Renter's insurance

[Bean Outdoors]

who do you recommend for renter's insurance and what type of coverage do you have.

Thanks
E

 

[AggieMike88]

AOPA can broker a decent price. And the shop/school/FBO will advise you on type and limits.

Often all your doing is providing coverage for deductibles and subrogation. So no need to cover full hull plus million liability.

Lots of good articles out in the wild explaining this topic.

 

[James331]

AVEMCO, all of our students had to pull a policy, AVEMCO came out on top for bang for the buck and having people on the phone who really understood what they were selling.

 

[drotto]

AVEMCO, all of our students had to pull a policy, AVEMCO came out on top for bang for the buck and having people on the phone who really understood what they were selling.

I use AVEMCO also. I did up the personal liability, and property damage coverage above the basic level, but otherwise took what the school required for hull coverage. Think it cost me like $300 per year. No big deal.

 

[Stearman]

We're required to have the full hull value in insurance where I fly. So that means $30k hull plus I think $250k in liability - comes out to just under $400/yr with AOPA. Comparison shopped this year with AVEMCO and it was roughly the same there.

Wish I didn't have to, but for the airplanes we get to fly and the penalty if I were to bend one and their insurance company comes after me...I'll take it. Still is pricey for someone who flies 10-15hrs a year.

 

[tuwood]

We're required to have the full hull value in insurance where I fly. So that means $30k hull plus I think $250k in liability - comes out to just under $400/yr with AOPA. Comparison shopped this year with AVEMCO and it was roughly the same there.

Wish I didn't have to, but for the airplanes we get to fly and the penalty if I were to bend one and their insurance company comes after me...I'll take it. Still is pricey for someone who flies 10-15hrs a year.

That seems excessive. I know with my school I only have to cover the deductible for any hull damage and then I'm on my own for liability. I'm training in a 2009 Cirrus GTS, so if I had to provide full hull coverage I'd be likely paying $5k/yr. hah
Fortunately they have a $1k deductible on the hull so I did $500k liability with $1k hull deductible and I think it was around $200/yr.

 

[drotto]

We're required to have the full hull value in insurance where I fly. So that means $30k hull plus I think $250k in liability - comes out to just under $400/yr with AOPA. Comparison shopped this year with AVEMCO and it was roughly the same there.

Wish I didn't have to, but for the airplanes we get to fly and the penalty if I were to bend one and their insurance company comes after me...I'll take it. Still is pricey for someone who flies 10-15hrs a year.

The school only requires students to carry 10K hull where I am. On the plus side AVEMCO did also lower my premium the second year I took the insurance.

 

[mkosmo]

The local FBO wants 50k hull... I still don't understand why unless that's their deductible! And they insist it be Avemco... if you have anybody else, they'll essentially "force" you to switch for the next term.

 

[drotto]

The local FBO wants 50k hull... I still don't understand why unless that's their deductible! And they insist it be Avemco... if you have anybody else, they'll essentially "force" you to switch for the next term.

That is a great point. The owner will have their own insurance, so usually renters insurance covers their deductible.

 

[jordane93]

Most of the students my flight school use Avemco.

 

[orange]

I have Avemco. $5k hull and $500k liability for $225/yr. 10% off when I renew in may due to getting my PPL last year, so it'll be around $200.

 

[Stearman]

That seems excessive. I know with my school I only have to cover the deductible for any hull damage and then I'm on my own for liability. I'm training in a 2009 Cirrus GTS, so if I had to provide full hull coverage I'd be likely paying $5k/yr. hah
Fortunately they have a $1k deductible on the hull so I did $500k liability with $1k hull deductible and I think it was around $200/yr.

If you have a claim - let's make it a total loss for the sake of argument - and you only have insurance to cover the deductible you're going to be in a tight spot when their insurance company comes to you looking to recoup their losses. It happens all the time with vehicle accidents and is an issue with aircraft as well.

It's one of those risk/reward calculations we all have to make. Me? I can't afford to total a $15k plane, let alone a $30k one so I buy insurance even when not flying at that airport.

 

[drotto]

Hate to say it, but if people bulk at spending between 200 and 400 per year for renters insurance, how can they afford to fly period.

 

[brcase]

The local FBO wants 50k hull... I still don't understand why unless that's their deductible! And they insist it be Avemco... if you have anybody else, they'll essentially "force" you to switch for the next term.

When FBO's/Owners require that much renters insurance it is usually a sign that they have opted not to carry Hull insurance on their airplanes. They may just be willing to take this risk, or they may not really understand how renters insurance works. For the renter it doesn't really matter since renters insurance protects the renter, but not the owner. If a tree falls on the airplane or a deer runs out in front of you as you touch down, the owner may be on the hook for the damages, since renters insurance doesn't cover these kinds of events.

Brian

 

[James331]

The local FBO wants 50k hull... I still don't understand why unless that's their deductible! And they insist it be Avemco... if you have anybody else, they'll essentially "force" you to switch for the next term.

There are other reasons, plus you're presuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that they have the plane insured on their own policy.

 

[mkosmo]

When FBO's/Owners require that much renters insurance it is usually a sign that they have opted not to carry Hull insurance on their airplanes. They may just be willing to take this risk, or they may not really understand how renters insurance works. For the renter it doesn't really matter since renters insurance protects the renter, but not the owner. If a tree falls on the airplane or a deer runs out in front of you as you touch down, the owner may be on the hook for the damages, since renters insurance doesn't cover these kinds of events.

Brian

There are other reasons, plus you're presuming facts not in evidence, i.e. that they have the plane insured on their own policy.

They insure them as part of their leaseback program. 50k wouldn't cover them at all since it's all late model (2000s+) Skyhawks, and (80s+) Bonanzas and Barons. The last one of the Skyhawks that sold (was leaseback, stayed on leaseback) sold for >$120k.

 

[James331]

Man, why not just leaseback or use older airframes and take the savings and get better CFIs, I'd wager a beer it would result in less insurance and more importantly fewer mishaps.

 

[mkosmo]

Man, why not just leaseback or use older airframes and take the savings and get better CFIs, I'd wager a beer it would result in less insurance and more importantly fewer mishaps.

They got rid of the older airframes years ago. The FBO caters to an upper demographic for sure. I don't know how they structure the leasebacks specifically, but from owners of aircraft on the line, I've never heard them complain about their contracts.

 

[James331]

I've never understood why spending money for the sake of spending money = upper demographic, I don't understand how someone could end up in that demo group when they blow money like that. Older airframes are often actually the best PPL trainers.

To each their own.

 

[mkosmo]

I've never understood why spending money for the sake of spending money = upper demographic, I don't understand how someone could end up in that demo group when they blow money like that. Older airframes are often actually the best PPL trainers.

To each their own.

I agree with you entirely... But maybe some feel that newer is safer, I suppose. Or that newer is superior? Perhaps that's where their value determination comes in to play?

 

[drotto]

I agree with you entirely... But maybe some feel that newer is safer, I suppose. Or that newer is superior? Perhaps that's where their value determination comes in to play?

I thought that new just means same basic plane with more extra crap which decreases useful load? We all know that old planes can be exceptionally well maintained, but potential pilots equate shiny with safer.

 

[mkosmo]

I thought that new just means same basic plane with more extra crap which decreases useful load?We all know that old planes can be exceptionally well maintained, but potential pilots equate shiny with safer.

That and heavier books. My owners manual is like the tenth of the size of a modern POH. That's got to be a few points on the W&B. Oh yeah, the new ones also come with more legal fees baked in to cover the other folks ;-)

 

[denverpilot]

When FBO's/Owners require that much renters insurance it is usually a sign that they have opted not to carry Hull insurance on their airplanes. They may just be willing to take this risk, or they may not really understand how renters insurance works. For the renter it doesn't really matter since renters insurance protects the renter, but not the owner. If a tree falls on the airplane or a deer runs out in front of you as you touch down, the owner may be on the hook for the damages, since renters insurance doesn't cover these kinds of events.

Brian

^^ excellent post @brcase.

 

[James331]

That's what we did, we also rented out Grumman for 60bucks a hr dry, had gold seal airline transport instructors and provided the least expensive instruction, renters insurance included, with in a few hundred nautical miles, yet had the most qualified CFIs and most challenging trainer.