Rental Pilot insurance coverage?

[Ralph Parmenter Bennett]

Question for myself and other pilots concerning renter's insurance coverage for aircraft retrieval costs. I like many other Northeast pilots enjoy trips to our coastal islands, i.e. Fishers Island, Block Island, MVY, ACK etc. After some research it appears to me that there is little or No coverage for aircraft retrieval costs. I like others have observed that light aircraft remain on island locations for a very considerable time after an accident. Insurance policies usually promise a restoration of an aircraft to pre accident condition but are lacking in information concerning aircraft retrieval costs and policies. Of course this may also be true for privately owner aircraft.
Any input, opinions?

 

[AvNavCom]

Aircraft protection and retrieval is likely contained within the owner's insurance. For example, my policy:

"If your aircraft is forced to make an emergency landing into an area not designed, designated or operated as an airport and there is no physical damage done to your aircraft, we will pay the following:
1. Cost of the least expensive, most reasonable method of transporting your aircraft to the nearest airport up to a maximum of the Insured Value of the aircraft or $25,000, whichever is more.
2. Reasonable costs to protect your aircraft from damage or loss until your aircraft can be retrieved up to a maximum of the Insured Value of the aircraft or $25,000, whichever is more"

Presumably the owner's insurance and your renter's insurance companies would fist-fight over various costs, but I don't see you as being primarily on the hook for retrieval. Possibly worth checking with whomever you're renting aircraft from.

 

[Ralph Parmenter Bennett]

I do have coverage for the eventualities you mentioned in your post. The issue I encountered in checking with my insurer was for an accident on a coastal island which would entail significant costs for labor and ferry or ship travel. Yup, it would be complicated.

 

[Pinecone]

It would depend on the value of your plane versus the cost to retrieve it.

And if you are a renter, that all should be on the owner's insurance. Your insurance would reimburse their insurance up to the coverage limit.

 

[WDD]

More than likely, the cost you're most likely to run into is that your rental is stranded at an airport because of mechanical issue. I'd like to see a policy that covers that.

 

[Ralph Parmenter Bennett]

Below is the most comprehensive answer I received re my query. A sad caution to those of us who love flying among our NE islands

"If the owner has purchased in-motion collision insurance, the insurance company is obligated to either have the crashed airplane restored to its pre-crash condition or pay the owner the amount for which it is insured. It doesn’t matter whether transportation to a repair shop is needed. I’ve seen them fish floatplanes out of lakes.

If the cost of moving and repairing it exceeds the insured value and payment is made to the owner, the insurance company will take possession of the wreck. Then they will try to sell it.

If nobody buys the wreck because it would be too complicated to move, it will likely stay there and rot. Same result if the owner didn’t buy collision coverage and is facing higher repair costs than he can financially tolerate. Of course, the longer it sits there, exposed to the elements, the less it is worth, so it is a vicious circle. I’ve seen planes at small out-of-the way airports with trees growing through them.

By the way, my policy has a provision that if I make an emergency landing and the airplane is undamaged, the insurance company will relocate it to a place where it can be repaired, but only up to a cost limit of $15,000."

 

[Dana]

All of the islands with airports I know of in southern New England, at least, have ferry service so trailering a damaged airplane out shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[DJTorrente]

More than likely, the cost you're most likely to run into is that your rental is stranded at an airport because of mechanical issue. I'd like to see a policy that covers that.

Maybe I'm not clear on what non-owned coverage covers vs. owner's hull in-motion covers. If I'm renting an aircraft, I want coverage for my liability as PIC. I don't want my non-owner insurance to subsidize the owner's in-motion coverage.

Say I'm flying a rented aircraft over Martha's Vinyard on my way to Nantucket, and it suffers engine failure right over MVY, after which I put it down safely at the airport with no damage to persons or property ATTRIBUATABLE TO MY ACTIONS AS PIC. Let the insurers' lawyers fight about it, but I can't see the renter PIC (or their insurer) having any liability.

 

[WDD]

Let the insurers' lawyers fight about it, but I can't see the renter PIC (or their insurer) having any liability.

I can see a club or renter putting the cost and onus on the renter to pay to get the plane back (not the cost to fix the plane). The renter incurs the cost of buying transportation to get back home, than when the plane is fixed fly back to the stranded plane, and be charged tach/hobbs hours for the flight home.

 

[Mikey52]

When you rent something, you expect it to be in good mechanical shape, and to be able to complete the mission for which it is rented for. If it's no fault of the pilot or renter, unless otherwise agreed upon, the cost should be on owner.

Now if I rent a gas burner, and then fill it up with Jet A, that's on me.

 

[hindsight2020]

Isn't the more likely scenario renters banging up the rental? Liability only covers damage to others, not to the owned insured. Considering the wackadoodle asking prices for these lawnmowers these days (and thus what wackadoodles are insuring for), it's the hull damage to the rental what I'm personally more worried about. As such, hull coverage as a renter is the real limfac to me. Subrogation is no joke.

 

[DJTorrente]

I can see a club or renter putting the cost and onus on the renter to pay to get the plane back (not the cost to fix the plane). The renter incurs the cost of buying transportation to get back home, than when the plane is fixed fly back to the stranded plane, and be charged tach/hobbs hours for the flight home.

I see your point, from a perspective of putting everyone where they would have been 'but for' the mechanical failure. The renter would have flown the plane back to base if it was working properly, incurring those time/tach charges.

When you rent something, you expect it to be in good mechanical shape, and to be able to complete the mission for which it is rented for. If it's no fault of the pilot or renter, unless otherwise agreed upon, the cost should be on owner.

Now if I rent a gas burner, and then fill it up with Jet A, that's on me.

I'm assuming good faith and reasonable diligence on the part of all parties; no misfueling, no grossly deferred maintenance, e.g. There are no guarantees, however, and a PIC of all people should know that an in-flight failure is one of those things that we have to be prepared for.

I can also see the owner eating those charges to time/fuel and trouble as a cost of the repair & rescue. Esp. if an in-flight mechanical results in no bent metal. Unscheduled transport of the pilot and passengers I think is squarely on the renter, however.

 

[bonefishpete]

Isn't the more likely scenario renters banging up the rental? Liability only covers damage to others, not to the owned insured. Considering the wackadoodle asking prices for these lawnmowers these days (and thus what wackadoodles are insuring for), it's the hull damage to the rental what I'm personally more worried about. As such, hull coverage as a renter is the real limfac to me. Subrogation is no joke.

My understanding is renters insurance doesn't cover hull damage or maybe just the deductibles on hull coverage? You total the rental plane your going to be held responsible to buy a replacement? My understanding is renters insurance to cover hull loss is as expensive as if you owned it?

 

[Albany Tom]

My understanding is renters insurance doesn't cover hull damage or maybe just the deductibles on hull coverage? You total the rental plane your going to be held responsible to buy a replacement? My understanding is renters insurance to cover hull loss is as expensive as if you owned it?

At least with my carrier, hull coverage is optional, and yes kind of expensive. But the alternative is as hindsight points out, subrogation. If it's your fault the airplane is totaled, I'd expect you'd have to pay for that unless the owner's insurance is explicitly covering you for loss as a rental pilot. Guessing that some/many clubs do that, and probably as well if you're receiving instruction, but if you're renting from an FBO I sure wouldn't count on it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Generally speaking, non-owned (aka “renter’s) insurance is a limited policy that overs you for liability for injury or property damage to others except the aircraft you are renting. Optionally, it covers physical damage to the aircraft, up to an amount you select. I’ve seen policies here the hull coverage is fault-based and others where it is no-fault.

For most, that is going to be significantly less than the value of the aircraft. It covers what it covers. If you have liability beyond that, it’s on you.

In both cases, it comes down to what the rental deal is (are you required to reimburse?) and what your policy says.

 

[Mikey52]

When my son was getting his multi engine, the school required non owners insurance with either a 50 or 100k hull coverage. They said it was to cover their deductible in case of an accident. If they got their ME rating there, they were allowed to rent the plane as long as they had another rated pilot with them.

 

[bonefishpete]

When my sone was getting his multi engine, the school required non owners insurance with either a 50 or 100k hull coverage. They said it was to cover their deductible in case of an accident. If they got their ME rating there, they were allowed to rent the plane as long as they had another rated pilot with them.

Need to look into that. Even a new generation C172 used is 200K and up.