point is that he really didn't know for certain; not his job.

I think we're getting off track.  The original issue is if filing claims with YOUR insurance, for something NOT your fault, would increase your premium more than it otherwise would.

Interesting debate, but I don't think there is any way to prove it either way.

All I know is that the adjuster claimed to be quoting company policy. I mean really, if you think about it, why would it be in the company's long term interest to jack up the rates for a claim that was not the customer's fault. It's so easy to change insurance companies. Also, I asked Parker for advice before filing the claim and he said, "That's what you buy insurance for and they aren't likely to raise your rate for that."

Everything I've read indicates that insurance companies don't make money on single engine airplane policies. Too many crashes. I'm just happy I can buy it. A friend is selling his YAK-9 because he cannot get insurance to race it.

[Pinecone]

On 8/1/2025 at 10:21 PM, Slick Nick said:

I used to work in auto body repair. That could be fixed to 95% of new without repainting the cowl. That is not the way they did that here. Definitely raise sh!t over this. I’d be more angry that they tried to cover it up without saying anything to you. 

Agreed.  A good paint person can fix it so you can't see it.  And it shouldn't cost much at all.

And I agree, that this is not acceptable, that the shop should pay for the fix.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, PT20J said:

Insurers in California got royally ripped off with the Oakland fire when people bought replacement value insurance and then only declared their home value at a fraction of it's actual replacement value. So, the insurance companies should have checked. But the homeowners actually committed a fraud and were never prosecuted because the stupid insurance companies agreed to the value. 

My house (not in CA) is insured for replacement value, but there is a limit to the number, like hull insurance on a plane.  They won't just cover any amount.

[PT20J]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

My house (not in CA) is insured for replacement value, but there is a limit to the number, like hull insurance on a plane.  They won't just cover any amount.

All the California insurers added limits after the Oakland fire.

[Pinecone]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

All the California insurers added limits after the Oakland fire.

Smart move.