Insurance time

aftCG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
526
Location
Tacoma, WA
I have had my Citabria insured through Avemco since I got it (coming up on two years next month). It has been in the $700/yr range. Recently I had to provide my details to an insurance broker so I can ferry the BT-13 to Texas with it's new owner. I'll be providing the dual instruction he needs to ease the transition.

I mentioned the Citabria to the insurance broker because when I quoted the BT last season they offered to do the Citabria and it looked like I would save some money. Apparently it's not considered cool to change insurance companies unless the term is up, so I just filed it away until this recent request.

Last week I got my "hey your insurance policy is about to expire" letter from Avemco along with a new quote for over $1000. Screw that. I've never made an insurance claim of any kind in my entire life. They're about to get a "dear John" letter from me.

My new policy goes into effect the day my Avemco expires, $537/year. The new policy allows pleasure or business "for which no charge is made". I can let anyone fly the plane who has 500 total, 100 tail wheel, 25 in 7ECA. $0 deductible
 

Bruce

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
439
Location
Knoxville TN
That a good rate I recived a quote for my 79 ECA and it was a little over 900 year may I ask who your rate is with?
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
2,826
I like Avemco, but my broker beats them by about $900/year. I cannot get close to $600/year with full hull coverage.

Be sure to look at the fine print. When I ask for waivers of subrogation I sometimes find "ground operations only" in itty bitty letters. They fix that right away, but I wonder if they do that automatically to see who is reading?
 

JimParker256

1965 Champion 7ECA (O-200)
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
142
Location
McKinney, TX
I've been using Aviator's Insurance Agency (818-780-6112) as my broker for the last 6-7 years, and they've always beaten Avemco by over $1000. Great folks to deal with, and VERY responsive. I just renewed the Old Republic policy (2nd year) on my 1965 7ECA for a very reasonable $564. ($415 for physical damage and $149 for liability). That's for a agreed-upon value of $25K, and with $1MM/$100K per person limits, and $0 deductibles. For comparison purposes, I hold Commercial/Instrument ratings with 1900 hts total, 60 hrs in TW (all 60 in the 7ECA).
 

Bruce

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
439
Location
Knoxville TN
Thanks for reply I've been with old republic for over 8 years, my warrior is only $600 a year hull at 45,000 I asked about my ECA and was told $900 for $25,000 but after I finish covering it will raise it to $35,000 I think, and thought that was high I only have a little over 700 tt and 40 tail time
 

aftCG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
526
Location
Tacoma, WA
That a good rate I recived a quote for my 79 ECA and it was a little over 900 year may I ask who your rate is with?
The broker is Wenk Aviation insurance (847-235-2559), but the underwriter is Old Republic.
I'm at about 1425 TT, 120 TW, 65 in 7 series Citabria. Commercial, Instrument and CFII
$28k hull value (I had it at $20k through Avemco). The coverage amounts are the same as Jim Parker (above) and have allowances for trip interruption, $25k to transport my plane to an airport if I have an (unexpected) off airport landing. It would most certainly be cheaper to burn it where it sits if that happens but that's the coverage.
 

Big Ed

N50247 - '79 Super D
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Location
Tampa, FL
Just got AVEMCO quote for the 8KCAB I am buying. Not happy. $1800 for 40K coverage. I'm low time relative to you guys, 250TT and 75TW, with most of that in type.

Should I be calling a broker instead?

RE hull value, what logic should I be following on that ... recovering my cost, full replacement, or just getting enough to feel good about it? I paid $45K and am insuring for 40K.

Am a bit puzzled by zero deductible which AVEMCO specified. Why is that preferable to anyone? Seems counterintutive and counter to several hundred million auto policies.
 

aftCG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
526
Location
Tacoma, WA
I'm still with Wendy Wenk (broker) and my insurance continues to go down every year, even after adding a low time pilot to my policy. So yes, call a broker.

My policy is also zero deductible (their offering, I didn't ask for it). I think it's traditional with cars to avoid filing a claim for something stupid.

[side trip]
I got burned a little over a year ago when a car full of teenagers crossed the centerline and destroyed a rented Infinity QX60 that I and my favorite woman were in. Full airbag deployment, vehicle twisted enough that only a couple of doors would open. My own car was a random act of vandalism repaired (my first insurance claim of my life), and my Insurance company set me up with the rental and told me not to worry, it was covered under my normal policy. I'm still waiting to get my $500 back, and the accident was clearly not my fault (second insurance claim of my life, only a week after the first). Thankfully the girl's coverage paid for the nearly brand new SUV. She was definitely under insured and for a while it looked like I would not only deal with my own medical bills, but would owe for an SUV I didn't even like.
Any time I rent now I happily check the box that says "I'll bring this b*** back in a twisted ball and you'll say thank you".
[/side trip]

Some people pad their hull coverage so can upgrade if something happens to their aircraft. Insurance is a casino operation and the house always wins in the long run. The first quote I got to only insure 8/10 of the BT-13 was an eye opener for me. I think it would have only taken 7 years for the deductible to cover the stated hull cost. I flew with liability only for a while. Now it would be closer to 15 years.

Glad you're here Ed. It's increasing the traffic on this site quite a bit.
 

BB57

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
210
Just got AVEMCO quote for the 8KCAB I am buying. Not happy. $1800 for 40K coverage. I'm low time relative to you guys, 250TT and 75TW, with most of that in type.

Should I be calling a broker instead?

RE hull value, what logic should I be following on that ... recovering my cost, full replacement, or just getting enough to feel good about it? I paid $45K and am insuring for 40K.

Am a bit puzzled by zero deductible which AVEMCO specified. Why is that preferable to anyone? Seems counterintutive and counter to several hundred million auto policies.
I'm insured with Avemco and I paid $1400 in April for $60K coverage (what I paid for the plane), plus 100,000, 1,000,000, 1,000,000 liability coverage. At that time I had 247 hours TT, with about 100 of that in TW, but only 5 hours in type. I received discounts for the hangar, claims free, Safety Rewards, and aviation group membership. I'm 55 as well, although I'm not sure if that is a plus or a minus. My home field is also a 100'x1800' grass strip with 80' trees at both ends. They were not concerned with that, and in fact are not concerned with off airport landings (which are about 1/3 of my total landings).

Four months later, I'm over 300 TT, with over 60 in type and I'm on track to exceed 400 hours TT, 250 TW, and 150 in type by next April. I'd expect a lower rate - although I'll also have the commercial and CFI finished by then and may do some instruction in my aircraft and will probably opt for their part time instruction coverage (up to 12 students per year and 4 at any one time).

I'm amazed that you were quoted $1800 with similar times, $20K less hull value and a lot more time in type. Decathlons land a few knots faster, and maybe get flown a bit harder acro wise, but the differences are slight. I'm wondering if it's age related, or possibly related to location in hurricane central (although eastern NC isn't exactly hurricane free, and Isaias is coming right over us in 3-4 hours).
 

BB57

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
210
I think under insuring the plane is a bad idea. For example I have a 60K aircraft and I paid cash, so there's no loan involved. I could insure it for as little as I wanted, however if I have a total loss, that amount is all I'm going to get for it. Some folks think that's ok as the potential for a total loss is small. There's a catch to that however.

The real risk in that situation is a partial loss. Let's say I have my $60K airplane insured for $40K. I have an accident or some sort of ground incident (storm damage, etc) with $15K worth of estimated repairs needed. I'll be expecting the insurance company to just cut me a check for $15K to repair my plane as it's well under the insured value. However, in addition to estimates for repair, they'll also take bids on it for salvage. Remember, it's a $60K airplane with $15K in damage, insured for only $40K. If they get a salvage bid for $30K (very likely, especially is the engine and prop are undamaged), they are money ahead to just total the airplane, cut me a check for $40K and sell it for salvage for $30K. They are then out $10K rather than $15K.

If that happens, my best case scenario is now going to be trying to buy back my own plane as salvage for something north of $30K and then spending $15K to repair it, losing at least $5K in the process, in order to avoid the $20K loss due to losing my $60K airplane. Worse case, I end up with $40K and spend $20K more replacing my airplane.

I recommend insuring for the fair market value of your airplane (basically the replacement cost for a similar aircraft with similar times in similar condition. That might mean increasing the insured value down the road, due to appreciation, or due to improvements to the airframe or engine. It'll help ensure that you don't end up having the aircraft totalled over a comparatively minor accident.

You also don't always save as much as you'd think by reducing the amount of your hull coverage. Insurance companies do what it called "rate banding" and in terms of aircraft hull coverage this means the rate per $100 of coverage maybe higher for $40K of coverage compared to $60K of coverage, so in the end you may find you didn't save much on the premium for the greatly reduced coverage.
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
2,826
I was with Avemco for a quarter century. A nice broker saved me $600/year for the last decade, but this year his quote for the Dec was up by 78%. I forget the exact amount - around 1700 for std liability and 52K hull. Avemco undercut them by $300 on my total package, and - fickle guy that I am - back to Avemco.

78% increase! 22,000 hours, no claims, no accidents, no violations. But I am 79.

Avemco says age related increases are 9% at 81, and another similar boost at 86. I can live with that.
 

Big Ed

N50247 - '79 Super D
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Location
Tampa, FL
I'm wondering if it's age related, or possibly related to location in hurricane central (although eastern NC isn't exactly hurricane free, and Isaias is coming right over us in 3-4 hours).

I'm 55 also.

Where in NC are you? I make regular business trips to Jacksonville and Fayetteville, and plan on flying the Super D there. Also have a son in college in Durham.

I might get a quote from Travers. They claim to specialize in taildraggers.
 

aftCG

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2018
Messages
526
Location
Tacoma, WA
I think under insuring the plane is a bad idea. For example I have a 60K aircraft and I paid cash, so there's no loan involved. I could insure it for as little as I wanted, however if I have a total loss, that amount is all I'm going to get for it. Some folks think that's ok as the potential for a total loss is small. There's a catch to that however.

The real risk in that situation is a partial loss. Let's say I have my $60K airplane insured for $40K. I have an accident or some sort of ground incident (storm damage, etc) with $15K worth of estimated repairs needed. I'll be expecting the insurance company to just cut me a check for $15K to repair my plane as it's well under the insured value. However, in addition to estimates for repair, they'll also take bids on it for salvage. Remember, it's a $60K airplane with $15K in damage, insured for only $40K. If they get a salvage bid for $30K (very likely, especially is the engine and prop are undamaged), they are money ahead to just total the airplane, cut me a check for $40K and sell it for salvage for $30K. They are then out $10K rather than $15K.

If that happens, my best case scenario is now going to be trying to buy back my own plane as salvage for something north of $30K and then spending $15K to repair it, losing at least $5K in the process, in order to avoid the $20K loss due to losing my $60K airplane. Worse case, I end up with $40K and spend $20K more replacing my airplane.

I recommend insuring for the fair market value of your airplane (basically the replacement cost for a similar aircraft with similar times in similar condition. That might mean increasing the insured value down the road, due to appreciation, or due to improvements to the airframe or engine. It'll help ensure that you don't end up having the aircraft totalled over a comparatively minor accident.

You also don't always save as much as you'd think by reducing the amount of your hull coverage. Insurance companies do what it called "rate banding" and in terms of aircraft hull coverage this means the rate per $100 of coverage maybe higher for $40K of coverage compared to $60K of coverage, so in the end you may find you didn't save much on the premium for the greatly reduced coverage.
A bunch of good points in there. Obviously from my post you can see that my opinion of insurance has matured since having a head on collision and potentially being left holding the bag for an SUV and my own medical bills.
I have increased the hull value of my plane occasionally and it's insured for more than I paid for it and if I scrounged could possibly replace it for (minus emotional attachment, because it's been really good to me).
I still hate insurance, and frankly there are some accidents that I won't be to concerned about the financial part of.
I've got a hangar neighbor who has a really nice tail dragger Varga Kachina (he said one of three factory produced). He's in his 80's and insurance is a real issue for him. His son is an airline pilot with tons of experience but no time in type, so they won't let him cover.
I say leave him the hell alone. He's made it this far without so much as denting his plane. The sky isn't exactly raining old geezers in GA planes. How does this work in an actuarial sense?

When I'm willing to admit I'm old (I'm 56) assuming I'm not blind and can remember why I came to the airport I'll be flying something.
 

Bob Turner

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
2,826
They are just playing the averages. I have seen superb pilots go downhill at 58. There is one CFI at my airport who owns a taildragger and a retract. I won't be doing his flight review next year. He will be hurt - well, his feelings will be.

For most of us it happens around 80. Insurers know that. I have told my students to be honest with me - but so far, so good.