Is this fair?

[MultiMediaWill]

I am looking at the rental requirements for a flight school nearby. As a private pilot I am hoping to rent their Cessna 172, but they have a really high "renters insurance" requirement.

Their website lists these requirements:

#2 says they want 1Mil Liability and 50K aircraft damage. Well looking at AOPA that would cost me $820 a year just for insurance.

Do you think that is fair? I haven't been able to rationalize renting from them because I don't think $820 a year is worth it to rent one airplane. The other flight school I rent from has a monthly fee of $30 but they cover insurance.

 

[bbchien]

Nobody is forcing you to to do this.
However, be sure the "other flight school" you rent from has a nonsubrogation clause against it's students. THAT IS EXTREMELY RARE. So there, if you bust up an airplane, the school gets paid off by the insurance company, and then the company comes after you. Now what do you do for $30? You wish you had paid for the $820 no matter which school you go to....

 

[JoeSelch]

Yes, it's fair. Of course, you don't have to rent from them if you don't like it.

I used to carry that much hull when I was renting from various places or flying others' planes ... Not because it was explicitly required, just seemed like a good idea to cover my ass

 

[rbridges]

I've never rented a plane that required renters insurance; it was always included in the price. If they rent for less since you provide insurance, I guess it's fair. 50K/1M is pretty standard I believe. Check other carriers and see if you can get it for a lower price.

 

[markb5900]

As others have said.
If you don't like it, speak with your money and go someplace else.
Pretty simple really.

 

[JOhnH]

Are you sure you are looking at rates for renter's insurance? That sounds amazingly like what I am paying AOPA for insurance for the 172 I OWN. I would think renters insurance would be much less.

 

[SCCutler]

Nobody is forcing you to to do this.
However, be sure the "other flight school" you rent from has a nonsubrogation clause against it's students. THAT IS EXTREMELY RARE. So there, if you bust up an airplane, the school gets paid off by the insurance company, and then the company comes after you. Now what do you do for $30? You wish you had paid for the $820 no matter which school you go to....

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that that that that that that that that that!
---------------------------------------------------

I might suggest you try other agents for insurance, you may find a better deal.

Call Alejandro at True Course- 805.727.4222

 

[JoeSelch]

Are you sure you are looking at rates for renter's insurance? That sounds amazingly like what I am paying AOPA for insurance for the 172 I OWN. I would think renters insurance would be much less.

It seems to be in line w my experience ... Paying more to rent. If you own, you're likely to become very familiar w your plane. You might also have extra incentive to exercise a bit more care. Non-owned insurance will cover you in whatever plane you're flying... A 152 one day, twin the next, tailwheel the day after that. Hmm....

 

[Geico266]

As others have said.
If you don't like it, speak with your money and go someplace else.
Pretty simple really.

Sounds reasonable to me.



Call the FBO and talk to them about that requirement and see if it is in effect. Maybe they waive it after the first year?

 

[BillTIZ]

It seems to be in line w my experience ... Paying more to rent. If you own, you're likely to become very familiar w your plane. You might also have extra incentive to exercise a bit more care. Non-owned insurance will cover you in whatever plane you're flying... A 152 one day, twin the next, tailwheel the day after that. Hmm....

You are only covered in a twin if you may the extra "Multi" premium. At least it is that way with Avemco.

And be careful, many renters policies do not cover "experimental".

 

[EdFred]

You are only covered in a twin if you may the extra "Multi" premium. At least it is that way with Avemco.

And be careful, many renters policies do not cover "experimental".

Not with my insurance. I'm covered in any plane I'm rated for. Called them to verify when I was going to post inspection fly a Seneca II on the field with the A&P.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Look at it this way. If it was your airplane and you were renting it out, wouldn't you want the renter to cover adequate insurance if someone cracks it up?

Some of the bigger FBO's can get breaks on fleet insurance. Some can't.

 

[timwinters]

As dad always said...

"Son, the only thing that's fair in life is where the 4H kids take their animals."

 

[Steve Foley]

It's also interesting that AOPA won't let you purchase $50,000 in hull insurance but forces you to buy $60,000. Look around for another insurance company.

 

[Warrior]

Interesting. I haven't rented for a few years but when I did there was no mention of renter's insurance. I hope that you can find some other options for renting.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Not with my insurance. I'm covered in any plane I'm rated for. Called them to verify when I was going to post inspection fly a Seneca II on the field with the A&P.

Is that an owned or non-owned policy?

I know with Avemco, if it is non-owned, you need to select the additional multi-insurance like Bill said. However, if it is owned, then you are covered in whatever you are rated in. Even though I own a single, I am covered in twins up to the hull value that I have on the 170.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I am looking at the rental requirements for a flight school nearby. As a private pilot I am hoping to rent their Cessna 172, but they have a really high "renters insurance" requirement.

Their website lists these requirements:

#2 says they want 1Mil Liability and 50K aircraft damage. Well looking at AOPA that would cost me $820 a year just for insurance.

Do you think that is fair? I haven't been able to rationalize renting from them because I don't think $820 a year is worth it to rent one airplane. The other flight school I rent from has a monthly fee of $30 but they cover insurance.

I don't think of it as a question of fair or not....it is about what risk I the renter am willing to take.

Personally speaking, I would not take less than $1Mil liability. As far as the hull value (ie the aircraft damage), that depends on the age, condition and equipment of the aircraft they are renting. $50k in damage does not seem at all unreasonable to me unless they are renting 60's model 170s with 10k+ time on the airframe.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

Just because the flight school or FBO doesn't "require" renter's insurance doesn't mean that you don't need it or that you are covered under the FBO or school's policy.

You need to ask questions.

 

[wabower]

And as you can probably determine by reading this and other internet threads, this probably isn't the place to get the answers you need to make an informed decision. And when you start peeling back the banana at the FBO, you'll find that they probably don't understand the differences either.

Instead, you need a copy of the declarations page of each insurance policy as well as an opinion from from somebody qualified to provide it.

Just because the flight school or FBO doesn't "require" renter's insurance doesn't mean that you don't need it or that you are covered under the FBO or school's policy.

You need to ask questions.

 

[EdFred]

Is that an owned or non-owned policy?

I know with Avemco, if it is non-owned, you need to select the additional multi-insurance like Bill said. However, if it is owned, then you are covered in whatever you are rated in. Even though I own a single, I am covered in twins up to the hull value that I have on the 170.

That is an owned policy. I never had renters insurance.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That is an owned policy. I never had renters insurance.

That is probably the difference. Most strictly non-owned policies won't cover you in twins unless it is specifically spelled out (and higher premium paid). I am not sure if it is still the case, but I recall when I was doing my ME rating, Avemco claimed to be the only company that offered non-owned multi-engine insurance.

 

[Non Compos Mentis]

I've never rented a plane that required renters insurance; it was always included in the price.

You did not read the FBO's policy, did you?

The FBO is covered, you are not.

If something unfortunate happens, and the airplane gets damaged while you are responsible or it, the insurance company will write a check to the FBO to cover the damages, then be knocking at your door looking for reimbursement.

Disclaimer-

Student pilots are covered. The FBO/insuctor is considered the responsible party. As soon as one passes the Private Checkride, Renter's Insurance becomes neccessary.

 

[hindsight2020]

They can't get blood out of a turnip though...I agree, these days I'd probably have it. Back in my college student days I never bothered.

 

[Henning]

You did not read the FBO's policy, did you?

The FBO is covered, you are not.

If something unfortunate happens, and the airplane gets damaged while you are responsible or it, the insurance company will write a check to the FBO to cover the damages, then be knocking at your door looking for reimbursement.

Disclaimer-

Student pilots are covered. The FBO/insuctor is considered the responsible party. As soon as one passes the Private Checkride, Renter's Insurance becomes neccessary.

This is not always true. It's not as common as it once was, before the insurance industry figured out they could score heavily on the renter stuff, but there are still quite a few FBOs and clubs that have the Non Subrogation clause on their insurance. Several FBOs down here charge an extra $5 hr for insurance.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You did not read the FBO's policy, did you?

The FBO is covered, you are not.

This is not always the case. I trained at an FBO that covered renters as named insured.

In fact, I'd love to hear of an actual instance where the insurance company came after a renter for aircraft damage where renter's insurance wasn't required and the renter didn't do something utterly stupid/illegal. I bet it doesn't happen the way people here seem to think...

 

[pilot_dude]

This is not always the case. I trained at an FBO that covered renters as named insured.

In fact, I'd love to hear of an actual instance where the insurance company came after a renter for aircraft damage where renter's insurance wasn't required and the renter didn't do something utterly stupid/illegal. I bet it doesn't happen the way people here seem to think...

I suspect "Henning" knows 40-50 folks to whom it has occured.

 

[EdFred]

I suspect "Henning" knows 40-50 folks to whom it has occured.

I'm convinced that Henning is a Borg, and that his stories and knowledge has been obtained by a collective and didn't necessarily happen to him or someone he knows, but is simply shared by the collective and relayed as necessary on message boards.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'm convinced that Henning is a Borg, and that his stories and knowledge has been obtained by a collective and didn't necessarily happen to him or someone he knows, but is simply shared by the collective and relayed as necessary on message boards.

You mean he's a Bot?

 

[EdFred]

You mean he's a Bot?

No. A Borg.

 

[Non Compos Mentis]

This is not always true. It's not as common as it once was, before the insurance industry figured out they could score heavily on the renter stuff, but there are still quite a few FBOs and clubs that have the Non Subrogation clause on their insurance. Several FBOs down here charge an extra $5 hr for insurance.

Good to know.

I've owned an airplane for a while now, and haven't paid any attention to changes in renter's insurance or FBO policies.

As soon as I got my Private, I purchased renter's insurance. I had limited hull coverage, so I would only fly the older airplanes on the line. Didn't want to pay for the fancy stuff. An old C-150 or 172 is as fun to fly as a newer 172.

 

[wabower]

When did you train?

Do you think aviation insurance rates have changed since then? If so,are they now more favorable for the insurer or the insured?

This is not always the case. I trained at an FBO that covered renters as named insured.

In fact, I'd love to hear of an actual instance where the insurance company came after a renter for aircraft damage where renter's insurance wasn't required and the renter didn't do something utterly stupid/illegal. I bet it doesn't happen the way people here seem to think...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

When did you train?

10 years ago, but the FBO is still operating the same way.

 

[JOhnH]

When did you train?

Do you think aviation insurance rates have changed since then? If so,are they now more favorable for the insurer or the insured?

Insurance will ALWAYS be more favorable to the insurer (with one large caveat that I won't mention to keep this out of the SZ).

The theory is that when you buy insurance you are not saving money, you are buying peace of mind.

But I do think renter's insurance used to be much less than owners insurance.

 

[bbchien]

That is probably the difference. Most strictly non-owned policies won't cover you in twins unless it is specifically spelled out (and higher premium paid). I am not sure if it is still the case, but I recall when I was doing my ME rating, Avemco claimed to be the only company that offered non-owned multi-engine insurance.

I assure you that it still is.

 

[Headspace]

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins. And yet the multi-engine rating doesn't appear to even take that long to get. Is there an inherent difficulty in flying them or is it more a matter of people biting off too much plane than they can chew?

An instructor that I've worked with was able to get a policy in a VLJ easier than in a twin.

 

[EdFred]

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins. And yet the multi-engine rating doesn't appear to even take that long to get. Is there an inherent difficulty in flying them or is it more a matter of people biting off too much plane than they can chew?

An instructor that I've worked with was able to get a policy in a VLJ easier than in a twin.

If you aren't paying attention and you lose an engine, it can get hairy in a hurry.

 

[bbchien]

What's the reason for that? It seems like actuaries hate twins. And yet the multi-engine rating doesn't appear to even take that long to get. Is there an inherent difficulty in flying them or is it more a matter of people biting off too much plane than they can chew?

An instructor that I've worked with was able to get a policy in a VLJ easier than in a twin.

To my why of thinking it takes a certain sort of discipline to fly one with reliable safety. Many folks jukst don't have it, will never have it; some can be trained but many should NEVER go there.

 

[wabower]

Insurance rates have dropped significantly, some by as much as 50%, since 2002.

Insurance will ALWAYS be more favorable to the insurer (with one large caveat that I won't mention to keep this out of the SZ).

The theory is that when you buy insurance you are not saving money, you are buying peace of mind.

But I do think renter's insurance used to be much less than owners insurance.

 

[Ted]

Get 4 engines. That way when you lose one, it's the dreaded 3-engine approach.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Get 4 engines. That way when you lose one, it's the dreaded 3-engine approach.

You really do want that Jetstar don't you!