Renter's insurance after incident as student

[woodchucker]

Besides the main point, you are “in flight” after you have removed the chocks and tie downs. You are PIC in towing and taxiing. The fact that you brushed off taxiing as not being “in flight” is a statement by itself. After all this is settled I hope you re-evaluate what your duties as pic entail. And it’s a whole lot more than what you think it is. Once witnessed a pilot try to depart his taxi spot with chocks in place and one tie down still attached. If I were that pilot I would have shut down and gone home. They just hopped out and remedied the situation while the prop was turning. Nope nope nope nope. So much nope. If your brain can’t handle the thought of chocks and tie downs then your brain may not handle flying. If your brain is focused on items not relevant to taxiing along the yellow line then you should not be flying.

Hopefully you get this sorted out, but you need to have an inner look at what constitutes “flying”. Otherwise the next incident may involve something more than insurance woes.

 

[StudentPilot0525]

Besides the main point, you are “in flight” after you have removed the chocks and tie downs. You are PIC in towing and taxiing. The fact that you brushed off taxiing as not being “in flight” is a statement by itself. After all this is settled I hope you re-evaluate what your duties as pic entail. And it’s a whole lot more than what you think it is. Once witnessed a pilot try to depart his taxi spot with chocks in place and one tie down still attached. If I were that pilot I would have shut down and gone home. They just hopped out and remedied the situation while the prop was turning. Nope nope nope nope. So much nope. If your brain can’t handle the thought of chocks and tie downs then your brain may not handle flying. If your brain is focused on items not relevant to taxiing along the yellow line then you should not be flying.

Hopefully you get this sorted out, but you need to have an inner look at what constitutes “flying”. Otherwise the next incident may involve something more than insurance woes.

"Not in flight" is the insurance terminology. I was still on the ground, so insurance considers it "in motion" but "not in flight." You apparently mistook that to mean that I think taxiing isn't a big deal. And I changed/left out details about what exactly happened so as not to be readily identifiable, probably making myself look worse in the process. I understand that I was PIC and 100% responsible, and I'm well aware of what flying entails. I also understand that I am still a student, I learned a valuable albeit expensive lesson, and it will make me a better pilot in the end.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

In-motion generally means the engine is running and the airplane is moving forward. Not in motion means the engine is not running, and there is no forward motion, so if you're about to taxi into a light pole, you can't pull the mixture to kill the engine, roll into it and claim not in motion... but if you push your airplane's tail feathers into a post when tieing down, that is a not in motion claim, even though the airplane is moving backwards.
In flight means from the time you advance the throttle for take-off to the time you exit the runway.
Spent a few years in aviation insurance. like riding a bike, you never forget.

 

[StudentPilot0525]

In-motion generally means the engine is running and the airplane is moving forward. Not in motion means the engine is not running, and there is no forward motion, so if you're about to taxi into a light pole, you can't pull the mixture to kill the engine, roll into it and claim not in motion... but if you push your airplane's tail feathers into a post when tieing down, that is a not in motion claim, even though the airplane is moving backwards.
In flight means from the time you advance the throttle for take-off to the time you exit the runway.
Spent a few years in aviation insurance. like riding a bike, you never forget.

Yes, that is what I was saying, that it was an in-motion claim and not an in-flight claim. I was only referring to those terms as relating to insurance, not saying that you don't need to pay attention while taxiing. The only reason I mentioned it is that I thought an in flight incident would generally be more expensive with more damage and more likely to cause insurance to not renew a policy. I could be totally wrong about that, of course.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Yes, that is what I was saying, that it was an in-motion claim and not an in-flight claim. I was only referring to those terms as relating to insurance, not saying that you don't need to pay attention while taxiing. The only reason I mentioned it is that I thought an in flight incident would generally be more expensive with more damage and more likely to cause insurance to not renew a policy. I could be totally wrong about that, of course.

In motion/not in motion and in flight/not in flight do represent different levels of risk, but they also allow an insurance company to offer coverage at lower price points. For instance, if you were going to park your plane for an extended period, you could get ground only, not in motion coverage real cheap and the company gets some very profitable business. Or if you were trying to save some money, you can buy not in flight that leaves you without coverage as soon as you advance the throttle for takeoff. It's as much about marketing as it is risk premium.

The thing that you need to remember is aviation is a small community and word of an insuror shafting a customer travels fast. Most of the time they'll try and do the right thing by you, and one small claim isn't worth the bad publicity. Non-owned renter business is extremely profitable with a very low loss and expense ratio.

We used to call it deductible 8nsurance, because 99% of policies sold were to cover the FBO's deductible. The little secret was if the FBO and the renter were covered by us, we would not pursue the renter for any of the FBO claim in excess of the deductible. one does not sue one's own customer.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Happens to the best of us. Heard of Kirby Chambliss?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The little secret was if the FBO and the renter were covered by us, we would not pursue the renter for any of the FBO claim in excess of the deductible. one does not sue one's own customer.

When I rented, I specifically got a renters policy with the same company as the FBO for this very reason.

For auto accidents, it also goes much smoother and faster when everyone involved is with the same company.