Insurance specifics

[NealRomeoGolf]

My open pilot clause on my new retract is pretty restrictive. Anyone under the Open Pilot clause has to have a billion hours (ok, just 1000) and 25 of them have to be in the specific type. However, if I want to do my instrument training in my aircraft with a CFII that does not have 25 hours in my specific type, does that preclude the Open Pilot clause. The specific wording in the policy says that "when NXXXX is operated by other than (me) then....open pilot clause applies" Nowhere in the insurance does it say that the PIC is the operator. So if the CFII does not meet the open pilot clause and we file to go fly in IMC, so he is PIC, but I am operating the controls, are we covered?

Yes, I have asked my broker. So far the answers have just been to regurgitate what the policy says.

 

[schmookeeg]

My open pilot clause on my new retract is pretty restrictive. Anyone under the Open Pilot clause has to have a billion hours (ok, just 1000) and 25 of them have to be in the specific type. However, if I want to do my instrument training in my aircraft with a CFII that does not have 25 hours in my specific type, does that preclude the Open Pilot clause. The specific wording in the policy says that "when NXXXX is operated by other than (me) then....open pilot clause applies" Nowhere in the insurance does it say that the PIC is the operator. So if the CFII does not meet the open pilot clause and we file to go fly in IMC, so he is PIC, but I am operating the controls, are we covered?

Yes, I have asked my broker. So far the answers have just been to regurgitate what the policy says.

If you have complex and any other endorsements required to act as PIC, then I say yes. If you are not yet qualified to be PIC, you need to name the instructor. I'm surprised the instructor hasn't requested that anyway, given the ambiguity.

Of course, I'm not writing the check if you guys ball it up, so don't listen to me. The broker won't help interpret? (specifically, they won't reply to an email, triggering their E&O coverage if they get it wrong?) -- I'd be insistent on a yes/no answer to the very basic question of "are we covered for this operation?"

 

[hindsight2020]

yeah, I received equally worthless replies from my broker regarding some territorial coverage questions I had on one of the policies I was mulling over switching to. I don't know if it was snark on their part, but the answer was unnuanced word for word regurgitation of the policy. I wasn't impressed. Beggars can't be choosers these days it appears, on the insurance market front. If this exchange was via email, I concur with @schmookeeg , I'd be terse and pointed in requiring a yes no interpretation in written form. It's the only language people seem to understand these days.

 

[denverpilot]

Easiest way to fix it is just to get a.quote naming the CFI on the policy temporarily, in many cases. It usually isn’t going to up your rates if they have any time (but sometimes less than the open clause) in type. They may still require SOME in type however.

 

[Piper18O]

So if the CFII does not meet the open pilot clause and we file to go fly in IMC, so he is PIC, but I am operating the controls, are we covered?

In that case, I would think that while you are operating the controls, the instructor is a required crew member. It would be interesting to ask the insurance company, that in the circumstance you are talking about, would they prefer the instructor to take over the controls to prevent a crash if you get in trouble, or would they prefer that you fly the plane into the ground so your coverage stays intact since you would still be the one operating the plane.

 

[Piper18O]

My open pilot clause on my new retract is pretty restrictive. Anyone under the Open Pilot clause has to have a billion hours (ok, just 1000) and 25 of them have to be in the specific type

I just re-read this and you didn't say make and model, you said type. Wouldn't the type just be, for example, single engine land, complex, high performance, etc? Or maybe I just don't understand the terminology. I once got insurance on a plane that my open pilot policy was less restrictive than it was for me. I had to have 500 total, and 10 hours make and model, but the open pilot just had to have 500 total hours, without restrictions on make and model.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Contact the insurance company directly, and look for another broker.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I just re-read this and you didn't say make and model, you said type. Wouldn't the type just be, for example, single engine land, complex, high performance, etc? Or maybe I just don't understand the terminology. I once got insurance on a plane that my open pilot policy was less restrictive than it was for me. I had to have 500 total, and 10 hours make and model, but the open pilot just had to have 500 total hours, without restrictions on make and model.

You are correct - make and model is the correct terminology. In my case it has to specifically be a PA32R-300. Can't be a fixed gear Toga. Can't be a Cherokee 6. Not even sure they would take a PA32R-301. How annoying.

 

[flyingron]

When I wanted to let my instructor fly my plane, I told him my open pilot clause required 25 hours of retract time. He had been a U-2 pilot in the Air Force. I asked if the wheels falling off the plane counted as retract time.

 

[GRG55]

When I wanted to let my instructor fly my plane, I told him my open pilot clause required 25 hours of retract time. He had been a U-2 pilot in the Air Force. I asked if the wheels falling off the plane counted as retract time.

Clearly to get a precise answer you should have been asking that question of the broker...

Easiest way to fix it is just to get a.quote naming the CFI on the policy temporarily, in many cases. It usually isn’t going to up your rates if they have any time (but sometimes less than the open clause) in type. They may still require SOME in type however.

This is what I keep running into. My insurer wants the instructor to have minimum 10 hours time in type. And if he/she doesn't then they want him/her to take some dual with an instructor that does. What a circus...

 

[iamtheari]

Open pilot clauses are a headache. The instrument training is a real problem because you can’t be PIC for the cross country lesson that must be flown under IFR or for any super-valuable time in actual IMC. You could just hope your instructor doesn’t let you crash the plane during the times when he is PIC. But it would really be nice if the agent would confirm that you are covered when you, the named insured pilot, are receiving instruction from a qualified flight instructor.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think there are more than 3 people in my county who qualify for the open pilot provision of my policy, and the other 2 are prior owners of my plane. Some of those provisions are draconian, but I personally don’t mind having a solid excuse to say “sorry, Mr Hoover, I would love to lend you my plane, but you don’t qualify for the open pilot provision”

 

[Geosync]

Contact the insurance company directly, and look for another broker.

This. Brokers work for you, and if they don't know they should get the answer. If they are unwilling find a new broker. Just tell him/her that you need an answer, and you are going to direct to the UW. They don't like that, and it WILL light a fire under them, because they are technically your representative and it reflects bad on them if customers are calling UW's directly.

As far as the CFI/type issue, I've had claims during training/checkrides where they geared up the aircraft. It does become an issue over who is PIC, is the CFI qualified for that aircraft for insurance purposes. If you're under the hood and sweating through a tough approach and you gear up, the insurance company is going to ask if your CFI meets the warranty. Trust me it gets murky. So, you really should clear it up before you start training with a CFII on your airplane. Your insurance will still cover a loss but it's a matter of can they get reimbursed by your CFII's insurer if he is deemed at fault. He does have insurance, right?

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I guess if the fan quits while in the clouds, we just cancel IFR and my airplane.... Yay insurance companies.

*this is a joke*

 

[Piper18O]

The first 10 hours of your training, name him pilot-in-command. Then he qualifies. But do it after the fact. Just make sure you're not flying in instrument conditions during those first 10 hours. If you have an accident or incident, you were pilot in command at the time. If not, it doesn't matter. After 10 hours, he has met the open pilot policy.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

IIRC you should put him on your policy because the open pilot policy only protects you, not the open pilot. The insurance company can and will subrogate against an open pilot, however if they're named on the insurance they cannot.

 

[flyingron]

Clearly to get a precise answer you should have been asking that question of the broker...

That was a joke, son. My U-2 pilot friend pointed out that the main gear and tail wheel does retract on the U-2. He also has hundreds of hours of B-52 time as well. Amusingly, his last assignment with the AF was CAP liaison. He says he went from flying B-52s to 182s in his AF career

 

[k9medic]

To me this is a non event. If you are VFR, flying under the hood you are still the PIC. Even if you are IMC as a student, you still claim the time as PIC, so does the CFII.

 

[EdFred]

I'd check with the broker with the II as a named insured. I had 0 PA32R time, but 4 digit flight hours and 500+ in PA24s. All the insurance required of me as a named insured was a trip around the pattern before they would insure me. It may be that simple.

 

[NoHeat]

Yes, I have asked my broker. So far the answers have just been to regurgitate what the policy says.

I agree with Maule Skinner. You need a new broker. I’m not sure if that can be changed before renewal time, as I’ve never heard of anybody who’s tried, but your situation would certainly merit it.

 

[PPC1052]

My open pilot clause on my new retract is pretty restrictive. Anyone under the Open Pilot clause has to have a billion hours (ok, just 1000) and 25 of them have to be in the specific type. However, if I want to do my instrument training in my aircraft with a CFII that does not have 25 hours in my specific type, does that preclude the Open Pilot clause. The specific wording in the policy says that "when NXXXX is operated by other than (me) then....open pilot clause applies" Nowhere in the insurance does it say that the PIC is the operator. So if the CFII does not meet the open pilot clause and we file to go fly in IMC, so he is PIC, but I am operating the controls, are we covered?

Yes, I have asked my broker. So far the answers have just been to regurgitate what the policy says.

Just don't crash in the first 25 hours with your CFI.

 

[PPC1052]

yeah, I received equally worthless replies from my broker regarding some territorial coverage questions I had on one of the policies I was mulling over switching to. I don't know if it was snark on their part, but the answer was unnuanced word for word regurgitation of the policy. I wasn't impressed. Beggars can't be choosers these days it appears, on the insurance market front. If this exchange was via email, I concur with @schmookeeg , I'd be terse and pointed in requiring a yes no interpretation in written form. It's the only language people seem to understand these days.

You can't really expect insurance agents/brokers to know complex answers to coverage questions. The policies are written by lawyers, and get re-written after some judge applies a tortured interpretation to extend coverage to some poor sap that was hurt under circumstances that were never intended to be covered in the first instance. At the end of the day, the policy means what ever the judge feels like it means.

 

[PPC1052]

If you're under the hood and sweating through a tough approach and you gear up, the insurance company is going to ask if your CFI meets the warranty.

Who doesn't take the hood off before touching down?

 

[Warlock]

Don’t assume anything unless they are a named insured on the policy...Open pilot clauses are very restrictive and give you coverage if met but probably not for your CFI for liability.

 

[Lindberg]

Yes, I have asked my broker. So far the answers have just been to regurgitate what the policy says.

Ask the underwriter. Or ask your agent to.

 

[schmookeeg]

You can't really expect insurance agents/brokers to know complex answers to coverage questions. The policies are written by lawyers, and get re-written after some judge applies a tortured interpretation to extend coverage to some poor sap that was hurt under circumstances that were never intended to be covered in the first instance. At the end of the day, the policy means what ever the judge feels like it means.

What? Why can't I? Personal aviation insurance only has like 5 levers and knobs to twist. If he can't get an individual hull pleasure and business policy figured out, NFW would I let him quote commercial aviation stuff which does get into the complexity weeds.

If you take the 15% commission, and call yourself a "professional", know the damn answers about your product. Failing that, you're just taking a skim and adding no value, and potentially exposing people to undue risk they hired you to mitigate properly.

</rant>

</grumpf>

 

[PPC1052]

What? Why can't I?

We do a lot of coverage work as well as defense of insurance agents. I'm just telling you the reality of the situation is that once you get outside of the routine areas of inquiry, an insurance agent is just not going to be able to tell you much about what the policy means. And even if the policy means one thing today, a judge may tell you it means something else tomorrow.

 

[EdFred]

Y'all must have some **** brokers. I've always gotten a more in-depth answer from mine when there was ambiguity in the policy.

 

[MacFly]

I have NO prior experience with aviation insurance, but lately I've been working with a couple of brokers regarding a plane I'm planning on buying and it's been a pretty arcane experience. I've found that most companies offer an Open Pilot Warranty...approving any pilot that meets their criteria, which is typically 500 hours TT and 25 hours time-in-type I'm told. Some other companies don't offer OPW, including AIG which is the one that offered me a significantly cheaper policy, in which case their standard pilot criteria have to be met in order to be named on the policy. So I'm in the process of getting my CFI named on the policy so that he can do flight instruction/transition traniing on the ferry flight. AIG wants me to have two hours of dual to solo and one hour of solo to carry a passenger. I suspect I'll want a lot more, so that relationship with my CFI, who's also a friend, will be ongoing.

 

[GRG55]

That was a joke, son. My U-2 pilot friend pointed out that the main gear and tail wheel does retract on the U-2. He also has hundreds of hours of B-52 time as well. Amusingly, his last assignment with the AF was CAP liaison. He says he went from flying B-52s to 182s in his AF career

So was my response, Dad (hence the "").

A few years ago at one of our regional airshows a BUFF from Barksdale was flown in for static over the weekend. On the Sunday right after show close we invited the female captain and her co-pilot over to our flying club hospitality tent for a cold beverage (they had spent the whole weekend answering questions and signing autographs in the stinking hot weather). She was the daughter of a career Air Force pilot who flew BUFFs and A-10s. Said it was fun to be flying some of the same tail numbers her Dad flew. Had a bunch of other hilarious stories, some of which if repeated here would likely bring down the ban hammer.

 

[Piper18O]

He says he went from flying B-52s to 182s in his AF career

So you could say that he went from the "Love Shack" to "All the Small Things" in his AF career! lol
(B-52's to Blink-182. If you have to explain it, I guess it isn't that funny)

 

[weilke]

Just put the CFIII on the policy as approved pilot. It wont up your rate.

 

[Larry Vrooman]

yeah, I received equally worthless replies from my broker regarding some territorial coverage questions I had on one of the policies I was mulling over switching to. I don't know if it was snark on their part, but the answer was unnuanced word for word regurgitation of the policy. I wasn't impressed. Beggars can't be choosers these days it appears, on the insurance market front. If this exchange was via email, I concur with @schmookeeg , I'd be terse and pointed in requiring a yes no interpretation in written form. It's the only language people seem to understand these days.

Sadly I have way too many years experience working with risk averse bureaucrats and attorneys who always default to the most defensible answer - or who choose not to answer at all so that they don't take on any risk of being wrong in their response and thus liable.

The approach to take here is to send a letter to the broker via certified mail stating the question and describing the prior lack of response to the question, and the resulting loss of utility of the insured aircraft. Then in the next paragraph in the letter notify the broker that if a response is not received by a specified date (and I'd only give a few days after receipt of the letter in this case as it's a simple question) you will view any continued lack of response as confirmation that the described situation is covered by the policy.

That puts the risk on the broker, who now has to get off his or her haunches and contact the insurance company for clarification and confirmation. The broker earns a commission not just for selling the policy, but also for servicing it and he or she is your representative to the insurance company. It's the broker's job, make the broker do it. Then when you're up for renewal look for another broker who fully understands that he or she works for you.

You can't really expect insurance agents/brokers to know complex answers to coverage questions. The policies are written by lawyers, and get re-written after some judge applies a tortured interpretation to extend coverage to some poor sap that was hurt under circumstances that were never intended to be covered in the first instance. At the end of the day, the policy means whatever the judge feels like it means.

When I was a freshman in aeronautical engineering one of the first things that was made clear to us is that we would never, and could never, know everything about a complex subject like aeronautical engineering. We were made to understand that we were not being taught how to know everything, instead we were being taught where to go to find the answers to what we needed to know.

The same applies to attorneys and insurance brokers. They may not know the answer to a questions, but if they are even remotely competent they should know where to look. For an attorneys that means looking at statute and case law. For a broker it means contacting the insurance company, and if necessary getting a written response from the companies attorneys.

There is no reason at all for a question like the OP's to have to be addressed in court after the fact.

 

[Larry Vrooman]

Just put the CFIII on the policy as approved pilot. It wont up your rate.

If the CFI isn't *named* on the policy as an insured individual, and is instead just an *approved* individual the CFI would be smart to have the owner get a waiver of subrogation to prevent the CFI or his insurance from being sued after an accident.

The same applies for a ferry pilot who meets the minimum for the "open pilot" clause and is thus an approved pilot. The insurance company will still go after an approved pilot who had the accident and/or their insurance company unless there is a waiver of subrogation.

If there is a loss with an approved pilot, all that means is that the coverage isn’t voided for the policyholder. It does not mean the approved pilot gets the benefits of the policy — those benefits and the insurance company's "duty to defend" are reserved for named pilots. There are usually some extra steps to get someone on a policy as a named individual - complete an application, be subject to underwriting approval, some potential additional premium, potential training requirements, etc. but if you are a regular pilot in a particular aircraft, it's the difference in being covered and not covered.

If you are not a regular pilot then a waiver of subrogation, or less ideally defaulting back to your own renter or non-owner insurance are the ways to go.

 

[weilke]

If the CFI isn't *named* on the policy as an insured individual, and is instead just an *approved* individual the CFI would be smart to have the owner get a waiver of subrogation to prevent the CFI or his insurance from being sued after an accident.

I know that. IF the CFI wants that, sure you can go and try to get this from the insurance company.

Just to address the issue with the open pilot warranty, the solution is to have the CFII submit a pilot information form to the broker so the insurance can list him as approved pilot. For more complicated and faster planes, the insurance may require the CFI to be on their list of approved training providers, I wouldn't expect that to be the case for a run of the mill plane like a lance.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

I wouldn't expect that to be the case for a run of the mill plane like a lance.

Hey, who you calling run of the mill??

 

[PPC1052]

There is no reason at all for a question like the OP's to have to be addressed in court after the fact.

In perfect world, it wouldn't be.

 

[Paul_Havelka]

As someone in the aviation insurance industry, my response would be to get your CFI on your policy as a named insured with a a waiver of subrogation. Generally your premium should not increase since it is typically based on the least experienced pilot. The waiver of subrogation is there to protect your CFI in the event that you have an incident and file a claim.

 

[MacFly]

As someone in the aviation insurance industry, my response would be to get your CFI on your policy as a named insured with a a waiver of subrogation. Generally your premium should not increase since it is typically based on the least experienced pilot. The waiver of subrogation is there to protect your CFI in the event that you have an incident and file a claim.

I was quoted an Open Pilot Warranty (500TT/25TiT) at no additional cost, but a waiver of subrogation for my highly-qualified instructor was an additional 20% of the premium. Likewise naming him on the policy - doesn't help...he's not covered if he's instructing. Sadly, he's a good friend who is going to ferry this plane for me and was going to provide transition training as a favor. The problem is that he doesn't instruct professionally and doesn't carry CFI insurance. He can and will fly the plane as PIC on the ferry flight back with me, but he won't instruct without a waiver of subrogation. Buying the waiver at $300 will still likely be the cheapest course to transition for me. My other option is a CFI about 100 miles south of here who will fly up here for $120 per trip and charge $50/hour for dual instruction in my plane. Nice to have options, I guess....