My Avemco policy still covers $250k per person bodily injury liability, though they said they won't write that anymore, it's only for customers who have had that coverage. There's a separate coverage for $3k medical expenses - I guess that might cover a checkup and some tests if someone was banged up in a crash.
2022 Insurance Discussion
- Thread starter stewartb
- Start date
bob turner
Registered User
Avemco does not like to do "per occupant" on the sub-limit. They will write it that way, and I always insist.
The difference is - with "per person" you have to kill ten innocent bystanders on the freeway to get to your million dollar limit. Or I suppose you could hit a Cirrus - they are a million now.
The difference is - with "per person" you have to kill ten innocent bystanders on the freeway to get to your million dollar limit. Or I suppose you could hit a Cirrus - they are a million now.
TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
If you want to see hull insurance drop in a hurry you get enough of us dropping it with these over inflated prices, they actually need you more than you need them. Let enough folks self insure for one season, and the insurance
Companies will quickly realize they have overstepped their
Market. Prices will drop over nite. Simply as supply and demand. They gotta sell insurance to stay in business.
Companies will quickly realize they have overstepped their
Market. Prices will drop over nite. Simply as supply and demand. They gotta sell insurance to stay in business.
bob turner
Registered User
One minor incident with an included prop strike on a Cub can be forty grand.
We just had a wingtip strike with cracked spar - my guess is the repair will be forty, with no prop strike - just the wing, aileron, and cover/assembly/paint. Might be more than that. I have a copy of the bid, but haven't really looked at it. My job is cover/ribstitch.
The initial adjuster probably burned three grand for airline tickets, rental car, and a day's fee for one hour with a digital camera. That should/could change.
For the insurer to survive, this would have to be a fairly rare event. A hundred similar aircraft would have to pay premiums without incident.
I have no idea what the statistics are, but our little fleet of taildraggers is always suffering. I think there are only maybe 20 on the airport, and it seems like every two years something relatively major happens.
We just had a wingtip strike with cracked spar - my guess is the repair will be forty, with no prop strike - just the wing, aileron, and cover/assembly/paint. Might be more than that. I have a copy of the bid, but haven't really looked at it. My job is cover/ribstitch.
The initial adjuster probably burned three grand for airline tickets, rental car, and a day's fee for one hour with a digital camera. That should/could change.
For the insurer to survive, this would have to be a fairly rare event. A hundred similar aircraft would have to pay premiums without incident.
I have no idea what the statistics are, but our little fleet of taildraggers is always suffering. I think there are only maybe 20 on the airport, and it seems like every two years something relatively major happens.
john schwamm
SPONSOR
Anchorage, Alaska Carefree, AZ
Stewart,
Wait until you hit old age, that is after 75. Ins does not want to insure any turbine for those over 75. Had to sell my Kodiak at 77, they gave me 2 more years, raised cost 40% too.
Now next year I hit 80, hear they are not too interested in insuring any pilot over 80, but maybe existing company will continue.
I only do liability on cub and Husky and 175, hull not worth it to me, and if bad crash will I care?
Fly, be careful, have fun while you can.
John
Wait until you hit old age, that is after 75. Ins does not want to insure any turbine for those over 75. Had to sell my Kodiak at 77, they gave me 2 more years, raised cost 40% too.
Now next year I hit 80, hear they are not too interested in insuring any pilot over 80, but maybe existing company will continue.
I only do liability on cub and Husky and 175, hull not worth it to me, and if bad crash will I care?
Fly, be careful, have fun while you can.
John
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
That's a nice concept, but I'm betting it'd never happen.....even if a bunch of folks dropped their hull coverage. Why? Because this is such a tiny market that I doubt that any underwriter does only aviation policies. Brokers-yes, but they aren't the ones that set the rates. In fact, I'd bet that if this were actually to happen, rates would INCREASE, not decrease. Why? It's all about the actuarial. How many are insured vs how many crash. Fewer insured means everybody's rate is almost guaranteed to increase.
MTV
Hull insurance on my experimental Carbon Cub based in AK came down from $32k/year to $10k/year going from 17 hours in type to 104 hours in type if that's useful information for anyone. Those premiums are about 8% vs 3% of total hull value respectively. No accident/claim/certificate action history. 5 figure total time in planes they don't care about.
I presently only have a liability policy that I was required to obtain to fly through Canada. I'm going to wait for that policy to expire next year before I sign up for hull. I'm still learning the airplane anyway, so I'm mostly sticking to airports or at least "strips", not really going off the beaten path.
I presently only have a liability policy that I was required to obtain to fly through Canada. I'm going to wait for that policy to expire next year before I sign up for hull. I'm still learning the airplane anyway, so I'm mostly sticking to airports or at least "strips", not really going off the beaten path.
Last edited:
$350k
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Insurance quotes are strange to say the least. My quote for the FX-3 was more with about 180 hours on type than it was with 2 hours on type. I did have a choice of 2 carriers instead of 1 at that second renewal.
bob turner
Registered User
Back to instruction for a minute.
Just this morning I got a document from AIG waiving their right of subrogation for a short flight review in a $100K Citabria. It was no charge to the owner. It covers only hull, and that's fine, since my SAFE insurance covers me for the deadly stuff.
What is significant about this is - the broker asked AIG, and AIG said yes.
Recently on two occasions I have had brokers refuse to even ask, on the basis that they were sure I would not be able to get such a waiver. In one case, the broker said I was too old, had no time in a Piper J-5, and it was simply impossible. I am now wondering if the broker figured there was no fee involved, so why even bother with such a request.
It is true that I have almost zero time in the J5 (I did the test flight under a different insurance policy) and it is true that I am 81 - but by golly I have way more time in Cubs than I do in Champs, and this one seemed automatic - maybe AIG sees the value in an occasional hour of dual with an experienced (albeit ancient) instructor?
Anyway, this is new and encouraging information.
Another subject - My Decathlon is covered to $70K, and the premiums for that and liability are a shade over $1100 - it would seem that Georgia and California are about the same when it comes to aircraft damage. I am sure Alaska is different. Perhaps the 180s are starting to get torn up more often than Decathlons? I land off-airport less than once or twice a decade, so maybe that's the difference.
Just this morning I got a document from AIG waiving their right of subrogation for a short flight review in a $100K Citabria. It was no charge to the owner. It covers only hull, and that's fine, since my SAFE insurance covers me for the deadly stuff.
What is significant about this is - the broker asked AIG, and AIG said yes.
Recently on two occasions I have had brokers refuse to even ask, on the basis that they were sure I would not be able to get such a waiver. In one case, the broker said I was too old, had no time in a Piper J-5, and it was simply impossible. I am now wondering if the broker figured there was no fee involved, so why even bother with such a request.
It is true that I have almost zero time in the J5 (I did the test flight under a different insurance policy) and it is true that I am 81 - but by golly I have way more time in Cubs than I do in Champs, and this one seemed automatic - maybe AIG sees the value in an occasional hour of dual with an experienced (albeit ancient) instructor?
Anyway, this is new and encouraging information.
Another subject - My Decathlon is covered to $70K, and the premiums for that and liability are a shade over $1100 - it would seem that Georgia and California are about the same when it comes to aircraft damage. I am sure Alaska is different. Perhaps the 180s are starting to get torn up more often than Decathlons? I land off-airport less than once or twice a decade, so maybe that's the difference.
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Hi Guys,
I see a lot of comments about making sense of insuring the hull coverage of the SuperCub.
An easy way to estimate or visualize the premium for a Piper Super Cub is a rate between 1% and 5%.
-1% for pilots with a Private Instrument rating and over 500 Total Time
-2% for pilots with just a Private Pilot License and over 100 Total Time
-3% for Student Pilots working on a Private Pilot License
-4% for Student Pilots with a low hull value Piper Super Cub like $100,000 value
-5% is the pilot has previous claims within the past 5 years
I recently did a Piper SuperCub Aircraft Insurance Guide for 2022. So far in 2022 we have seen rates come down, as compared to 2021.
I hope this helps.
Ben Peterson
jrussl
BENEFACTOR
Madison, WI
Thanks for that info, Ben. You share an interesting perspective. What insight might you have regarding some of the high value experimentals mentioned here and also the increased rates in AK?
One suggestion. Change out the picture of the Maule for a Super Cub on your article about Super Cubs.
Sent from my iPad using SuperCub.Org mobile app
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Thanks I look forward to contributing to the community!
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Jrussl,
Thanks for the note, I will change that.
When you start getting into high value experimental aircraft and AK based aircraft, the number of insurance companies available to quote cuts in half from 4 to 2. That doesn't mean that your rates are going to double, but the rates may be more sensitive to market fluctuations.
Just an estimate below. A better way to think about your insurance is a rate of the hull value vs. a dollar premium amount, or percentage increase.
- 2% of hull for high value experimentals with Private Instrument rated pilot and 500 Total Time
- 2% of hull value for AK based aircraft with Private and Instrument and 500 Total Time
Thanks for the note, I will change that.
When you start getting into high value experimental aircraft and AK based aircraft, the number of insurance companies available to quote cuts in half from 4 to 2. That doesn't mean that your rates are going to double, but the rates may be more sensitive to market fluctuations.
Just an estimate below. A better way to think about your insurance is a rate of the hull value vs. a dollar premium amount, or percentage increase.
- 2% of hull for high value experimentals with Private Instrument rated pilot and 500 Total Time
- 2% of hull value for AK based aircraft with Private and Instrument and 500 Total Time
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Hi Sixmile,
There's probably one insurance company willing to do that and that's the one you're currently with and hopefully its a decent size fleet policy because no one's going to quote a single ship Part 135 operation in a SuperCub. Rates could be around 8 - 10% of the hull value if you can get it at all. I think most Alaska compensation or hire operators stay within a 50 mile radius to avoid Part 135 but insurance would still be consider "Commercial Operations."
Hope this helps!
Ben Peterson
There's probably one insurance company willing to do that and that's the one you're currently with and hopefully its a decent size fleet policy because no one's going to quote a single ship Part 135 operation in a SuperCub. Rates could be around 8 - 10% of the hull value if you can get it at all. I think most Alaska compensation or hire operators stay within a 50 mile radius to avoid Part 135 but insurance would still be consider "Commercial Operations."
Hope this helps!
Ben Peterson
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Why no consideration of experience with conventional gear (tail wheel)?
In my opinion total time is meaningless. Many loss of control accidents happen to pilots with high total time but low tail wheel time.
A 100 hour pilot with all that time recent, and all in tail wheel, is likely to be a far lower risk that an airline pilot with 10,000 hours and just enough tailwheel time to earn the endorsement.
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Make and model time is a big part of the premium. I just didn't have enough space to list every detail that goes into the overall rate for your premium. Typically if a pilot is "experienced" = High Total Time and Make and Model Time, their rate is going to be somewhere around 1% of the hull for conventional landing gear and a little higher for tail wheel because of the chance of a ground loop, maybe 1.5%.
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Yup, and there's no competition from other insurance companies so you're stuck with the company you have.
TurboBeaver
Registered User
Northern Maine
In my time " conventional gear" was a taildragger; the alternate gear arrangement was " tricycle" or milkstool gear.
BenPeterson77
Registered User
Thanks for the correction, I should have put *Conventional vs. Tricycle*
Conventional insurance rates are higher and require more experience because of the ground loop claims.
Conventional insurance rates are higher and require more experience because of the ground loop claims.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
That was in my time too.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...n/airplane_handbook/media/20_afh_glossary.pdf
"Conventional landing gear. Landing gear employing a third rear-mounted wheel. These airplanes are also sometimes referred to as tailwheel airplanes."
However tailwheel configuration doesn't seem to get a mention here - https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Construction_5300_7.pdf
14 CFR 23.477 and 25.477 seem ambiguous at best -
"Sections 23.479 through 23.483, or the conditions in appendix C, apply to airplanes with conventional arrangements of main and nose gear, or main and tail gear."
I log conv_gear time. My insurance agent asks for tailwheel time.
Last edited:
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
This paragraph may need a litle work -
"Risk Areas
The hardest aircraft to insure for Super Cubs is pilots over 70 years old. The typical cut off age is around 76 years old."
BenPeterson77
Registered User
How so?
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
"The hardest aircraft to insure for Super Cubs is pilots over 70 years old." ?
If it makes sense to you and your customers then it's fine as it is. I don't want to hijack the thread with a discussion of sentence construction.
Last edited:
