Age 75+ Insurance

Yep, he would not be covered, you would, but your insurance company could go after him for damages.
 
I think the key takeaway is not to make any changes once you hit that age. We had an issue with getting new insurance once one of our partners hit 70. That was for a 6 seat retract, probably less of an issue for fixed gear VFR only plane.
 
Salty said:
What?
Click to expand...
An Open Pilot Warrantee provides coverage to the aircraft owner if he loans or grant permission for another pilot, who meets the warrantee terms, to fly the aircraft. It doesn't provide coverage for the borrower. So if your father crashes the airplane into a school, you will have coverage up to the limits of the policy, but you father will be on his own, subject to primary claims and subrogation by your insurer for payment of claims on your behalf. Likewise if he damages the airplane, your loss is covered, but he may be subject to subrogation unless the company provides a waiver, which most likely they won't.

If you want him covered by your policy, he has to be a named insured.

Best way around this is for you father, if able, to get a non- owned aircraft policy with damage limits high enough to cover your deductible, and liability limits he's comfortable with from your insurance company. An insurance company would be unlikely to subrogate against it's own customer.
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard some CFIs require to be named insured even if not PIC.
 
Anthem said:
People always think that liabilty policies are easier to get - they arent. Its a smaller portion of the total insurance poilicy, but if an insurance carrier denies covering your hull, they generally wont even offer liability as an option.
Click to expand...
I thought you could get nonmovement liability insurance? I’m guessing that would satisfy the Airport’s requirement
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Best way around this is for you father, if able, to get a non- owned aircraft policy with damage limits high enough to cover your deductible, and liability limits he's comfortable with from your insurance company. An insurance company would be unlikely to subrogate against it's own customer.
Click to expand...

Another option is to get the non-owned coverage through Avemco. Their liability limits 'stack' with the primary insurance, iow they are not secondary to it. Avemcos underwriting standard for non-owned includes a mirror and a checkbook.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Even if student has his PP, and just doing instrument or commercial training?
Click to expand...
FAR 61.51 - "A certificated flight instructor may log pilot in command flight time for all flight time while serving as the authorized instructor in an operation if the instructor is rated to act as pilot in command of that aircraft."

If student has his private certificate (or higher) he may log PIC time while being the sole manipulator of the controls. This is that sometimes confusing situation were both can log PIC, but the CFI is the actual PIC for the flight.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Can’t the student and instructor agree as to who is the “official” PIC for any given flight?
Click to expand...
On a training flight I suspect the FAA would regard the CFI as the PIC if there happened to be an accident. I am sure the insurance company would.

But you do raise an important point - when I fly with another CFI for training, we agree before takeoff who is the PIC. If I am just riding with someone in their airplane, even if I am in the right seat, if not instructing then the owner is PIC.
 
Plane insurance, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, pet insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance…..blah blah blah. I think we Americans (I am guilty) are grossly over insured. If I had all my premiums back I’d be a rich man and be able to easily cover all the claims I’ve had in my life. Once they price us out, just sock a few grand away every year in a savings account and self-insure. That way if you end up not needing it at least you get it back!
 
Hangontight said:
Plane insurance, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, pet insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance…..blah blah blah. I think we Americans (I am guilty) are grossly over insured. If I had all my premiums back I’d be a rich man and be able to easily cover all the claims I’ve had in my life. Once they price us out, just sock a few grand away every year in a savings account and self-insure. That way if you end up not needing it at least you get it back!
Click to expand...
Having no insurance is not self insuring, it’s having no insurance.
 
Hangontight said:
If I had all my premiums back I’d be a rich man and be able to easily cover all the claims I’ve had in my life. Once they price us out, just sock a few grand away every year in a savings account and self-insure. That way if you end up not needing it at least you get it back!
Click to expand...
That generally works OK for damages to your car, or plane, or your toaster, but if it comes to an injury to another person, all that money you saved will be quickly consumed by legal fees alone, and any other assets you have are then also at risk.
 
Salty said:
What?
Click to expand...
exactly what Chip said. The insurance policy only covers the owner. It doesnt cover the other pilots. Insurance doesnt "carry" to whomever is flying the plane in full force. So what happens if another pilot has an incident with your plane ? - IF he meets the open pilot warranty - then the plane is covered (under you). If you as the owner are sued by someone for causing damage and such - it is covered since the plane is covered. If the pilot sues you for malfunctioning plane or whatever - it is covered as well. If someone else that he hits on the ground sues the pilot that was flying under the OPW for negligence (as in doing something stupid, etc) - then the insurance policy does NOT cover him. As he isnt covered. IF he is a named insured on the policy - then it will (there are some tricky situations in there if he sues you and is named but thats another side story). Also this is all up to the limits of the policy.
 
Anthem said:
exactly what Chip said. The insurance policy only covers the owner. It doesnt cover the other pilots. Insurance doesnt "carry" to whomever is flying the plane in full force. So what happens if another pilot has an incident with your plane ? - IF he meets the open pilot warranty - then the plane is covered (under you). If you as the owner are sued by someone for causing damage and such - it is covered since the plane is covered. If the pilot sues you for malfunctioning plane or whatever - it is covered as well. If someone else that he hits on the ground sues the pilot for negligence (as in doing something stupid, etc) - then the insurance policy does NOT cover him. As he isnt covered. IF he is a named insured on the policy - then it will (there are some tricky situations in there if he sues you and is named but thats another side story). Also this is all up to the limits of the policy.
Click to expand...
Yes, makes sense.
 
Flew for 55 years, drove M/Cs for 50 years, cars for 70 years, and had a house for 55 years, all with no accidents or claims. Only a fluke in Minnesota no-fault car insurance law allowed me to have medical coverage for an at-fault bicycle accident. Lucky, I guess!
 
Hangontight said:
Plane insurance, life insurance, home insurance, health insurance, car insurance, pet insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance…..blah blah blah. I think we Americans (I am guilty) are grossly over insured. If I had all my premiums back I’d be a rich man and be able to easily cover all the claims I’ve had in my life. Once they price us out, just sock a few grand away every year in a savings account and self-insure. That way if you end up not needing it at least you get it back!
Click to expand...

The only way to be over insured is if you have coverage in excess of the value of your assets. "Socking a few grand away every year" is only $150K after 50 years. $150K wouldn't come close covering an injury accident or something benign like taxiing into a Citation wingtip. I don't like buying insurance either, but it sure beats potentially being destitute in your twilight years...
 
JOhnH said:
I don't think so. Older drivers drive so slowly they cause other people to crash trying to get around them. Then they slowly drive off.
Click to expand...
On a motorcycle ride in the California coastal mountains on afternoon, a BMW blew by us (and we were moving well above the speed limit). The rider was not only fast, but smooth as silk and took a perfect line through every turn.

When we got to Alice’s Restaurant (majorly popular motorcycle destination), the Beemer was there. The rider had a shock of flowing, long snow-white hair and no way was he a day a under 75. High-energy, too, not an ounce of fat, and a bright mind, too.

He’s not the only old high-speed guy I’ve met on the road. Push limits and exercise the mind and body and aging has much less effect.
 
dbahn said:
That generally works OK for damages to your car, or plane, or your toaster, but if it comes to an injury to another person, all that money you saved will be quickly consumed by legal fees alone, and any other assets you have are then also at risk.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why the legal defense provided by the insurance company to defend is worth the cost of poker all by itself, never mind the asset protection.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I thought you could get nonmovement liability insurance? I’m guessing that would satisfy the Airport’s requirement
Click to expand...
Just my mental deterioration here, but why on earth would you want to keep paying for a hanger if you have nothing to fly, and no coverage to fly?
 
What stops the insurance companies from moving the goalposts? Insurance over 75 is prohibitive or not available. Then, its 72. Then at age 70 things are difficult. Then 68, 65, etc...
 
charheep said:
What stops the insurance companies from moving the goalposts? Insurance over 75 is prohibitive or not available. Then, its 72. Then at age 70 things are difficult. Then 68, 65, etc...
Click to expand...
nothing. Nothing at all. They can insure who they want, when they want. Its a private business doing business how they choose. If there is lack of a competitive landscape - then a new player moves in. Since there isnt - its obvious that no one really wants that business, and no one should be required to provide it - capitalism.
 
Anthem said:
nothing. Nothing at all. They can insure who they want, when they want. Its a private business doing business how they choose. If there is lack of a competitive landscape - then a new player moves in. Since there isnt - its obvious that no one really wants that business, and no one should be required to provide it - capitalism.
Click to expand...
To some extent this is true, but they couldn't decide not to insure someone based on race or gender. What if a restaurant decided not to serve people over 70 because they are more likely to choke to death during a meal?

We have age discrimination laws for employment. The U.S. EEOC says, "Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older." Yet even with these rules you can't become an air traffic controller after you turn 30 and you have to retire at 56. So even the government thinks you aren't as mentally capable as you get older and ignores their own Age Discrimination laws.

I know 3 pilots who have lost their insurance for nothing more than their age. All three had perfect records, not even one issue with the FAA. Are there studies showing that after 75 you're more likely to crash?
 
Lowflynjack said:
To some extent this is true, but they couldn't decide not to insure someone based on race or gender. What if a restaurant decided not to serve people over 70 because they are more likely to choke to death during a meal?

We have age discrimination laws for employment. The U.S. EEOC says, "Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older." Yet even with these rules you can't become an air traffic controller after you turn 30 and you have to retire at 56. So even the government thinks you aren't as mentally capable as you get older and ignores their own Age Discrimination laws.

I know 3 pilots who have lost their insurance for nothing more than their age. All three had perfect records, not even one issue with the FAA. Are there studies showing that after 75 you're more likely to crash?
Click to expand...
the government doesnt follow its own laws. At 75, go and enlist in the military. Is that age discrimination ? Absolutely. They forbid background checks and asking whether someone is a felon on employment. Try that with the FBI. . . The FAA doesnt allow 121 pilots to fly past 65. . isnt that employment based age discrmination ?

As for insurance - they have been allowed to discriminate based on age for years. They discriminate based on rates for teenagers for cars. They also as everyone here has noted - they discriminate for airplane insurance. Guess what - they also discrminate for life insurance - is obviously much cheaper to get life insurance when you are 20 than when you are 80.

But its all about risk and risk containement for both sides. But getting really down to earth - if its a huge untapped market - someone will want the business. But yet, I dont see anyone wanting to to offer and start a business for 75+ pilots. So that should tell you something - they just dont want to put their dollars there. I should add, im not far from this - as Im in my 50's. I also think that there are plenty of 75+ pilots that are way more capable and better pilots than me. No dispute there. But the insurance companies probably have a difficult time differentiating on that level between say good and with it pilots vs pilots that shouldnt be up there. So it all comes back down to a business decision.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
the government doesnt follow its own laws. At 75, go and enlist in the military. Is that age discrimination ? Absolutely. They forbid background checks and asking whether someone is a felon on employment. Try that with the FBI. . . The FAA doesnt allow 121 pilots to fly past 65. . isnt that employment based age discrmination ?
Click to expand...
Agree, but they would come after me if I did the same thing.

Why would I want to hire a 64 year old when they're going to retire in a few years when I can hire a 45 year old and get a lot more return on my investment? When I was 30, I didn't think of these things, but now that I'm 50, it's becoming more real. As a manager, at 50, I'm experienced. At 60, I'm experienced, but have less working years to offer. At 70, I won't get hired.
 
charheep said:
What stops the insurance companies from moving the goalposts? Insurance over 75 is prohibitive or not available. Then, its 72. Then at age 70 things are difficult. Then 68, 65, etc...
Click to expand...
The free market. The market segment comprised of >75yr olds is relatively small, but the market gets larger as the age limit is dropped.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Are there studies showing that after 75 you're more likely to crash?
Click to expand...
Bet on it. Otherwise the insurance companies would be happy to issue the policies. Their entire business is built on issuing policies that take in a little more money than they pay out. If the over 75 accident rate was a profitable business, you can bet that they would issue policies against that risk.
 
172andyou said:
Bet on it. Otherwise the insurance companies would be happy to issue the policies. Their entire business is built on issuing policies that take in a little more money than they pay out. If the over 75 accident rate was a profitable business, you can bet that they would issue policies against that risk.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. You're referring to loss ratio. There's only one company, Avemco, that underwrites consistently for an underwriting profit. Most underwrite at a loss ratio over 100%, and let investment returns on loss reserves make up the difference. Problem recently is interest rates have been so low, safer inestments offer little return. So premium goes up in what's called a "hard market". Reality is the aviation book is but a zit the ass of the P&C insurance market, and underwriters jump in and out whenever they have excess capacity.

I have a couple friends who just turned 80. In the mail from the FAA comes a Wright Bros safe flying award, followed in one case a day or two later by a refusal of coverage due to age from an underwriter. So if the FAA gives you a Wright Bros Master Pilot certificate, run like hell.

Crazy world, ain't it?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Well, not exactly. You're referring to loss ratio. There's only one company, Avemco, that underwrites consistently for an underwriting profit. Most underwrite at a loss ratio over 100%, and let investment returns on loss reserves make up the difference. Problem recently is interest rates have been so low, safer inestments offer little return. So premium goes up in what's called a "hard market". Reality is the aviation book is but a zit the ass of the P&C insurance market, and underwriters jump in and out whenever they have excess capacity.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I worked briefly for AON, so I take your point about total income, but I don't know that it moves the needle any. If the business were profitable, they would write the policies.

I think your point about the size of the market is much more salient. If there are inefficiencies in this market, it's almost certainly because of its size.
 
This is my current plan:
My wife says she will divorce me if I buy another plane. Oh well.
I put everything I own in various trusts, and other legal, untouchable entities, in untouchable countries. All separate from each other.
I buy a plane. Fly it with no insurance.
In 20 years, at age 95, I fly it into a housing complex and kill everyone.
Don't care, I'm dead.
No insurance?!!!!!!!!!! No one to sue??!!!!!??
Too bad, not my rules, your rules.
:rofl:
 
Hospitals at which I currently/have in the past held privileges have age limits on those privileges. Age discrimination laws are not absolute but circumstantial. Although I don't like the fact that aviation insurers do have insurability decision processes based on age, it violates no law.
 
I have had to "check insurance" on an older gentleman who only wanted a flight review. He was flying naked. NFW. Not my favorite situation.

I'm surprised some old crudgeon hasn't started Spiteful Aviation Underwriters yet, funded it with a few 10s of MMs that he won't live to spend, and suck in all of this potential insurance premium to stick it to Avemco and the others for daring to question and judge his aviating prowess. I still hold out hope for this. I hope he names it spicily. :D

Then again, the dudes who make the 10s of MMs are not frivolous. Perhaps the actuaries have this one right?



...Who can I write to to get 75+ year olds out of the damned self-checkout lane at the grocery store? :)
 
Shepherd said:
Just my mental deterioration here, but why on earth would you want to keep paying for a hanger if you have nothing to fly, and no coverage to fly?
Click to expand...

He would still have a plane. It would just not be insured while he flies it. The insurance would still cover his hangar neighbors if the plane burns up while parked. That would potentially satisfy the hangar owners insurance requirement. It would just be a conscious decision to forego coverage while flying. If you dont have dependents and you assume that you would perish in any crash bad enough to hurt a third party, that could be a somewhat logical decision.


Even with insurance, if you have 1m with a 100k passenger sublimit, that passenger is essentially uninsured. 100k is pocket change for any serious injury claim.
 
Insurance companies are in the business of selling policies at a profit on an aggregate basis. They have reams of data; if they raise rates or stop writing policies for certain applicants, it is very likely that their choice to do so is in fact based on data. Just because we all know, for example, a sharp capable 78 year-old pilot, doesn't mean that on average the insurance companies have not seen that such pilots are in fact a higher risk to them.

I have flown with a number of older pilots. While everyone is different, there is a change in many pilots' ability to be truly ahead of the airplane as they get older. Apparently the people with the data think there's a bifurcation around the age of 75.
 
I wonder if there might be a risk correlation study based on driving history? There has to be a lot of data there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top