Flying without insurance

cvsfly

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Posts
723
Total Time
4600
Anyone know people who own aircraft (vs a bank) that aren't insured? If you were asked to fly one for the owner, would any kind of non-owner policy be enough to cover the pilot's butt if something happened. If you did have your own non-owner policy (to cover you the pilot and any damage to anyone/thing on the ground) is there any legal document that you could get the owner to sign waiving any right to sue for aircraft damage? I was asked to fly a single-eng, H.P. plane a guy owns to fly him to pick-up a R-44 he is buying. When I asked to be added as a named insured, he said he didn't have insurance. I said no thanks. He also claims he doesn't plan on insuring the R-44, which he probably isn't insurable anyway at 20-40 hrs in the R-44. I was offered free training in the R-44 because he is trying to get my boss interested in using it. I think I'll pass with that as well. I did get 1 lesson from the dealer/instructor. Still makes me nervous that this aircraft has to have a separate SFAR to address special handling qualities. I've heard plenty of "watch outs" for the Robinsons. Can anyone offer any comparisons with other piston helicopters and any benefits other than being a current production, availability of a "4 seat" in the R-44 and I assume lower aquistion cost. What would it take to insure a R-44? How many hours? He is thinking the pilot will probably need 250 hrs in the R-44.
 
Last edited:

icefr8dawg

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
413
Total Time
abunch
You don't fly in NJ do you cause there's a guy up here with a 44 and some bigger stuff that dosn't "need" insurance. He's sortof a mennace...
 

pilotmiketx

Registerd User
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Posts
345
Total Time
oodles
I've heard of quite a few jet operators not carrying "in motion" hull or liability, especially if they're single pilot ops. If it's paid for, then it's the owners call, although personally I think it's retarded wouldn't fly for them.

When I had a non-owned policy, I remember it was pretty restrictive on horsepower, value (I think) and it prohibited commercial operations other than flight instruction.
 

icefr8dawg

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Posts
413
Total Time
abunch
ya, me too. Worked for one operator that took hull off of the paid for aircraft. They were only worth like 100K tho. I know a guy around here that has his pilots flying a $2mm aircraft totally uninsured. To save what? $15,000/year
 

MauleSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
638
Total Time
10,000
Even if they have insurance, simply being named doesn't remove your liability...it simply means that the insurance company will pay off if you have an accident. They can then come back to you for payment. That's what the non-owned-aircraft insurance protects you against.

Obviously, there are more details (insurance policies are longer than the paragraph above), but I'm by no means an expert.

Fly safe!

David
 

YGBSM

Old flaccid member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
123
Total Time
>0
Completely uninsured, no hull insurance, or no liability? Big differences.
 

PAPA FOX!

Super Bowl bound 2008!!
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Posts
178
Total Time
ME+SE
MauleSkinner said:
Even if they have insurance, simply being named doesn't remove your liability...it simply means that the insurance company will pay off if you have an accident. They can then come back to you for payment. That's what the non-owned-aircraft insurance protects you against.

Obviously, there are more details (insurance policies are longer than the paragraph above), but I'm by no means an expert.

Fly safe!

David


You know I of course have always heard that and know that to be the case but have always wondered how the insurance company could get away with that since when you rent from an FBO or club you don't sign anything warning you of subrogation, etc. Seems like any half decent (or actually scummy) ambulance chasing lawyer would be able to get that thrown out right away since no one warned you of that clause even verbally, much less in writing. Also the fact that you ARE named and if you have an accident they subrogate against you is crazy. That legally constitutes "fraud in the inducement" and I'm sure even a brain dead lawyer again could take that on and win bigtime. I personally think it is criminal for the insurance company to do that without making you sign a waiver or whatever but will always protect myself w/ non-owner policies anyway.
 
Last edited:

YGBSM

Old flaccid member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Posts
123
Total Time
>0
PAPA FOX! said:
You know I of course have always heard that and know that to be the case but have always wondered how the insurance company could get away with that since when you rent from an FBO or club you don't sign anything warning you of subrogation, etc. Seems like any half decent (or actually scummy) ambulance chasing lawyer would be able to get that thrown out right away since no one warned you of that clause even verbally, much less in writing. Also the fact that you ARE named and if you have an accident they subrogate against you is crazy. That legally constitutes "fraud in the inducement" and I'm sure even a brain dead lawyer again could take that on and win bigtime. I personally think it is criminal for the insurance company to do that without making you sign a waiver or whatever but will always protect myself w/ non-owner policies anyway.
Holy balls that is maybe the worst example of a run on sentence I have ever seen at first I thought that that there were no commas for the whole godawful mess but then I spotted one (,) although there are a couple of periods. Great.
Work. That was sure easy to read
 

PAPA FOX!

Super Bowl bound 2008!!
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Posts
178
Total Time
ME+SE
YGBSM said:
Holy balls that is maybe the worst example of a run on sentence I have ever seen at first I thought that that there were no commas for the whole godawful mess but then I spotted one (,) although there are a couple of periods. Great.
Work. That was sure easy to read


Does anyone know if Tony C has 2 accounts??????
 

MauleSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Posts
638
Total Time
10,000
PAPA FOX! said:
You know I of course have always heard that and know that to be the case but have always wondered how the insurance company could get away with that since when you rent from an FBO or club you don't sign anything warning you of subrogation, etc. Seems like any half decent (or actually scummy) ambulance chasing lawyer would be able to get that thrown out right away since no one warned you of that clause even verbally, much less in writing. Also the fact that you ARE named and if you have an accident they subrogate against you is crazy. That legally constitutes "fraud in the inducement" and I'm sure even a brain dead lawyer again could take that on and win bigtime. I personally think it is criminal for the insurance company to do that without making you sign a waiver or whatever but will always protect myself w/ non-owner policies anyway.
Now THERE's an interesting defense..."you can't sue me, because I didn't sign anything saying you could!"
 

pilotmiketx

Registerd User
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Posts
345
Total Time
oodles
PAPA FOX! said:
You know I of course have always heard that and know that to be the case but have always wondered how the insurance company could get away with that since when you rent from an FBO or club you don't sign anything warning you of subrogation, etc. Seems like any half decent (or actually scummy) ambulance chasing lawyer would be able to get that thrown out right away since no one warned you of that clause even verbally, much less in writing. Also the fact that you ARE named and if you have an accident they subrogate against you is crazy. That legally constitutes "fraud in the inducement" and I'm sure even a brain dead lawyer again could take that on and win bigtime. I personally think it is criminal for the insurance company to do that without making you sign a waiver or whatever but will always protect myself w/ non-owner policies anyway.
I OBJECT...Gotta love the fake legal-ese. Any mouth-breathing toothless moron could watch 3 episodes of Judge Judy and know this guy's FOS. Good Lord.
 

mattpilot

Finally! Graphical TFRs!!
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
1,144
Total Time
~900
pilotmiketx said:
I OBJECT...Gotta love the fake legal-ese. Any mouth-breathing toothless moron could watch 3 episodes of Judge Judy and know this guy's FOS. Good Lord.
Gawd i hope i'll never be in judge judy's court. I might just go insane and charge the bench and try to kill her.
 

A Squared

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
3,006
Total Time
11000
MauleSkinner said:
Even if they have insurance, simply being named doesn't remove your liability...it simply means that the insurance company will pay off if you have an accident. They can then come back to you for payment. That's what the non-owned-aircraft insurance protects you against.
That's not true, David. you're mixing terms here. If you are listed on the policy as an "approved pilot" or something of that nature, you are not protected from the insurance comapny suing you.

If you are a "named insured" you are protected from subrogation, meaning that the insurance company may not sue you. in effect, you are covered by the insurance policy.


Being an approved pilot, merely means that the insurance company will pay the policy holder if they let you fly the airplane. it doesen't protect you.


PAPA FOX! said:
You know I of course have always heard that and know that to be the case but have always wondered how the insurance company could get away with that since when you rent from an FBO or club you don't sign anything warning you of subrogation, etc. Seems like any half decent (or actually scummy) ambulance chasing lawyer would be able to get that thrown out right away since no one warned you of that clause even verbally, much less in writing.
It's been That way for a long long time, and it's been tested in court many times. Good luck getting that changed.


PAPA FOX! said:
Also the fact that you ARE named and if you have an accident they subrogate against you is crazy.
See above, if you are "named insured" you *are* protected from subrogation, if you are "listed" or "approved" you are not protected. These terms have meaning, and it is up to you to find out which you are and what that means.




As for flying without hull insurance, it's a numbers game. How often do you think you're going to crash? If you buy insurance, you are in effect betting that you will crash. I have never carried hull insurance on my 2 planes, and I have owned them long enough that I am money ahead. Whether this gamble will work for you depends on a lot of things, how much your airplane is worth, how expensive your airplane is, and how expensive your insurance is.

Let's say you have an airplane which is worth $50K, and insurance for you is $5k/year. if you own and fly it for 11 years and total it after 11 years, you're money ahead if you didn't insure it.

Here's the analysis, ignoring operating costs.

with insurance: $50k airplane + $55k in insurance pemiums - $50K insurance payment = $55k cost for owning the airplane for 11 years then crashing.


Without insurance: $50k airplane. that's the total cost for owing the airplanne 11 years then crashing it.

THe no insurance option cost $5k less than insurance. That's assuming you do crash it. if you never crash it, you're $55K ahead.

Now like I said this analysis is going to be affected by the cost of insurance and how often you crash. If you crash an airplane every 2 years, get insurance. (although insurance might get pretty expensive if you crash every 2 years) If insurance is $300/year it would be hard to win the game, you'd have to fly for 166 years before crashing to save money.


I live in Alaska and my planes are taildraggers and one spends the summer on floats, which means that hull insurance is pretty expensive. So it dosn't take too many years without crashing befreo you've paid more in insurance than the airplane is worth (10 years is a ballpark number for my situation)

If you own a 172 in the lower 48, and fly only from airport to airport, your hull insurance is proabely much less.
 
Top