[Charles Hunt]

Trying to get to grips with insurance for my first aircraft.

LAA has a newish scheme with Air Courtages but there are two elements/options; Aircraft attached, and pilot attached.

Which is most appropriate for a sole owner of a 2 seater LAA machine; or do I need two separate policies, the aircraft attached for the hull, and the pilot attached for anything else?

Has anyone used this yet?

TIA

[Charles Hunt]

Gave it a go. AIr Courtages advised pilot attached scheme for me as a sole owner and pilot. Maintenance/ test pilot and instructors automatically included. Contact number with a +44 prefix unsurprisingly didn't work. I couldn't get the forms to work to allow me to input data, but I sent them the information and they processed it. THere was a question for amount of third party cover required, and I answered 'whatever they recommend' . Seems to have worked out OK and the limit increases automatically for whenever Crown indemnity is required.

The quotation is competitive.

[Waveflyer]

Charles
Asking a broker to decide your level of liability cover might leave you exposed in the event of a big claim. He may keep it low which will reflect in a lower premium but you should be making the decision on the basis of what you can afford.
Very thorny subject.
Bob Bevan might come on to advise.
Just sayin' '

[Charles Hunt]

Normally £2.3m, extending to £7.5m automatically where crown indemnity is required.

As stated this is all new to me, so no idea if these are typical or not.

[hatzflyer]

One question I have never had an answer to ..,..

Assuming that I have my aircraft insured for a reasonable amount the risk of a total loss is down to me . However what if I fly a rare type or hard ( if not Impossible ) type to replace and it is written off by a third party can I claim from them to fully find a same type ?
i.e. if no others are up for sale in England and I have the added expense of travelling to the USA for example to find a replacement like for like ,plus import duties and reassembly when it reaches the UK. ?

What if I could not find one quickly and therefore cannot fly for months whilst waiting for the above ?
If I were able to hire a similar performance aircraft could I claim back my costs ?

[patowalker]

If you had it insure for a certain amount, it seems unlikely you would be able to claim off another's third party insurance for more than that amount.

[Rob L]

One question I have never had an answer to ..,..

Assuming that I have my aircraft insured for a reasonable amount the risk of a total loss is down to me . However what if I fly a rare type or hard ( if not Impossible ) type to replace and it is written off by a third party can I claim from them to fully find a same type ?
i.e. if no others are up for sale in England and I have the added expense of travelling to the USA for example to find a replacement like for like ,plus import duties and reassembly when it reaches the UK. ?

What if I could not find one quickly and therefore cannot fly for months whilst waiting for the above ?
If I were able to hire a similar performance aircraft could I claim back my costs ?

Surely you, the owner, enter in to a contract to insure it for a sum. In the event of a total loss, the insurer pays you the contracted sum. Is that not the end of the matter from the insurer's perspective (whether the paying insurer is yours or the third party's)? I would suggest an insurance contract is about money, not rarity of type. You could of course ask an insurer to quote to supply insurance to cover the issue in your question.

You could also increase the value of your policy to allow for the different circumstances that might apply to your aircraft, but that may bring in other financial factors in cases of total loss.

Just my thoughts,
Rob

[hatzflyer]

I disagree . If I have a ford Mondeo and it is written off by someone else whilst parked it is a simple matter to buy a replacement the next day. I can even get a hire care to drive around in to find an equivalent car.
With my RV4 that is very unlikely to be the same. There aren't any currently for sale in England to the same spec as mine that I currently fly.

To import one from the USA could realistically loose a year. What would I fly in the mean time.?
Where would I find one to the exact spec of the one I currently own ?

This has always worried me.

What I am trying to say is that if I lose it through my own stupidity then I deserve to take a loss but if I loose it through someone else's stupidity why should I suffer a loss ?
I suppose the question is ' what is the difference ( if any ) from car insurance?

This becomes more important with something specific like my RV . It is not a mass produced machine like my car. It is ( by the nature of the build spec and the equipment spec ) unique .
Replacement cost would be far more than its saleable value but that should be at my discretion not at the discretion of a third party's insurers . ?

[Rob L]

<snip>I suppose the question is ' what is the difference ( if any ) from car insurance?</snip>(

(my snip)

There you have it, in a nutshell. It is different.

Rob

[Edit] I guess if you own a £5M car, there are specialist insurers that deal with that value of vehicle...perhaps the same exists in the aviation world? [/edit]

[Charliesixtysix]

Hatz,
I understand your point entirely, but it is up to you to set the value of your hull insurance (and pay a premium based upon that value) - if you wish to cover the eventuality that you envisage you must up the insured value appropriately.

Yes, that would be a cost to you but that is what insurance is all about - balancing risks.
An insurance underwriting company employee once told me that it is good practice to only 'not' insure what you can afford (or be prepared) to carry the risk on yourself.

My understanding is that if damage is caused solely by a third party you would not be claiming on your own insurance (well, in reality, your insurer might pay out on a claim initially but will seek to recover their loss from the third party insurer on your behalf) but in any event the maximum funds available would be the figure insured.

However, in the event of any loss, the (paying) insurer will either decide to repair the aircraft back to prior-to-loss condition or to pay out up to the agreed value, which the insured can choose to spend as he wishes - it is not part of their contract to find an equivalent replacement.

Re loss of use:
Yes, again this is real issue and not normally covered - private aircraft hull insurance does not normally provide for loss of use or consequential loss cover (but I would imagine it could be provided on request, and at a cost).

To sum up, I insured our aircraft hull at 20% over my estimate of its market value when taking cover last December - having watched what has happened to RV market prices during the last year, that figure will rise again when I renew in a couple of months. Insurance should be measured not solely on how cheaply it can be bought but how appropriate the cover is for personal needs.

[CloudHound]

Your risk can be covered by a third party contingent liability policy. Ask your broker to quote based on your estimation of any loss over and above the hull value.

[Paul_Sengupta]

But what if you're not insured at all?

What happens if you're innocently parked up, and someone runs off the side of the runway into you? What if it's not an aeroplane but a barn? What if it's a person?

Surely you don't need you or whatever it is to be insured that if someone damages that thing that they, or their insurance company, make restoration?

[Charliesixtysix]

Fair points Paul, but in those circumstances the loss adjuster, claims manager, or possibly even a court if it goes that far, would decide the value of the loss and cover would be under the third party liability element of the first party policy.

The problem arises when the third party property has an Agreed Value policy in place - I suspect it would be hard to argue for more than that figure even if it were below market value.

[hatzflyer]

Ok so are you saying that it is up to me to insure at an inflated value in order to protect myself from my worst fears and that any third party insurer will pay out the inflated value no quibbles ?


Edited .....last question...

Ok so assuming I hike my cover ( my premium is lower now than it was a few years back ) to a ridiculous sum insured in order to satisfy my worst fears and then prang the bloody thing would they pay out in full insured value even though it is far more than it is currently worth ?

Seems like such an event would look decidedly dodgy and invite much sucking through teeth if that were to happen.
I've never been paid out in full when I've had stuff stolen in the past.

[Charliesixtysix]

Pretty much, you choose a sum insured and in the event of a claim the insurer can elect to either make good (repair) or, in the event of a total loss, to pay the sum insured.

Most people choose a sum insured at or around market value because in the event of major damage they would rather have the cash and find a replacement themselves - along the lines of your car insurance analogy earlier. However, If no replacements are available that is where it becomes a problem and the owner might consider alternative risk management methods.

A loss adjuster looking at a third party claim might argue for a lower than sum insured payout ( eg. if he could demonstrate that repair or like for like replacement(s) were available within that figure ) but that would be subject to discussion and might be a case for employing a claims manager to act on your behalf? - but you would struggle to get them to agree to an amount greater than the sum insured.


Edit:
The reply above was posted before the supplementary question scenario was presented - I would imagine that that insurance companies are well aware of likelihood of fraudulent claims and have measures in place to detect those.