What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Insurance revisited.

D

Dave12

Well Known Member
I am looking for current info on rates. I have a quote of $1750.00 for full coverage on my 12. I have approx. 1,000 hours, cfi, multi. They want 5 hours in type and will cover the first flight. Is this rate in line with what most are paying? Thanks in advance for your input.
 
I have 500 hrs and a private rating but am flying LSA only. Mine was about the same, but I only insured for a 50K value. At full hull value it was over 2K. They also wanted 5 hrs in type and covered first flight. It was with Falcon through EAA.
 
I have a 1955 Cessna 180 that's insured for about $75k. I've got 1,900 hours and more than 1,000 in make and model, and pay just under $1,700 a year for hull and liability.

Offhand I'd say your quote appears reasonable. The max liability limit and the individual liability amounts have a great effect on the rate.

Dave
 
Mark Henderson said:
I have 500 hrs and a private rating but am flying LSA only. Mine was about the same, but I only insured for a 50K value. At full hull value it was over 2K. They also wanted 5 hrs in type and covered first flight. It was with Falcon through EAA.
Click to expand...

Under insuring the hull can be a nightmare if the plane is heavily damaged. The insurer will pay you the insured amount, call it a total, and own your plane. You will be left hanging for the amount between insured value and true value....with no plane.

This will make you sad...........
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Under insuring the hull can be a nightmare if the plane is heavily damaged. The insurer will pay you the insured amount, call it a total, and own your plane. You will be left hanging for the amount between insured value and true value....with no plane.

This will make you sad...........
Click to expand...
This is so true........ Insure for what you would sell it for. Or just get liability coverage for about $300 + per year and take your chances.
 
I am curious to find out what % of builders take only liability insurance. After all, except for catastrophic accidents most builders should be able to handle the repairs at limited cost. The most expensive components, engine and avionics would probably be spared in most cases. It is an option that attracts me as a builder who will be a low time pilot but I am interested in comments from more experienced people on this option.
 
I think is all about how much risk you want to take. I flew for many years in my Cherokee with absolutely no insurance whatever! For those that think this was foolhardy, I figured if I REALLY crashed I would not be worrying about the insurance anyway.
I am seriously considering liability only on my RV12, the rates just seem to tip the scales in favor of self insuring. I have full on my old Ercoupe, but the rates are more favorable.
 
When I had my Cherokee, I paid just under $600/yr for insurance that had a $30K hull value coverage.

It really seems unfair that an RV with only double the hull value (e.g. ~60K) would have insurance costs that are basically triple the amount of the Cherokee.
 
Risk

Neal@F14 said:
When I had my Cherokee, I paid just under $600/yr for insurance that had a $30K hull value coverage.

It really seems unfair that an RV with only double the hull value (e.g. ~60K) would have insurance costs that are basically triple the amount of the Cherokee.
Click to expand...

It really isn't about "fair," it's about risk. Insurance companies are just sophisticated bookies, figuring the odds. As discussed in another recent thread, the accident statistics for homebuilts, EAB and LS, are way out of line with "certified" GA. And GA's overall numbers stink when compared to corporate, Part 135 and Part 121 operations. We are paying the price.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
AND typical of head up their butt bookies, they don't want to take into account that the 12 has proven FAR SAFER than even commercially made aircraft. That is what makes the self insurance even more attractive. I got full coverage on the Coupe, 30k on the hull for six hundred and some change, so why three times as much for the RV 12 for twice the hull amount?
 
My first quotes for about 50k of coverage on an RV-8 were in line with your numbers. Then I thought about the fact I was under insured. Then the SnF even occured. Then I called for a quote at something closer to value. I'm glad I have it. I hope I never use it. I was also told the first year is the worst.
 
DonFromTX said:
AND typical of head up their butt bookies, they don't want to take into account that the 12 has proven FAR SAFER than even commercially made aircraft. That is what makes the self insurance even more attractive. I got full coverage on the Coupe, 30k on the hull for six hundred and some change, so why three times as much for the RV 12 for twice the hull amount?
Click to expand...

Most likely because there is comparatively little field history for the RV-12. We in the community regard the -12 as a safe aircraft, but the insurance numbers crunchers couldn't care less what we think about the planes we like. There haven't been enough field hours to determine how the -12 will fare long-term in comparison to the other models. I suspect in the long haul it will eventually be fine because it will be flown under more benign conditions that what the hot-rod RV's see. ;)
 
Track record

Sam Buchanan said:
Most likely because there is comparatively little field history for the RV-12. We in the community regard the -12 as a safe aircraft, but the insurance numbers crunchers couldn't care less what we think about the planes we like. There haven't been enough field hours to determine how the -12 will fare long-term in comparison to the other models. I suspect in the long haul it will eventually be fine because it will be flown under more benign conditions that what the hot-rod RV's see. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. Comparing prices with an Ercoupe that has a 60 year track record is tough. I imagine the RV12 concerned the underwriters in a couple of ways, a new design combined with the Light Sport rules. As Sam said, it will probably work out, but the insurers base pricing on history. No history=higher price.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Yet when there was NO history of the 12 flying, they still easily came up with a price based on the WAG method I guess, and have never seen any need to upgrade their statistics when it would reduce their profit.
I shook up EAA when I pointed out that statistically speaking, there is NO data available to say if we very old people who fly on a drivers license are safer or more dangerous than the pilot with a medical exam, because there is nothing keeping track of us! Going to be pretty hard for the insurance companies to figure prices based on us as well, but they seem to have no problem with that either.
 
Nit Picking

Trivia John, my Ercoupe celebrated its SIXTY FIFTH birthday last month. Time flies when you are having fun.

John Clark said:
I agree. Comparing prices with an Ercoupe that has a 60 year track record is tough. I imagine the RV12 concerned the underwriters in a couple of ways, a new design combined with the Light Sport rules. As Sam said, it will probably work out, but the insurers base pricing on history. No history=higher price.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...
 
Been there...

Rick McBride (RV-8) and I (RV-4) both built Rans S-7S Couriers and had them displayed at the Rans commercial booth at Sun n Fun this year when the tornado decided to deposit them on top of and under a couple of new Pipers displayed at the booth next door.

Both planes were totaled by the insurance company. I had 70K flight and ground coverage. My premium was $1391 for the full coverage. The premium would have been $817 for ground only damage coverage, and $307 for liability alone. We both bought our salvage back from the insurance company and are in the process of having Rans rebuild our planes at their factory in Hays, KS.

It probably would be worth thinking about the ground only coverage, which I might opt for when the plane is flying again. Just depends on your tolerance for risk vs annual premiums.

That being said, the only thing I've ever had is liability on my RV-4, which has been flying for 22 years without incident...so you just never know...Of course it cost me less than $20,000 to build back in the dark ages.

A big plug for my broker Nationair (thank you Shanna), and the underwriter Chartis. They handled the claim very quickly, efficiently and fairly. It also didn't hurt that the pretty new Pipers we played tag with (a total of four were damaged) were also insured by Chartis :)

Tom Chapman
San Antonio
 
Liability Only

I have had liability only on my -12 since last year. It was about $675 through AOPA. After shopping around this year I was able to get a policy, liability only, for $388. Hull at $65k is about triple that.

Almost 1 year down and no problems (yet).

I also flew my C-150 for the last 5 years I had it with liability only. After doing a lot of research it seems that the most economical way to operate an airplane is not to crash, so that's what I'm going to do.
 
DonFromTX said:
Yet when there was NO history of the 12 flying, they still easily came up with a price based on the WAG method I guess, and have never seen any need to upgrade their statistics when it would reduce their profit.
I shook up EAA when I pointed out that statistically speaking, there is NO data available to say if we very old people who fly on a drivers license are safer or more dangerous than the pilot with a medical exam, because there is nothing keeping track of us! Going to be pretty hard for the insurance companies to figure prices based on us as well, but they seem to have no problem with that either.
Click to expand...

Oh yes there is a way to keep track of you old folks. :) All the underwriters have to do is look at their automobile business to know you old geezers have more accidents than us middle-age aces. Why should your accident rate be any better in an airplane??

TomRV8 said:
It probably would be worth thinking about the ground only coverage, which I might opt for when the plane is flying again. Just depends on your tolerance for risk vs annual premiums.

That being said, the only thing I've ever had is liability on my RV-4, which has been flying for 22 years without incident...so you just never know...Of course it cost me less than $20,000 to build back in the dark ages.

A big plug for my broker Nationair (thank you Shanna), and the underwriter Chartis. They handled the claim very quickly, efficiently and fairly. It also didn't hurt that the pretty new Pipers we played tag with (a total of four were damaged) were also insured by Chartis :)

Tom Chapman
San Antonio
Click to expand...

I've had GNIM (ground not in motion) coverage on my RV-6 for a dozen years. I figure my greatest risk is having the hangar wiped out by a tornado (an EF-5 missed the airport by two miles four weeks ago!). If I prang the airplane I am self-insured. I've saved a ton of premiums over the last decade with GNIM and slept soundly at night knowing the bird is covered for full hull value. Up until last year I had a Chartis (formerly AIG) policy. This year Global bested their quote (SkySmith Agency).
 
Last edited:
Sam Buchanan said:
Oh yes there is a way to keep track of you old folks. :) All the underwriters have to do is look at their automobile business to know you old geezers have more accidents than us middle-age aces. Why should your accident rate be any better in an airplane??

Well, since you asked, that is why I am installing an auto pilot for those times I doze off. Darned cars need an auto pilot as well, then our accident rate would go down, every time I doze off in a car I seem to wipe out some entire family!.:mad:
Click to expand...
 
Quote is in line

Yip, I would say that your quote is in line with what I have and what I have seen. And, like many have suggested already, when you buy insurance you just have to ask yourself, "how much risk am I willing to accept." I carried full coverage the first year and have since dropped down to liability only. For homebuilders, we kind of call it being "self insured". I can fix dinged wings, bent tail feathers and the like. The engine and prop can be pricey such as in a prop strike, which goes back to the question you personally have to ask yourself, "How much risk am I willing to accept."
 
I carry liability only on my 7A. It costs me around $350/year.
I too have saved a bunch of money from full coverage premiums over the last 5 years.
Next time I renew, I plan on looking at GNIM. I was at SNF when the storm hit. Living in Florida, I think it's time to start considering a bit more coverage.
 
Keep in Mind that the insurance is not just based on your airplane and hours, they also look at your age, location, where you keep the plane (hangar or tied down), they even check your credit rating to determine risk. Two people with identical planes and hours at the same airport may very well have a different quote.

This is the same as Auto insurance. My neighbors son across the street drives a Jalopy and his insurance is higher than insuring my daughter (same age) on my newer 1-ton 4x4. Asked the agent, and he said teen boys are much higher risk.
 
clucier said:
...they even check your credit rating to determine risk. ....
Click to expand...

I don't know anybody that is looking at Credit Ratings, I surely don't get into that with my customers. There is one underwriter that wanted that data but there is no way I am going to ask any my customers for that.

I did a few Rv12s when they very first started flying (2009 or so? if I recall).
Rates very rapidly normalized and have become very competitive on the 12.

Just for S&G I put some numbers into our automated system for an Rv12 with a well qualified pilot at $70k and the number came out below $1200.

If you don't need First Flight there are a lot of other options.

Tj
 
When you're comparing rates be sure to look at the extras, some of which are valuable. Jeff Rhodes ([email protected]) presented three quotes with details, and one of them (for example) included coverage for my city-owned T-hangar.

No question in my mind....start a fire or something, and my city would sue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top