Everyone who emailed me - First of all, I made a mistake in my earlier post, which is a risk taken when I type my own stuff. Per person limits apply to those OUTSIDE of the airplane and INSIDE of it - to all persons.
Per passenger limits apply only to those INSIDE of the airplane, (passengers) and NOT to those OUTSIDE of it. Hence, if you kill someone outside of your plane (like a midair), the per person limit applies to those folks in the other airplane, but if you have per passenger limits (the better coverage), the full occurrence limit is available to satisfy the claims of those outside of the airplane. So, find out if you have per person or per passenger limits - that could be very important. Per person is usually a little cheaper, since it applies the sublimit to all persons inside or outside of the plane. I'll try to get to the questions asked: $100K per passenger or per person (depending upon the underwriting company, not the agent) is about all most pilots can get. Is it enough? No, probably not, but it's all there is available to most owners. Some can get smooth coverage without sublimits, but not many. Insurers started writing sublimits years ago as a way to control and reduce their exposure. And, yes, your personal umbrella policy on your auto or homeowners' coverage most likely EXCLUDES any aviation risk. Yes, it's more likely you'll severely injure or kill a person than it is that you'll do a million worth of property damage, but "that's the way it is". In my 33 years of law practice, I've only had one case where the plaintiff threatened to go after personal assets of the defendant, and that defendant was a multi-millionaire. The accident had a lot of aggravating circumstances, beginning with a pilot whose blood alcohol level was .18, and who killed 4 other very high income people in the accident. That being said, having insurance has never, in my experience, encouraged a lawsuit - rather, it made it easier to settle. We like to get emotional and talk about the million dollar cases, but frankly, they are few and far between. What costs insurers real money, and drives up the costs we all pay for insurance is what we call "hull losses". That's the hard landings, prop strikes, running off of runways, hail damage, ground loops,and the myriad of other accidents where no one is injured, but the airplane is damaged. The insurer has to pay an adjuster to deal with the case, pay to fix or total the airplane, and go thru all of the hassles of a claim. The money spent resolving these cases far exceeds that ever paid to resolve the very few serious injury cases. Most all policies require that the airplane be airworthy, and the pilot be properly licensed to operate the airplane. The policy will also require the pilot to meet certain minimum qualifications, such as having a valid BFR, maybe a medical certificate or maybe not is the airplane is LSA eligible, maybe a minimum amount of retract time if it's a retract airplane, etc. Be certain that you meet all of the requirements, or you have no insurance, regardless of what some agent may say, or you may think. As to the airplane, if it has a properly signed off annual, that's all I've ever seen an insurer worry about to satisfy the airworthiness part of the requirements. I've never seen a company argue about tiny things like the prop on the plane, or some accessory installed without the proper 337 or such. It could happen, I suppose - I've just never seen it happen. BUT - it could cook your goose in the liability case if you're flying an airplane with lousy maint. or unapproved parts or equipment. Again, as for agents - they don't write the policy or determine the premium - they take your inquiry to various insurance companies, and that's all they do. The insurance company determines the premium, and it will be the same for any agent who is presenting the company with the same potential insured. EXCEPT, a good agent renders service to you, answers your questions, and treats a Coupe owner the same as he would a Bonanza or Baron owner. Every client is as important as every other to a good agent. Hopefully, I've answered most questions. I've got to get off of email for a little bit and get signed up for my Motorcycle Safety Foundation advanced rider course, before the spring schedule gets filled up. Thanks, Jerry E. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of mbpowell Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 8:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: INSURANCE - Smooth vs Sublimit policy Wayne, Last summer a close friend missed a curve on her motorcycle. $240,000 got her out of the hospital. Then there was rehab and home care. That was enough to motivate me to raise my auto liability to $1,000,000 +. Mostly thru an umbrella policy. 100K doesn't buy much in the way of health care or airplane repair. Mike @ C35 --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Jerry, > > Thanks for the explanation. I was half kidding about not being able to do > $1,000,000 worth of property damage with a Coupe. The policy limits just seem > backwards to me. Isn't the probability of killing a pax by crashing into the > woods somewhere much greater than the probability of taking out a row of Lears > or blowing up an airport? In that case, you have a $1,000,000 policy that's > only good for $100,000. Isn't the family of that pax going to be awarded more > than $100,000? (Assuming that the insured has any assets.) > > In your experience, is it sufficient to have a $100,000 per pax or per person > sublimit policy on an airplane like an Ercoupe? I would think that $100,000 > wouldn't be enough coverage in today's day and age. > > > Best Regards, > > Wayne DelRossi > Alon N5618F > Hours logged since restoration: 362.0 > > "Nobody has ever scientifically proven that life is supposed to be serious." > > > > > **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. > (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy? NCID=aolcmp003000000025 > 48) >
