Allianz Insurance

[Ozfergie]

When commercial interest like this starts to fade, you know that you are in trouble.

 

Google - Allianz to shut local aviation unit.

 

 

[Bryon]

What does that mean for those of us who hold policies with Allianz?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Maybe its just that there is not enough business for them. Personally, I reckon the best insurance is to be so careful that you don't need insurance.

 

 

[djpacro]

What does that mean for those of us who hold policies with Allianz?

Market Announcement - Agile Underwriting Services commences Aviation insurance offering - Aerosure

 

 

[Ozfergie]

What does that mean for those of us who hold policies with Allianz?

The policies will run-off and not be renewed by Allianz.

 

 

[ben87r]

Maybe its just that there is not enough business for them. Personally, I reckon the best insurance is to be so careful that you don't need insurance.

Back when I was building, it was quite sad as we would move down the street repairing houses after storms/bush fires/ floods etc and you would see a house being left due to not being insured. Obviously a house costs more then most people's planes but it would still be in the top 4 big purchases. Insurance is cheap, paying a total loss isn't. Just one prop strike could cost a fortune and I'm sure there are a lot of guys in careful guys in Brisbane recently who would value insurance.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Quite right ben, in the cases where the insurance company actually pays out. One of the things which you should know before signing up is the companies payout ratio, that is the percentage of claims paid out in full. They know this of course but I don't know of any case where it has been disclosed to a customer. We may one day have legislation to make them disclose this figure.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have no idea what you have purchased until you make a claim. Your cheap premiums are not much help if the fine print means you get nothing. This is so obvious I wonder why I'm saying it, but there is a rush to the cheapest these days. Not always clever. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

My renewal will be due soon, that will total nearly 8G for insurance for 4 years. If I could go 30 years without a claim I would have doubled the cost of the plane.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Maybe its just that there is not enough business for them. Personally, I reckon the best insurance is to be so careful that you don't need insurance.

But you have to accept that someone else or some event over which you have no control may cause you to wish you had it.

But I know where you are coming from - when I had the Robinson 22 the insurance was so expensive ( 17% of hull value per year plus 10% excess) so I didn't insure it (only insured for third party damage and the passenger liability. )

 

Fairly stressful way to have a toy.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

You have no idea what you have purchased until you make a claim. Your cheap premiums are not much help if the fine print means you get nothing. This is so obvious I wonder why I'm saying it, but there is a rush to the cheapest these days. Not always clever. Nev

These days I have the jab insured through an aviation insurance broker who knows me and knows what I need. He gets significantly cheaper than I could get myself and makes sure it's what I need.

 

I did have a claim on it back in 2009 and the insurer and the broker were all very helpful and no problems at all.

 

 

[facthunter]

My last insurance was done the same way. Through an Aviation aware broker. Prior to that I used "Aviation Underwriter's" from memory and they were fantastic. I never made a claim but I knew of many others who had. That's why I used them. People who repaired and serviced planes recommended them. I do the same with car Insurance . Ask people who repair and salvage cars. They know who the shonky ones are who won't fit new parts or pay over 18 dollars an hour. There's been a tendency towards monopoly lately. Most are owned by one mob. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A few years back I did a stocktake and discovered that (including super and health) 18% of my income was diverted to insurance. The remainder only allowed a very limited lifestyle. Now only the house is insured.

 

I priced hull insurance and the premium was close to 10% of its value. Most of the cost of my plane has been my own labour, and if it were damaged I couldn't buy a replacement- there's nothing like it on the market.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's no shortage of people who will take your money from you IF you let them. Some of them are honest but plenty are not. Look at the behaviour of the big Banks. Look at the "incredible" salaries the Ceo's award the CEOS.... 15+ Million per annum. How do they look at themselves in the mirror? About 30X the salary of the USA president. Nev

 

 

[IanR]

But you have to accept that someone else or some event over which you have no control may cause you to wish you had it.

A good example is the recent hail damage on my Auster - all covered by insurance - and it was basically out of my control !

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you don't insure you have to accept the loss if the worst happens. You plane is a finite liability but public liability is so potentially large you could only risk it if going bankrupt is part of your strategy. That's not fair on others either if you look at it from the moral viewpoint. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Surely public liability is covered by our membership of RAAus?

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yes Nev, what I reckon is that you should not insure if you can afford the loss. This means that hull insurance is not for me. I can fix it myself or give up flying or rent club aircraft.

 

But as you say, liability costs could be open-ended and so I appreciate the RAAus insurance.

 

It also makes sense to lower your vulnerable asset base so you present a smaller target . There was a company ( they might still be going) who were selling a service along these lines.

 

 

[SDQDI]

It also makes sense to lower your vulnerable asset base so you present a smaller target . There was a company ( they might still be going) who were selling a service along these lines.

I am personally more than happy to help people lower their asset base. No extra charge required, just a simple transfer of title. I am happy to take Land, Houses, Planes, and Boats. Other items will be on a case by case basis.

 

Transferring assets to a spouse or other family member in NO way protects them contrary to bush lawyer folklore.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think they were selling trusts. You would need an expert in bankruptcy to guide you for sure.

 

There are already advertisements for financial services to help you keep your pension after the mooted changes come in soon.

 

There was a financial operator around here who got divorced not long before he went broke, and I have always thought the divorce was a clever sham. She got most of the assets. It worked in that it quarantined these assets from the creditors.

 

But would not transferring to the kids work if it was done some time before the event?

 

 

[facthunter]

Putting all your assets in your wife's name makes her more attractive to others. Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

Putting all your assets in your wife's name makes her more attractive to others. Nev

Especially so Nev if her own assets are still in good shape also

 

 

[johnm]

I thought superannuation was a safe haven for assets ? (.......................... if you have any spare to shovel in there)

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I thought superannuation was a safe haven for assets ? (.......................... if you have any spare to shovel in there)

Nothing further from the truth!. Super is just another asset with no protected status.

 

All it takes is a court order and its cut off and redistributed by the fund.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think they were selling trusts. You would need an expert in bankruptcy to guide you for sure.There are already advertisements for financial services to help you keep your pension after the mooted changes come in soon.

There was a financial operator around here who got divorced not long before he went broke, and I have always thought the divorce was a clever sham. She got most of the assets. It worked in that it quarantined these assets from the creditors.

 

But would not transferring to the kids work if it was done some time before the event?

There are tax issues if transferring major assets to children rather than spouse. There are no stamp duty or capital gains liabilities for the transfer of real property to the OP pursuant to divorce, but your kids could face such a burden if you gift the house to them...Kaz