Insurance

[rhtrudder]

Insurance went from $2500.   To $3700. After a claim for $8000 For my Sabre valued at $60,000 QBE , is it possible to do any better, considering dropping it

 

 

[kgwilson]

I have never insured my aircraft & saved over 20k so far. I have RA-Aus public liability that comes with Rego & membership. So I self insure for hull damage. I have a virtual account with my savings. The account does not exist except in my mind but I have no issue with spending the money if I ever need it. Works for me.

[Flightrite]

Same here, I don’t believe in insurance for anything other than my house, must have saved squillions over the years!

[cscotthendry]

I recently discontinued the hull insurance on my airplane. If I damage it, I'll pay to repair it. 
I know that insurance is a “for profit” industry, but IMO lately the profit motive has gotten out of hand. Ithink there are a number of reasons for the rises and not all related to claims. Shareholder returns and executive remunerations seem to be excessive in a lot of businesses and insurance is no different.

In any case, I made the decision to “self insure” going forward. If I completely write off my plane, there's a good chance I won't care about it.

 

[turboplanner]

The Insurance you do want to be careful to retain is Public Liability Insurance.

 

RAA Members get an automatic coverage, but people who fly recreational aircraft under other bodies, such as SAFA need to check whether their Association has similar cover.

 

The RAA cover is stated as:

 

"Members Liability Insurance

A cornerstone of protection for members is our unique Members Liability Insurance Policy which provides liability protection for those members of Recreational Aviation Australia Limited who hold a Student Pilot or Pilot Certificate.

The cover, being applicable to the member (not the aircraft), means that the cover is “portable” even when piloting an RAAus registered aircraft owned by some other person anywhere in Australia.

The cover has an indemnity limit of up to $20,000,000 for liability arising from third party property damage or bodily injury including a sub-limit of up to $250,000 for liability arising from injuries to passengers (including student pilots). Depending on individual circumstances, you may require more than the limits described above, so you may need to maintain additional individual insurance."

 

The intriguing part of this to me is that the $20 million applies to third party bodily injury on the one hand, but is limited to $250,000 for injuries to passengers where a death is usually going to cost $2 - $3 million and a Qudariplegic around $13 million.

 

Members should check what this means, but based on the above wording appears to mean you will be up for a separate policy to cover your passengers who, despite the notice on the instrument panel have the right to sue you for negligence including accidental negligence.

[RossK]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

The intriguing part of this to me is that the $20 million applies to third party bodily injury on the one hand, but is limited to $250,000 for injuries to passengers where a death is usually going to cost $2 - $3 million and a Qudariplegic around $13 million.

 

Members should check what this means, but based on the above wording appears to mean you will be up for a separate policy to cover your passengers who, despite the notice on the instrument panel have the right to sue you for negligence including accidental negligence.

Your understanding is correct. Passengers are only covered to $250K.

A good lawyer would argue that as a passenger they were aware of the risks being taken and subsequently the amount payable for damages should be less. 

Of course, it's up to us as PIC to make sure our passengers are aware of the risks of RAA aircraft.

But having extra liability cover for your passengers is probably a good thing.

Lets face it - they are likely to be your family or friends and if if the worst were to happen, you'd want them to get as big a payout as possible. 

[turboplanner]

13 minutes ago, RossK said:

A good lawyer would argue that as a passenger they were aware of the risks being taken and subsequently the amount payable for damages should be less. 

Without getting into PL law, because I'm not a lawyer, a warning sign whether it be on an instrument panel or a sign next to a swimming pool simply makes people aware of an elevated risk, so they can walk away if they want.

 

I've been involved on losing cases even where "Motor Racing is Dangerous" disclaimers were installed at tracks and printed in programmes. Remember PL cases are civil cases between the plaintiff and defendant over an alleged breach of duty of care.

[skippydiesel]

Signs advising of elevated risk are absolutely essential, however I would strongly advise that as PIC you routinely (establish a known action) conduct a short pre flight "briefing" for your passenger drawing attention to the sign(s) and expanding on it eg This is a recreational aircraft & its safety may not be as for certified aircraft, you fly in it, with me as your PIC, at your own risk.... blah blah blah.  I have my little passenger briefing on my pre flight check list.

[onetrack]

In the days when I was in business (I've been retired since 2003), the cost of PL insurance wasn't all that high. Have the premiums for PL rocketed so much in recent years, that even PL insurance is unaffordable?

[kgwilson]

We have $20 million PL for our aerodrome & $10 million for each of 22 hangars in a group scheme. That is about 10k a year. I have the RA-Aus PL insurance $20 million for flying included with my annual subs ($250.00 last July).

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon its foolish to take any passengers, even with the " at your own risk " sign. But I like taking passengers and figure the risk of flying them over wheatlands is not so high. So I do it and so far there has never been a problem.

Just today I took a passenger who was ecstatic about the flight. I never told him anything.

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I reckon its foolish to take any passengers, even with the " at your own risk " sign. But I like taking passengers and figure the risk of flying them over wheatlands is not so high. So I do it and so far there has never been a problem.

Just today I took a passenger who was ecstatic about the flight. I never told him anything.

That's all you are required to do as long as the sign is there. If you start talking it's very easy to create a different impression to what's on the sign and inadvertently give the passenger a claim bigger than what's in the legislation.

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a lot who advertised family trusts as a way of being too poor to attract big claims. I don't think it worked cos they have not advertised lately. Does anybody know the story?

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There was a lot who advertised family trusts as a way of being too poor to attract big claims. I don't think it worked cos they have not advertised lately. Does anybody know the story?

It's a bit like the fables of numbered Swiss Bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands - both by law will provide your information to the US Internal Revenue Service if you are avoiding income tax. 

 

There is legislation to protect plaintiffs from people who try to minimise their assets by transferring them out of their name. Can't remember what it is, but insurance is a lot smarter.

[skippydiesel]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

That's all you are required to do as long as the sign is there. If you start talking it's very easy to create a different impression to what's on the sign and inadvertently give the passenger a claim bigger than what's in the legislation.

Sorry Turbs - I can agree. If you stick to a factual script,  that seeks to inform (not persuade) you are enhancing understanding (of risk) not increasing your own vulnerability to litigation. Ignorance in a form is a far greater risk than education.

[facthunter]

Part of your RAAus PAX endorsement is "briefing" safety aspects like seat belt fastening and release, keeping feet etc from interfering with control movement and emergency exiting important aspects.. 

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Sorry Turbs - I can agree. If you stick to a factual script,  that seeks to inform (not persuade) you are enhancing understanding (of risk) not increasing your own vulnerability to litigation. Ignorance in a form is a far greater risk than education.

People don't do that, they speak in the moment. If for example you passenger arcs up and wants to get out when he sees the notice, and they say something like "I know that's what the placque says but that doesn't apply to us; I'm a very safe pilot, never had an accident etc". He's departed from the script and the advice he gave was incorrect".

[turboplanner]

51 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Part of your RAAus PAX endorsement is "briefing" safety aspects like seat belt fastening and release, keeping feet etc from interfering with control movement and emergency exiting important aspects.. 

It is but we're talking specifically about the plaque.

[facthunter]

We were'nt actually.  We have ranged far and wide. Refer Skippy  last Friday 09.. It's referred to as a placard, I  think,  in official docs.  People are concerned with what they say and liability. The Recommended PAX briefing is necessary and reasonable. If not it should be reviewed.. It's far more than I used to do in an afternoon of continuous Joy flights in a C-172 at Cooranbong. By the way, include a perk bag. It doesn't take long for some anxious types to get ill even in smooth  conditions.. . The BEST situation is to be asked by an owner to fly HIS/HER plane and comment on it.. I'm grateful for the many occasions this happened. The more I know about the more valid any recommendation is.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

People don't do that, they speak in the moment. If for example you passenger arcs up and wants to get out when he sees the notice, and they say something like "I know that's what the placque says but that doesn't apply to us; I'm a very safe pilot, never had an accident etc". He's departed from the script and the advice he gave was incorrect".

If a passenger of mine wanted out (while on ground) I would immediately facilitate  their disembarkation.

 

If distressed in the air, I would try for the fastest return to start point.

 

We fly recreational aircraft, to me that's about RESPONSIBLE FUN, not distress/fear/anxiety.

 

Part of my pre flight briefing includes words to the effect of Should you feel unwell or uncomfortable at any time, please let me know so that I can return you safely to our start point as quickly as possible.

 

I also like to forewarn my pax about the likelihood of turbulence.

 

Ask where they would like to go (seeing their home from the air is a favorite) and how long they might want to fly for (30 minutes is the usual response)

 

If traveling to a specific landing, I brief them on the track, what they might see, what hight we will be flying at, duration, suggest they empty their bladder befor departure and ask for feedback.

 

This is all in addition to the usual safety stuff ( set belts, controls, "sterile" cockpit when departing/landing, etc)

[turboplanner]

The good thing about Self Administration is that there is no prescriptive regulation telling you what to do under Strict Liability.

If you want to mix in flight briefings with your own outline or opinion of your legal obligations you can; just remember you are liable for your advice.

[SGM]

On the topic of insurance our renewal was due a couple of weeks ago, and I don't mined sharing my experience.

We had $50k hull through PSB (Insurance House), for which the renewal was $1921 with a $1500 excess.  I got an alternative quote via Bill Owen/Agile for $51k (which was bizarrely cheaper than $50k) with $1000 excess.  This was $1221.  This included the "new for old" bolt on.

In the end we decided on increased coverage over last year, specifically the $1m Limit of Liability, largely to protect a passenger (most likely spouse/family member) in the event that any (ongoing) medical expenses are required as a result of an accident and they exceed the RAAus amount .  This cost us $1584, so significantly less than both last year and the renewal.

The note that came with Bill Owen quote is below.

Obviously insurance is a highly personal perception of risk likelihood and consequence, so I don't suggest what we decided appropriate for everyone... but I get consistent free advice from this forum so I am happy to share.

--------
 

Liability Limit:

We also strongly recommend a minimum limit of liability as part of your aircraft insurance as the liability attached to the RAAus membership is limited.  Also the biggest risk with aircraft ownership is not the loss of the hull, but the legal liability you take on as the owner, which can amount to millions of dollars in the event of a claim that involves property damage / bodily injury / death to either passengers or third party (i.e. people / property outside of the aircraft).

 

Additionally, if the aircraft is owned by an individual and the Combined Single Limit of liability is exceeded in the event of a claim, everything personally owned is potentially exposed to claimants, particularly the family home. Of course, the decision is yours, however we do strongly recommend you consider a Combined Single Limit as part of your policy

Edited December 12, 2021 by SGM
spelling

[Flightrite]

Ins CO’s love the afraid😉They rely on you worrying😂

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, SGM said:

On the topic of insurance our renewal was due a couple of weeks ago, and I don't mined sharing my experience.

We had $50k hull through PSB (Insurance House), for which the renewal was $1921 with a $1500 excess.  I got an alternative quote via Bill Owen/Agile for $51k (which was bizarrely cheaper than $50k) with $1000 excess.  This was $1221.  This included the "new for old" bolt on.

In the end we decided on increased coverage over last year, specifically the $1m Limit of Liability, largely to protect a passenger (most likely spouse/family member) in the event that any (ongoing) medical expenses are required as a result of an accident and they exceed the RAAus amount .  This cost us $1584, so significantly less than both last year and the renewal.

The note that came with Bill Owen quote is below.

Obviously insurance is a highly personal perception of risk likelihood and consequence, so I don't suggest what we decided appropriate for everyone... but I get consistent free advice from this forum so I am happy to share.

--------
 

Liability Limit:

We also strongly recommend a minimum limit of liability as part of your aircraft insurance as the liability attached to the RAAus membership is limited.  Also the biggest risk with aircraft ownership is not the loss of the hull, but the legal liability you take on as the owner, which can amount to millions of dollars in the event of a claim that involves property damage / bodily injury / death to either passengers or third party (i.e. people / property outside of the aircraft).

 

Additionally, if the aircraft is owned by an individual and the Combined Single Limit of liability is exceeded in the event of a claim, everything personally owned is potentially exposed to claimants, particularly the family home. Of course, the decision is yours, however we do strongly recommend you consider a Combined Single Limit as part of your policy

That $1584 for PL sounds about right. Did you get $10 million cover for that?

 

[SGM]

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

That $1584 for PL sounds about right. Did you get $10 million cover for that?

 

The $1584 is for $51k hull AND $1m Combined Single Limit of liability

Edited December 12, 2021 by SGM
typo