I'm curious about what others do with respect to insurance. I've always maintained full hull coverage on my planes but I'm rethinking that, particularly on my Cub. It exceeds the max policy value available so I'm exposed. My thought today is to move to liability only on that plane and accept full exposure. The price difference is significant. Another option would be to continue hull but exclude in-flight coverage. It'd be insured while parked or taxiing but not between throttle up for take-off and taxi after landing. Does anyone do that? It's actually kind of attractive to have accident coverage outside of flight ops and the cost is less than half of what I have now. I have no debt against either plane. Should I change my coverage on one plane? Both planes? As I told my insurer, the older I get the less I fly and the fewer risks I take but insurance prices keep going up. The value of the product isn't what it used to be. I'm going to give it the weekend to settle in my head. Thoughts and comments appreciated.
2022 Insurance Discussion
- Thread starter stewartb
- Start date
Formandfunction
MEMBER
Got my renewal close to the expiration of my policy and it had typos. They had left out a couple zeros in my tailwheel time and it required training plus the price had doubled. I sent it back and by the time they corrected it the policy had lapsed five days. During that five days a tornado collapsed my hanger and damaged the plane. When they refused to cover it I refused to ever give them another penny. I took a little money and bought a parts plane so I have what I need if something gets bent. So liability plus extra parts makes me pretty comfy.
StalledOut
MEMBER
Anchorage
Everyone is different with their comfort level and life situation. For me, I look at how a loss will impact my life. I am at the point where the material loss of a plane would be a aww shucks event but not change my life. Liability is all I need. I figure if the cub is destroyed there's a good chance I am along for that ride, so what good would hull insurance do me? Of course parked outside at Lake Hood anything could happen, hell a beaver could fall out of the sky taking off. Still, I don't need hull insurance or anything beyond liability.
The older you get and the less you fly the more mistakes get made though. Just heard about a guy who didn't latch a baggage door the other day..........
All kidding aside, from what I know about your life, I'd think you could save the money and be just fine.
The older you get and the less you fly the more mistakes get made though. Just heard about a guy who didn't latch a baggage door the other day..........
All kidding aside, from what I know about your life, I'd think you could save the money and be just fine.
been thinking of dropping hull on my cub also but then I'm mostly off airport don't know if that is a wise move. picked up a guy yesterday that broke a gear leg and did damage landing to pickup caribou drops. asked him about his insurance he said avemco thought they didn't cover stuff like that
Richgj3
BENEFACTOR
LI,NY
It is a dilemma. I’m currently underinsured on hull. So do I bring it up and pay a 50% higher premium or let it go. Doesn’t seem to make sense where I am. I have a C170B I bought for $45K. Insured it for $50K. With the upgrades I’ve made and the crazy price increases I couldn’t replace it for less than $85 or more. Almost any survivable event in it is going to cost more than what I’d get for a total loss at my current level. So the question is, would I be satisfied with $40+K and no airplane.
I’m not the kind of guy that’s going to be able to repair this airplane out of pocket after a nasty ground loop or worse. I truly don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s seems silly to under insure and hope nothing happens. Might as well save the hull premiums and hope nothing happens.
All questions, few answers.
I’m not the kind of guy that’s going to be able to repair this airplane out of pocket after a nasty ground loop or worse. I truly don’t know what I’m going to do. It’s seems silly to under insure and hope nothing happens. Might as well save the hull premiums and hope nothing happens.
All questions, few answers.
Very true! I hope to fly more but to do that I have to work less. Easier said than done. My thoughts with the Cub is that any accident I survive can't be too expensive to rebuild. The Cessna doesn't fit that model. I'm more concerned with things I can't control than those I can. Like somebody hitting my Cessna at Hood. Not in flight still covers it when parked in the boonies, too, just not getting there. Lots of thoughts rattling inside my head. Some will fall out in the next couple of days.
Last edited:
Gordon Misch
MEMBER
Toledo, Wa (KTDO)
I think a key question is "what exactly will I do if I wreck with substantial damage?" Rebuild/repair, buy a replacement, stop flying? And in any of those cases, would I need the cash from insurance?
FWIW I've never shelled out for hull, just liability. I've had one substantial wreck (weather related) that I repaired myself, but it took nearly 20 years given other life obligations. And I refused to keep track of the dollars spent to rebuild.:roll:
FWIW I've never shelled out for hull, just liability. I've had one substantial wreck (weather related) that I repaired myself, but it took nearly 20 years given other life obligations. And I refused to keep track of the dollars spent to rebuild.:roll:
cubdrvr
SPONSOR
YKN(mother city of the dakotas)
"My thoughts with the Cub is that any accident I survive can't be too expensive to rebuild."
Mine also SB.........I'm at 1300/yr. for 70K on my cub. My cub is worth maybe 100K+.
I can repair my cub for minimal cost for minor accidents.......and......I don't go places now with my big tires that I used to go routinely with 8:50s.
If costs get prohibitive I'm going with liability only.
Mine also SB.........I'm at 1300/yr. for 70K on my cub. My cub is worth maybe 100K+.
I can repair my cub for minimal cost for minor accidents.......and......I don't go places now with my big tires that I used to go routinely with 8:50s.
If costs get prohibitive I'm going with liability only.
bob turner
Registered User
I stay fully covered for liability. The Cubs have zero hull - I figure I can fix them for what I have already saved.
The Decathlon is covered to $70K hull, and as long as I am not instructing, that goes with me. I can fly your aircraft and feel comfortable if I damage it.
The big deal is when I start pretending to be a CFI. All my regular insurance goes away! I carry full liability, but hull is double what non-CFIs pay.
If you do flight reviews in others' airplanes, be aware that even if you are "named" on their policy you may not be covered.
I have been "additional insured with waiver of subrogation" on my buddy's 201 Mooney for almost four decades. There is now a note 17.b. that says no flight instructor (including me) is covered.
The Decathlon is covered to $70K hull, and as long as I am not instructing, that goes with me. I can fly your aircraft and feel comfortable if I damage it.
The big deal is when I start pretending to be a CFI. All my regular insurance goes away! I carry full liability, but hull is double what non-CFIs pay.
If you do flight reviews in others' airplanes, be aware that even if you are "named" on their policy you may not be covered.
I have been "additional insured with waiver of subrogation" on my buddy's 201 Mooney for almost four decades. There is now a note 17.b. that says no flight instructor (including me) is covered.
sj
Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
A reminder that there are a lot of folks not in the enviable position of owning their planes outright - especially younger folks - and are therefore required to carry hull insurance.
Last time I had (moving) insurance claim was in 2003 (I think). I pay around $2000 per year for 140K hull of which (a guess) $700 is liability. So in those nineteen years I would have saved roughly $24K - actually less since I used to pay about $1800 per year. That would barely pay for the MT prop and engine inspection if I hit a jumping armadillo or a big rock.
I'm going to keep paying hull as long as I can afford it, when the time comes I can't, I probably can't afford gas either.
sj
Last time I had (moving) insurance claim was in 2003 (I think). I pay around $2000 per year for 140K hull of which (a guess) $700 is liability. So in those nineteen years I would have saved roughly $24K - actually less since I used to pay about $1800 per year. That would barely pay for the MT prop and engine inspection if I hit a jumping armadillo or a big rock.
I'm going to keep paying hull as long as I can afford it, when the time comes I can't, I probably can't afford gas either.
sj
Good questions and posts. My insurance is hull. I asked about liability and the difference was not much difference so I stayed with hull. I’m a bit underinsured, but if it were destroyed, I’d still get some sort of compensation to put towards another airplane, where as if it were liability, I’d have nothing but scrap parts. Insurance is getting ridiculous.
RaisedByWolves
FRIEND
Tx
140k on wheels, 170 on anfibs and it went up 20% this year to right around 5,000. Liability and not in motion is 2200. Guess that’s the route I’m going this year. I figured if I screw up I probably won’t claim mt anyways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bob turner
Registered User
Yes - liability is inexpensive if you are not instructing - at 81 I am paying about $400 per airplane for liability. And it is probably essential if you operate near other people or carry passengers.
Hull, on the other hand, is expensive - the Decathlon is a little over a grand - so total on that one is a bit over $1500/year.
If I make it to 91, I will have shelled out $27 grand for hull coverage - a third the value of the aircraft.
My personal Cub cost $1200, and I might be able to replace it for $30 grand. I have saved way more than that over the years by not buying hull - not counting the fact that the Greek plowed all those savings into the stock market.
Hull, on the other hand, is expensive - the Decathlon is a little over a grand - so total on that one is a bit over $1500/year.
If I make it to 91, I will have shelled out $27 grand for hull coverage - a third the value of the aircraft.
My personal Cub cost $1200, and I might be able to replace it for $30 grand. I have saved way more than that over the years by not buying hull - not counting the fact that the Greek plowed all those savings into the stock market.
Utah-Jay
MEMBER
Heber City, UT
Not to lessen the serious pain you have for insurance, at least it is a tax deduction. Not so for us recreational owners.
I suspect with an experimental (still building but scheduled to be done in the next 6 months) and a low time pilot mine Hull and Liability would be near $10K
I will likely go with liability and non-motion insurance
akavidflyer
FRIEND
Soldotna AK
Don't you have a place down south? Can you insure them there then add on in the summer for AK flying? What do the guys that fly up here to play in the summer do about the insurance?
My planes and residence are based in AK. I have no plans to change that. As for my seasonal neighbors and how they manage their planes and insurance? No idea. Doesn’t matter enough for me to ask.
To be clear, I can afford the insurance cost, I just don’t believe it’s a good value for my exp Cub.
To be clear, I can afford the insurance cost, I just don’t believe it’s a good value for my exp Cub.
scout88305
SPONSOR
Northern Minnesota
Cubs are becoming expensive to insure. I sold my cub and passed up buying a CC because of the insurance cost. Most people as they reach retirement age are probably more financially sound than they were in their working years. I will be the exception. I cannot afford to replace the plane I own without insurance. At 200k hull I’m paying around $1400 on a Scout. I have 3000 flight hours most in type/ or TW. My premium on my 58 PA-18A valued at 85k was about the same 8 years ago. The cost of decent cubs and or new tandems whether a CC, Legend, Husky, or Champion are all seeing substantial increases. Self insuring was a lot less painful when flying a Supercub that you could find and replace for 75K on AK List Classifieds or Barnstormers. Now those are pushing 120K or more. There is a huge disparity in insurance premiums based on models because of risk assessment by the bean counters. I see the old Gracious House lodge aircraft hangar collapsed from snow load as I passed across the Denali Highway last week. AK had a big snow event last winter. If I was in AK I would feel better insured for wind or wx or animals even if I opted out for flight coverage. Years back a guy in Eagle shot up planes parked at the downtown strip by Fort Egbert.
Last edited:
bob turner
Registered User
On that Jet Ranger - insist on "named insured" or be sure your own liability insurance works in turbine helicopters.
Scooter7779h
PATRON
Anchorage, Alaska
Stewart,
I believe most insurers that do a "not-in-motion" coverage such as AVEMCO define it such as its named, and would not include taxiing. I asked once about why, and they said without that definition there could (or were) have a lot of taxi accidents with significant damage (shoot just tell them you were taxiing). However, AVEMCO lets you put the policy in full hull coverage or in not-in-motion coverage at will with no limitations. So if you were going to have a lot of periods of time when you were not flying, you can put it on not-in-motion status, then back on when you do. The policy premium cost differences are significant, but its pretty easy to do, just a phone call when you want to change policy status. I have done it a fair amount, for me it only makes sense if you are going to be inactive for more than a month. They keep track of it and correct on your quarterly payments if you are on that plan.
Also keep in mind that if you have an incident/accident, they (at least AVEMCO but I think its similar throughout the industry) will total the aircraft if the repair estimate hits 60% of the policy declared hull value. So if you are under-insured with the true value of the aircraft, it won't take much to make an accident/incident total the plane. But you will get the full declared value minus the deductible. Its interesting that in my policy there is no deductible for "not in motion" status.
FWIW
Last edited:
FWIW, Avemco calls in “Not in Flight. I was told it covers taxiing to and from the runway, just not the flight itself, which begins with pushing the throttle forward to takeoff power. Their words, not mine. I always thought motion was restricted, too. Maybe they also offer a stored aircraft rate? I hate to think I’ve been paying too much for calling it the wrong thing, but words matter. I need to find out.
bob turner
Registered User
Whatever it is, get it in writing.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I had a similar demarkation for my large deductible during phase 1 with my FX-3. That was with Starr. I requested and received a written definition of when the deductible was in effect and when it was not.
cubpilot2
SPONSOR
Anchorage Alaska
Opted years ago to drop hull coverage shortly after going on floats in Alaska. Premiums go through the roof with floats up here. Figured that if I didn’t sink it or burn it I could rebuild it for the savings in premiums after just a couple years.
liability coverage value diminished a couple years ago as my 1 million dollar policies now only covers $100K Per passenger. Used to be 250K. They said it was an industry wide thing due to heavy losses. Is that still true?
100K coverage nowadays won’t last long in any hospital stay, and then they come to you.
liability coverage value diminished a couple years ago as my 1 million dollar policies now only covers $100K Per passenger. Used to be 250K. They said it was an industry wide thing due to heavy losses. Is that still true?
100K coverage nowadays won’t last long in any hospital stay, and then they come to you.
Last edited:
I just renewed with Avemco and bumped up the hull coverage for the certified cub as I do not want to be underinsured with this plane, it has mods done that you can not get signed off anymore. I carry liability for the experimental cub and get a price break for multiple aircraft, safety rewards(training), no accident/claims and hangar storage. The GlaStar is parked and no coverage at this time but have only carried liability on it when flying and could get that with a phone call and another $1,051/year. Total policy cost for $160,000 hull on the cub and both cubs liability $3,978. Avemco would not cover the full hull value of the experimental cub only offered $200,000 at north of $8,000 so self insure that. I have close to 5,000 hours mostly in cubs and gray hair now so certainly more experienced/cautious pilot than 25 years ago. I like the idea of not in motion coverage for the Monster Cub and will inquire about that as I have had serious wind damage to the certified cub while out sheep hunting years ago.
$100K per person medical is all I've ever had as far back as my email records go. $1M liability.
My rates for hull for $190K on the Wagon and $200K on the Cub are proportionally almost identical. The cost appears to be driven only by declared value, not certificated vs experimental, metal vs fabric, etc. That surprised me.
Avemco does offer full hull, hull not in flight, and hull not in motion. Not in flight drops the rate by about 50% and does allow taxi ops, movement for maintenance, etc, but no flight. Not in motion is what it says, the airplane isn't covered for taxiing. I couldn't get a rate comparison (computer problem on his end) but was told not in motion is less than not in flight but the amount isn't significant. The only thing I can't reconcile is why I pay two full rates when I can only fly one at a time. If not in flight drops the rate by 50%, why isn't one of my planes 50% less than it is?
I sure enjoy talking to Avemco staff. Very helpful and always friendly.
My rates for hull for $190K on the Wagon and $200K on the Cub are proportionally almost identical. The cost appears to be driven only by declared value, not certificated vs experimental, metal vs fabric, etc. That surprised me.
Avemco does offer full hull, hull not in flight, and hull not in motion. Not in flight drops the rate by about 50% and does allow taxi ops, movement for maintenance, etc, but no flight. Not in motion is what it says, the airplane isn't covered for taxiing. I couldn't get a rate comparison (computer problem on his end) but was told not in motion is less than not in flight but the amount isn't significant. The only thing I can't reconcile is why I pay two full rates when I can only fly one at a time. If not in flight drops the rate by 50%, why isn't one of my planes 50% less than it is?
I sure enjoy talking to Avemco staff. Very helpful and always friendly.
Last edited:
