Insuring older pilots

saddletramp

saddletramp

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
722
Location
Walla Walla. WA
Display Name
Display name:
saddletramp
I have several elderly friends that own airplanes & fly regularly In fact, one friend is 93 & flies a Cardinal RG quite proficiently. I know this because I give him his flight reviews one a year as required by his insurance carrier. We flew a month ago & completed his flight review. At the beginning of the flight before he started the engine, I looked him in the eyes & said, " you do realize that I'm probably going to have to tell you one day it's time to quit". He somberly acknowledged what I said. I'm not looking forward to that day.

Another friend owns three airplanes. Including a Stearman & a Comanche 250 that he has owned & flown for over 35 years. He flies frequently & just turned 80 years of age. His insurance carrier is refusing to insure him in the Comanche any longer. He has called other companies & getting the same response. He's in great physical heath & still rebuilds airplanes on a regular basis. He does a great job flying the Stearman.

I know insurance is all about statistics but this seems illogical to me. So here's 93 year old getting insurance in a Cardinal RG & an 80 year old that's refused coverage. Any ideas out there?
 
No real help on the insurance front. Hopefully someone can.

I feel like by the time I’m 80 (one can only hope to see that and beyond) I’d be in self-insure mode.
 
Radar Contact said:
No real help on the insurance front. Hopefully someone can.

I feel like by the time I’m 80 (one can only hope to see that and beyond) I’d be in self-insure mode.
Click to expand...
Me too.

It would be nice to know which companies the pilots in the op are dealing with, especially the one insuring a 93yo. It would be worth getting with a company like that while you're young enough to switch.
 
Radar Contact said:
No real help on the insurance front. Hopefully someone can.

I feel like by the time I’m 80 (one can only hope to see that and beyond) I’d be in self-insure mode.
Click to expand...

Liability is the issue. Both of these gentlemen have sizable estates. Airplane loss wouldn't move the needle much on their bottom lines but being the subject of a lawsuit could.
 
Sometimes I have wondered where underwriters get their info, it just seems 'off' so many times.
Is age truly coincident with a higher accident likelihood? (even if it is, this is one situation where discrimination is allowed in our daily lives)
 
I turn 70 in a couple of months. I have nearly 5,000 hours, SEL/MEL, inst, CFI-I, etc., and a clean history. I have almost 1,000 hours retractable, including about 150 previous PA-32R hours. When I was shopping for a PA-32 recently I asked my broker to compare rates on a '78 Cherokee Six 300 and a '78 Lance, assuming equal hull values. Those are about as apples-to-apples as you can get in comparing fixed vs. retractable gear.

Rates for the retractable PA-32R were just about double those for the fixed-gear PA-32. Some companies wouldn't even quote me in the retractable.

I guess since us geezers can't remember to shut off the left-turn blinker on the freeway, we're likely to forget to lower the gear, too.
 
Last edited:
saddletramp said:
Liability is the issue. Both of these gentlemen have sizable estates. Airplane loss wouldn't move the needle much on their bottom lines but being the subject of a lawsuit could.
Click to expand...

What coverage are they looking for? It seems like the vast majority go for $1MM with $100K per passenger (which seems woefully inadequate). Perhaps the 80 YO is looking for something more substantial and that’s why the underwriters are declining…
 
Clip4 said:
Simple, sell the Comanche and get a cardinal RG.
Click to expand...
This might be the answer. Combine this thread with brYans thread and you have to wonder if the problem isn’t the Comanche not the pilot.
 
I really don’t understand Cirrus purchases (don’t flame, just read further...).

A friend, late 70s, wants to sell Archer 3 for one... I list all sorts of more affordable alternatives. He responds he can’t get insurance for a retract.

Ooooooh.... Cirrus now makes sense.

I like the idea of the insurance company mitigating with yearly checks. Seems a reasonable alternative.
 
saddletramp said:
Liability is the issue. Both of these gentlemen have sizable estates. Airplane loss wouldn't move the needle much on their bottom lines but being the subject of a lawsuit could.
Click to expand...

yeah, he’s still got lots of time to spend all that money at 93.
 
Not sure why people get so hung up on insurance.

If they won’t offer a product I can afford, then I move on. It’s a sad day when a faceless insurance company can decide what an individual can or cannot do.
 
idahoflier said:
What coverage are they looking for? It seems like the vast majority go for $1MM with $100K per passenger (which seems woefully inadequate). Perhaps the 80 YO is looking for something more substantial and that’s why the underwriters are declining…
Click to expand...

According to our lawyer that is woefully inadequate. He recommends 3 or 4 million if you can get it. It would be interesting to know more details about the OP’s cases. Maybe the 93 year old has had a long relationship with his insurer. Our homeowners insurance company treats us very well, because, they told me, we’ve been with them for 40 years. They bend over backwards to keep us. They made an exception for us and insured our new house which is in a hurricane zone where they automatically decline any coverage, and that was just after they paid $50,000 without batting an eye to repair flood damage to our previous home. Apparently paying premiums for decades without making petty claims here and there pays off in the long run, at least with that company.

Who knows what other criteria they use. As far as fixed vs retractable, our premiums did go up when we moved to retractable, then again with the twin.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not sure why people get so hung up on insurance.

If they won’t offer a product I can afford, then I move on. It’s a sad day when a faceless insurance company can decide what an individual can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
Some states require liability insurance for aircraft operators. A smaller number require proof of financial responsibility that can be met by having insurance.

So, if you don't buy insurance you can't have a plane in those states. So we could say that in those places that it's the state deciding what you can and can't do - but the insurance companies have a say.

As Rushie points out, though, for many people that can afford planes $1 million is inadequate.
 
Rushie said:
According to our lawyer that is woefully inadequate. He recommends 3 or 4 million if you can get it. It would be interesting to know more details about the OP’s cases. Maybe the 93 year old has had a long relationship with his insurer. Our homeowners insurance company treats us very well, because, they told me, we’ve been with them for 40 years. They bend over backwards to keep us. They made an exception for us and insured our new house which is in a hurricane zone where they automatically decline any coverage, and that was just after they paid $50,000 without batting an eye to repair flood damage to our previous home. Apparently paying premiums for decades without making petty claims here and there pays off in the long run, at least with that company.

Who knows what other criteria they use. As far as fixed vs retractable, our premiums did go up when we moved to retractable, then again with the twin.
Click to expand...
Nah. It all depends on what numbers they decide that matter at the time. I had the same insurer for 20 years and got cancelled the first claim I had, and it wasn’t a 10th of what I’d paid them over the years.
 
We had this added for this year’s renewal

“ is further agreed that any pilot over the age of 75 must be accompanied at all times by another pilot 75 years or younger and meeting the pilot requirements as set forth by the policy.”

Plus a 20% bump in cost for the Dakota
 
Rushie said:
According to our lawyer that is woefully inadequate. He recommends 3 or 4 million if you can get it.
Click to expand...

This is the most disturbing to me. I don't think most, if any, could get that coverage. I'm changing underwriters because my current underwriter won't go $2MM CSL. Before binding my $2MM quote I shopped around and asked a different broker and he told me the policy I was offered at the premium I was quoted was great and to jump at it. The kicker is it's 3x my $1MM quote. I'm starting to think I need to limit passengers to immediate family only...
 
idahoflier said:
This is the most disturbing to me. I don't think most, if any, could get that coverage. I'm changing underwriters because my current underwriter won't go $2MM CSL. Before binding my $2MM quote I shopped around and asked a different broker and he told me the policy I was offered at the premium I was quoted was great and to jump at it. The kicker is it's 3x my $1MM quote. I'm starting to think I need to limit passengers to immediate family only...
Click to expand...

I have quit carrying others many years ago. Unfortunate, but in our litigious society, the only real answer. Of course, one has to also consider folks on the ground.
 
Maybe we need to form a POA insurance pool and just insure ourselves.
 
saddletramp said:
I have several elderly friends that own airplanes & fly regularly In fact, one friend is 93 & flies a Cardinal RG quite proficiently. I know this because I give him his flight reviews one a year as required by his insurance carrier. We flew a month ago & completed his flight review. At the beginning of the flight before he started the engine, I looked him in the eyes & said, " you do realize that I'm probably going to have to tell you one day it's time to quit". He somberly acknowledged what I said. I'm not looking forward to that day.

Another friend owns three airplanes. Including a Stearman & a Comanche 250 that he has owned & flown for over 35 years. He flies frequently & just turned 80 years of age. His insurance carrier is refusing to insure him in the Comanche any longer. He has called other companies & getting the same response. He's in great physical heath & still rebuilds airplanes on a regular basis. He does a great job flying the Stearman.

I know insurance is all about statistics but this seems illogical to me. So here's 93 year old getting insurance in a Cardinal RG & an 80 year old that's refused coverage. Any ideas out there?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about A. L.? He was my CFI. Not too many 90+ year olds with Cardinal RGs.
 
saddletramp said:
Liability is the issue. Both of these gentlemen have sizable estates. Airplane loss wouldn't move the needle much on their bottom lines but being the subject of a lawsuit could.
Click to expand...

Flying without liability insurance could work, depending on the choice of passengers.

Best: only carry passengers who are family members named in the pilot’s will. That way the passenger’s estate is unlikely to sue the pilot’s estate, after a fatal crash.

Or only carry a passenger who is retired, single & without dependents, so that the lawsuit would be for a smaller sum.

Definitely don’t carry a passenger who is a young surgeon with five little kids.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Are you talking about A. L.? He was my CFI. Not too many 90+ year olds with Cardinal RGs.
Click to expand...

No but maybe we should get the two of them together.

Cardinals are favorites to the elderly due to easy entry/exit. I guess a few younger folks like them too.
 
NoHeat said:
Flying without liability insurance could work, depending on the choice of passengers.

Best: only carry passengers who are family members named in the pilot’s will. That way the passenger’s estate is unlikely to sue the pilot’s estate, after a fatal crash.

Or only carry a passenger who is retired, single & without dependents, so that the lawsuit would be for a smaller sum.

Definitely don’t carry a passenger who is a young surgeon with five little kids.
Click to expand...

What if you hurt someone on the ground, damage their property, another airplane or etc?
 
Plano Pilot said:
What if you hurt someone on the ground, damage their property, another airplane or etc?
Click to expand...

Most of the liability is tied to passengers in the plane.
That's why insurers are keen on selling policies with a 100k sublimit for passengers.

But yes, if one was flying 'naked', they would not have the benefit of insurance to cover the liability from their plane falling on someone or something.
If you 'dont own anything' (because the house you live in is already owned by your heirs and your investments are tied up in some irrevocable trusts), then the damaged party may have a difficult time collecting from your nonexistent estate.
 
That does not sound very fair to the injured party. I guess you just hope that the innocent party is fully insured since you are to cheap to have insurance.

Just trying to show the other side.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not sure why people get so hung up on insurance.

If they won’t offer a product I can afford, then I move on. It’s a sad day when a faceless insurance company can decide what an individual can or cannot do.
Click to expand...


I had this same feeling when I got ready to insure my RV9A. If the insurance was more than I thought reasonable, I planned to fly without it, I refuse to get raped. The quote was fair so, I have insurance.
 
Where is the issue on inability to get insurance?
Hull, liability? Is it state specific?

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
I hear Avemco doesn’t have age limits, but it tends to be more expensive. I will probably switch when I get close to 70.
 
Once one of my partners in the A36TC turned 70, were down to Avemco 1m/100k for insurance coverage. Now we did have a ground claim, (caused by a 'senior moment'), yet according to the broker that was not the issue that caused the insurers not to quote. Taking the senior partner off the PIF got a number of quotes.

Life is not fair and those who have to make a decision whether they want to underwrite our risk sometimes make decisions that are not popular.
 
Salty said:
Nah. It all depends on what numbers they decide that matter at the time. I had the same insurer for 20 years and got cancelled the first claim I had, and it wasn’t a 10th of what I’d paid them over the years.
Click to expand...

That’s what I feared when we made our big claim. I was surprised they didn’t cancel us, then shocked when they insured our new home in the uninsurable zone. They didn’t even raise our premium, until the replacement value of our house went up. Many years ago I had heard Clark Howard (a radio personality that had a show about finances) talk about how homeowners insurance companies were canceling right and left, if you so much as made a hypothetical inquiry about a minor claim let alone an actual claim. I don’t know if that was what you were caught up in, or if it was temporary and it’s not like that now or what. Our claim was just 3 years ago.

But we have our auto insurance for six cars, and had two rental houses in the past, as well as an umbrella policy all with this same company, and never made a big claim on any of it in all these decades, biggest was when Mark hit a deer and totaled an old car, that was probably no more than $3,500. So when you total all the premiums we’ve paid them, no doubt they come out way ahead.

Unfortunately this company doesn’t insure airplanes.
 
Another option is to investigate surplus lines of insurance when local insurers won't write a policy.
 
Plano Pilot said:
That does not sound very fair to the injured party. I guess you just hope that the innocent party is fully insured since you are to cheap to have insurance.

Just trying to show the other side.
Click to expand...

...and I am not advocating for anyone to do this. Just like you are responsible to other people on the road if you get into a car, you have a responsibility to cover any economic damage you may cause by getting into a plane. But that's just me.

As for the gent with the three planes. While the Comanche fanbois will claim that it is not true, the type can be more difficult to insure on a good day. If I was 80 and owned multiple planes, I would probably sell the one I can't insure and enjoy the other ones. At that point, you are on borrowed time already, no point getting worked up about what an insurance company thinks.
 
I have heard multiple people state lately that 70+ ages with retracts are finding it hard to re-insure, if not impossible. Seems like hitting age 70 you are much more likely to gear up, according to some actuary somewhere.
 
I am just now 78 and insure through A**A and have for the past 6 years. Prior to that I was with another carrier who, upon my reaching age 72, decided to significantly raise the premium. My policy limits have remained the same for the past 4 years and the premium has increased 10% from 2019 to 2020, then 26% from 2020 to 2021 but is still less than $1500/yr. Prior to 2019 the premium had stayed the same for 4 years. I am required to have an annual flight review (no biggy) and annual medical (also no biggy). Never had a claim and average about 95 hours per year. My Arrow is a '69 PA28R-200 model. I have over 1100 hours retract make and model and more than 4000 TT. I am a CFII and COMM SEL whether that helps or not. Yes, the premium increases a lot but staying with the same carrier or broker is a good idea.
 
Plano Pilot said:
That does not sound very fair to the injured party. I guess you just hope that the innocent party is fully insured since you are to cheap to have insurance.

Just trying to show the other side.
Click to expand...

You don't have insurance to protect an "innocent party". You have insurance to protect your assets...
 
My insurer would not do liability alone . Had to go with hull insurance also . $3551.00 for the policy. $30,000 hull Ins .
Being 80 is a problem .
 
The only twin (414) on our field is flown by a 74yr or 75yr old, awesome guy and pilot. Sweet plane too. He can still fly full passengers and not required to have a second pilot but thinks that will change next year. So there are insurers out there allowing twin retracts without 2nd pilot requirements beyond age 70. I have no idea what his policy costs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top