Flying without insurance

[MauleSkinner]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.