Renter's insurance: any advice?

Eagle I

Eagle I

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
415
Location
Rhode Island
Display Name
Display name:
Kat
This isn't a question about whether I need renter's insurance, because I think it's clear that any student pilot or renter who wants to protect their assets should probably have it. I was just wondering whether anyone could share their experiences with various insurance companies. My first instinct was to call AOPA, but maybe they're not necessarily the best option. Also, I need to really clarify with my flight school what I might be responsible for if I were to seriously damage a plane. They recommend a minimum of $10,000 worth of coverage, but that hardly seems like enough. I've decided to go the sport pilot route and am now training in a new plane worth well over $100,000. I had much less fear about liability when I was flying a 1960 Cherokee! Obviously I hope liability never becomes an issue, but I do have a house with my partner, and want to make sure she's protected, too, in the event of a worst-case-scenario. Thanks in advance for any advice!
 
The amount of hull coverage you need for rental planes is not necessarily the full hull value. If the school's policy has a waiver if subrogation, you're not likely to be on the hook for more than the school's deductible, plus maybe a bit more for uninsured losses like loss of use while it's being repaired. Thus, $10k hull coverage might well be enough. Check the school's policy for those details.

Liability to third parties, e.g., the person whose house into which you crash, is another story entirely. $1M is probably what you want for good asset protection.
 
Non-Owned Aircraft insurance covers you in two ways:
Liability - this pays out against claims from your passengers and third parties for damages to them (injuries, the shed you destroyed, Farmer Bob's prize bull which you turned into steak tartare). 10K is nowhere near enough in my opinion. Depending on the assets you have, you would probably want anywhere from 250K on up for liability coverage.

Hull - this pays out claims for damages to the non-owned airplane(s). You need enough coverage to cover whatever you don't want to pay out of pocket. Keep in mind that aircraft parts and repair are expensive. $25K would be the least I'd go for depending on what you are flying. If you're flying a newer airplane, you'd probably need to go higher.

Liabilty coverage is fairly cheap, compared to the hull component.
 
Thanks Ron and Tim, you've given me a better idea of the questions I need to ask tomorrow when I make my phone calls about insurance. I guess the moral of the story is a) don't crash (that's fairly obvious!) and b) if you have to crash, try to avoid all structures and people or animals. Of course in this litigious society we live in, I'm sure someone would be happy to sue me or my survivors for ruining their corn crop!:wink2:
 
Eagle I said:
My first instinct was to call AOPA, but maybe they're not necessarily the best option.
Click to expand...
Knowing what I know now, I would've gone with Avemco. But I fell to the AOPA default too, now I have to explain to their membership services every time they call that I'm in only for insurance.

Liability and hull value are different. I have a million liability for some insignificant amount (like $30), and hull for $20k for most of my $300. I guess students prang airplanes and not trigger a lawsuit all the time.
 
I have had a great experience with Avemco so far. That is even after a student whilst I was helping him push the airplane back in the t-hangar, pranged the elevator. I was on the wrong side and did not see how close it was. Lesson learnt btw. My insurance as well as his were both hit with the claim. Not sure which paid. But Avemco never held it against me.

David
 
Eagle I said:
Thanks Ron and Tim, you've given me a better idea of the questions I need to ask tomorrow when I make my phone calls about insurance. I guess the moral of the story is a) don't crash (that's fairly obvious!) and b) if you have to crash, try to avoid all structures and people or animals. Of course in this litigious society we live in, I'm sure someone would be happy to sue me or my survivors for ruining their corn crop!:wink2:
Click to expand...
Pilots have had to buy corn like that before, and probably will again, but corn is relatively cheap. You do not want to hit a cattle rancher's prize bull. IIRC, the Navy paid like $30K for the King Ranch stud bull an A-7 pilot, uh, well, bull's-eyed with a 5" Zuni rocket near (but not on) one of the bombing ranges at Fallon a very long time ago. Bloody expensive bull roast that squadron had...
 
I have Avemco for renters. Be sure to get a copy of your FBOs policy.... not just the sheet they have you sign.
 
Eagle I said:
Thanks Ron and Tim, you've given me a better idea of the questions I need to ask tomorrow when I make my phone calls about insurance. I guess the moral of the story is a) don't crash (that's fairly obvious!) and b) if you have to crash, try to avoid all structures and people or animals. Of course in this litigious society we live in, I'm sure someone would be happy to sue me or my survivors for ruining their corn crop!:wink2:
Click to expand...

You need some decent hull coverage. Here's my personal example: the owner of the small flight school told me repeatedly to my face that I was covered by their insurance and I don't need my own renter's insurance. I didn't know any better at the time. Total lie. I scratched a wingtip. I offered to pay for it. But somehow, they expanded the scratched wingtip to include all sorts of crap I know I didn't do. That scratched wingtip cost me $15000. Actually I think it was $11-12K, the rest I paid my lawyer. You don't need to crash to have excessive bills. You don't even need to do much at all to blamed for something. Hell, they can blame you for anything they want, and I've learned that the owner's lies are the ones that are believed.
 
I think there are only two insurance companies, Avemco and AIG Aviation, that sell renter's insurance. The latter company has been renamed (I can't remember the new name), and its policies are sold by agencies like AOPA.

I get the maximum $1 million liability. If I crash and kill a passenger, I want some coverage to protect my heirs. As for the hull damage, I'm less worried because bending a $40k airplane is a situation that doesn't scare me as much as a widow with a litigator.
 
Last edited:
NoHeat said:
I think there are only two insurance companies, Avemco and AIG Aviation, that sell renter's insurance. The latter company has been renamed (I can't remember the new name), and its policies are sold by agencies like AOPA.

I get the maximum $1 million liability. If I crash and kill a passenger, I want some coverage to protect my heirs. As for the hull damage, I'm less worried because bending a $40k airplane is a situation that doesn't scare me as much as a widow with a litigator.
Click to expand...

I suspect that AIG is now Chartis.
 
Also keep in mind life insurance to replace however many years of your income your sweetie wouldn't have with you gone.

Most "regular" life insurance has anti-aviation clauses in the policy. Of you're relying on regular life insurance, check it.
 
Thanks for the advice, everyone!

blue: Your story scared the crap out of me! I don't consider myself naive, but I also don't like to think there are such dishonest people out there still doing business, especially a business like aviation. I'm sorry it happened to you, and I certainly hope it's not a common story among pilots who rent planes.

DenverPilot: One of the first things I did when I started taking flying lessons was read my life insurance policy again and then double-check with my agent to make sure there was no aviation exclusion. Believe it or not, there wasn't.
 
Eagle I said:
blue: Your story scared the crap out of me! I don't consider myself naive, but I also don't like to think there are such dishonest people out there still doing business, especially a business like aviation. I'm sorry it happened to you, and I certainly hope it's not a common story among pilots who rent planes.
Click to expand...

Iirc, blues story was subject of a long thread here. It should be mandatory reading for anyone taking up aviation. A $250 non-owned policy would have protected him against the predatory behaviour of the FBO and aircraft owner.

There is a situation where you are indeed covered by the FBOs policy, and that is if the FBOs policy has a 'waiver of subrogation' for anyone authorized to use the plane. Getting that endorsement on the policy costs money, as a result many flight schools and FBOs dont have it leaving the student/renter open to subrogation.

Initially I had non-owned coverage through Chartis. Once I started flying a twin I switched to Avemco as Chartis didn't cover that risk at the time. For comparable levels of coverage, Chartis (as sold through AOPA ins. agency. and many other retail insurance brokers) is a bit cheaper.

As for the level of insurance to buy:

It is uncommon to total a plane during training.

It is quite common to do the following things during training:
- taxi into a runway light with a prop-strike: $18,000
- roll off the edge of the runway and rip off a wheel-pant: $2,000
- land nosewheel first wrinkling the firewall: $22,000

Most of those would be covered by the FBOs insurance, but this is the range of things commonly encountered.

Liability is a no-brainer, get the max they sell you.
 
Eagle I said:
Thanks for the advice, everyone!

blue: Your story scared the crap out of me! I don't consider myself naive, but I also don't like to think there are such dishonest people out there still doing business, especially a business like aviation. I'm sorry it happened to you, and I certainly hope it's not a common story among pilots who rent planes.

DenverPilot: One of the first things I did when I started taking flying lessons was read my life insurance policy again and then double-check with my agent to make sure there was no aviation exclusion. Believe it or not, there wasn't.
Click to expand...

I didn't think I was naive either, but I guess I was. It didn't occur to me that people would lie to my face and screw me over for money because they could. That place sucked, and that money-grubbing lying sack of **** owner is never going to get another dime out of me. They shot themselves in the foot, because I've spent another wad of money on my IR at another airport, plus I'm inheriting a plane from a family member in a few years, and I need a hangar. They could have made more money off of me, but they ****ed me off too much now, and I would never trust them. I never wanted to pay them, but my lawyer finally convinced me that the legal fees would far surpass paying them off. It took months to get an itemized list of their claimed damages, and they made up crap, it made me so livid. I can't even explain how angry that made me. I wrote a check to my lawyer so he would pay them because I refused to put their money-grubbing name on a check.

I almost forgot to mention the best part: later, after the scratched wingtip, one of the mechanics told me the engine of that airplane was so corroded the airplane should not have been flying at all, and the engine could have quit at any time. I wish the engine had quit when I was flying it so I could have sued them instead. But no, they used the scratched wingtip to get enough money for a new engine at my expense. I have nothing nice to say about that airport. Oh, and after they replaced the engine, the owner donated the airplane to a charity for the tax deduction. I almost threw up.
 
bluee said:
I didn't think I was naive either, but I guess I was. It didn't occur to me that people would lie to my face and screw me over for money because they could. That place sucked, and that money-grubbing lying sack of **** owner is never going to get another dime out of me. They shot themselves in the foot, because I've spent another wad of money on my IR at another airport, plus I'm inheriting a plane from a family member in a few years, and I need a hangar. They could have made more money off of me, but they ****ed me off too much now, and I would never trust them. I never wanted to pay them, but my lawyer finally convinced me that the legal fees would far surpass paying them off. It took months to get an itemized list of their claimed damages, and they made up crap, it made me so livid. I can't even explain how angry that made me. I wrote a check to my lawyer so he would pay them because I refused to put their money-grubbing name on a check.

I almost forgot to mention the best part: later, after the scratched wingtip, one of the mechanics told me the engine of that airplane was so corroded the airplane should not have been flying at all, and the engine could have quit at any time. I wish the engine had quit when I was flying it so I could have sued them instead. But no, they used the scratched wingtip to get enough money for a new engine at my expense. I have nothing nice to say about that airport. Oh, and after they replaced the engine, the owner donated the airplane to a charity for the tax deduction. I almost threw up.
Click to expand...

Hey blue, I can't tell from your public profile where you are, but if you're anywhere in New England, please PM me and let me know where you had your bad experience. I'd hate to think I'm at the same place you were!!! I'm only 14 hours into training, but have already had many bad experiences: planes that appeared to be so poorly maintained I was scared to death, CFIs who were clearly just time-builders and didn't give a crap about my flight training, CFIs who left after about every three lessons. It's no wonder so many student pilots quit! I've decided that trying out flight schools is sort of like dating -- something that I fortunately have long been done with (and with only good reasons, I might add, on Valentine's Day:)) -- you want to think each new "date" is the right one, but then you start getting signs that something isn't right ... sometimes you ignore those signs at your peril, but often it is human nature to ignore such signs.

I was going to say I hope you use the power of the Internet to warn others of your experience, but in checking the four different flight schools I've already used, I find that the "ratings," whether they're even real or not, are all over the place. It seems that everyone has either an agenda or a vendetta. I wish flight instruction could be much more straightforward. After all, I, Consumer A, have money to spend for you, Provider B, to provide me a service in good faith. What's so complicated about that? Sorry I got off on a little tangent there. It's just maddening, as I'm sure you know! Anyway, best of luck to you! I'm glad to know that your bad experience hasn't turned you off to flying!
 
weilke said:
It is quite common to do the following things during training:
- taxi into a runway light with a prop-strike: $18,000
- roll off the edge of the runway and rip off a wheel-pant: $2,000
- land nosewheel first wrinkling the firewall: $22,000

Most of those would be covered by the FBOs insurance, but this is the range of things commonly encountered.

Liability is a no-brainer, get the max they sell you.
Click to expand...

My initial reaction to this post is that those things weren't common but they weren't uncommon. Then I got to thinking about a particular school. In about two years they had 4 prop strikes (3 in a particular 182RG!), a couple runway departures, and 1 totaled aircraft. The totaled aircraft was a landing accident (not one of the departures, the aircraft missed the runway entirely). The Chief pilot was "outplaced" to put it politely. No other school on the field had as many problems and all three schools had similar activity.

In other words, I've gotta agree to a point with the contention that some accidents are common and one should be insured enough to cover any exposure. I've carried insurance since pre-solo days. It isn't that expensive and it does give a little peace of mind when taxing past that GV.
 
The problem with "rating" a flight school is that very few of them are organized to deliver a consistent product. Most treat the CFIs like subcontractors or 1099 workers, and the end result is that a student's experience can vary wildly depending on the CFI with whom they are working.
 
weilke said:
There is a situation where you are indeed covered by the FBOs policy, and that is if the FBOs policy has a 'waiver of subrogation' for anyone authorized to use the plane.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not 100% correct. At least in my juridiction, a waiver of subrogation clause does not equal coverage under the FBO policy. If there is a waiver of subro clause (of which you are a beneficiary), then you are correct that the insurance carrier cannot recover against you for amounts that they pay to the FBO. There is nothing that would stop the FBO from suing you directly, and the insurance policy would not respond just because there is a waiver of subrogation provision. You may or may not get a credit or set off against any liability to the FBO for what the FBO recovers from their insurance carrier. Generally, a collateral source rule would prevent you from raising their insurance coverage in defense of the FBO's claim against you. Yes, unless there is some contractual provision prohibiting it, the FBO could recover from both you and your insurance company for the same loss in many jurisdictions. So, you could be held liable regardless of the waiver. But even if you could raise the coverage as some defense to a liability claim by the FBO itself, that would only apply to portions of the claim that were insured. You would still be liable for the FBO's deductible, and any uninsured losses, such as those in excess of the policy, or loss of use if not covered.

Oh yeah, when you hit that third party owned GV parked on the ramp when you are trying to taxi past, the waiver of subro means nothing. What you would need then for protection is to be identified as an additional insured under the liability coverage, or your own liability coverage. But be careful with relying on coverage based on just being listed as an additional insured, because coverage as an additional insured may not equal the liability coverage afforded to the named insured. In other words, just because you are an additional insured does not mean that you get the liability coverage you would expect if you had bought the policy itself. I have seen where coverage afforded to an additional insured is limited to just liability imposed on that additional insured as a result of the fault of the named insured. What that means is that it only covers the additional insured for vicarious liability imposed on the additional insured as a result of the named insured's conduct. But the good thing is that if you are an additional insured, the insurance company cannot sue you to recover for the loss because they can't sue their own insured to recover in subrogation for the covered loss. Is your head spinnning yet?

The law in your state may be different. So check with a lawyer in your area.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
My initial reaction to this post is that those things weren't common but they weren't uncommon. Then I got to thinking about a particular school. In about two years they had 4 prop strikes (3 in a particular 182RG!), a couple runway departures, and 1 totaled aircraft. The totaled aircraft was a landing accident (not one of the departures, the aircraft missed the runway entirely). The Chief pilot was "outplaced" to put it politely. No other school on the field had as many problems and all three schools had similar activity.

In other words, I've gotta agree to a point with the contention that some accidents are common and one should be insured enough to cover any exposure. I've carried insurance since pre-solo days. It isn't that expensive and it does give a little peace of mind when taxing past that GV.
Click to expand...

I found it informative to see what sort of accidents typically happen in training, and what they cost. Previously, I was thinking only in terms of totaling the aircraft, which I guess isn't really common, and probably at that point the only consideration is my spouse, since I most likely wouldn't be alive to worry about it.

I'm the kind of person who needs to sleep well at night, otherwise the risk of whatever it is I'm doing at the time isn't worth it. I just applied online with Avemco for the following coverage:

$100,000 each person
$1,000,000 property damage
$1,000,000 each accident

$70,000 aircraft damage

Yeah, it's more than I wanted to pay, but I think I'll sleep better tonight.:D In the grand scheme of things as flight training goes, it's not that much money.
 
Eagle I said:
I found it informative to see what sort of accidents typically happen in training, and what they cost. Previously, I was thinking only in terms of totaling the aircraft, which I guess isn't really common, and probably at that point the only consideration is my spouse, since I most likely wouldn't be alive to worry about it.
Click to expand...

Just a contrary comment, it's pretty easy to total an aircraft without hurting yourself. Taxi a wing into something solid at more than a walking pace and I bet the aircraft is done. Wings are relatively cheap but the mounting points may not be so cheap. A fire at an unattended airfield is another case where you could walk away fine but the aircraft would be done. Carrying a fire extinguisher can be a good thing - I know one particular aircraft was saved from an electrical fire (on the ground) by some quick thinking and judicious use of the extinguisher.

In my post above, the pilot survived the accident which totaled the plane. She had a broken pelvis and concussion, but lived to fly again. The plane was just balled up aluminum...
 
PPC1052 said:
Actually, this is not 100% correct.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Even with a waiver, it is of course a good idea to carry your own coverage, if only as a pre-paid legal plan.
 
Clark1961 said:
Just a contrary comment, it's pretty easy to total an aircraft without hurting yourself. Taxi a wing into something solid at more than a walking pace and I bet the aircraft is done. Wings are relatively cheap but the mounting points may not be so cheap. A fire at an unattended airfield is another case where you could walk away fine but the aircraft would be done. Carrying a fire extinguisher can be a good thing - I know one particular aircraft was saved from an electrical fire (on the ground) by some quick thinking and judicious use of the extinguisher.

In my post above, the pilot survived the accident which totaled the plane. She had a broken pelvis and concussion, but lived to fly again. The plane was just balled up aluminum...
Click to expand...

Oh ****, just when I thought I was all set, now I'm in for another sleepless night!:mad2:
 
I get non-owned "renter's" insurance included with my CFI policy from Falcon. Don't know if they sell it separately.
 
Eagle I said:
I found it informative to see what sort of accidents typically happen in training, and what they cost. Previously, I was thinking only in terms of totaling the aircraft, which I guess isn't really common, and probably at that point the only consideration is my spouse, since I most likely wouldn't be alive to worry about it.

I'm the kind of person who needs to sleep well at night, otherwise the risk of whatever it is I'm doing at the time isn't worth it. I just applied online with Avemco for the following coverage:

$100,000 each person
$1,000,000 property damage
$1,000,000 each accident

$70,000 aircraft damage

Yeah, it's more than I wanted to pay, but I think I'll sleep better tonight.:D In the grand scheme of things as flight training goes, it's not that much money.
Click to expand...
That, sir, is as good as it gets.
 
That's similar to what I have, except I got $40K aircraft damage. At the moment I'm not flying anything worth more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top