What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Insurance, Age, Tailwheel vs Nosewheel

StuBob

Well Known Member
My friend, Search, was unhelpful.

In all of the recent talk about insurance, other boards have had a lot of posts saying age-related coverage problems are much worse when trying to insure rectracts and taildraggers.

Is that the case with RV’s, too? Is an experienced 70-year-old going to have a harder time getting affordable coverage in a -7 than he would in a -7A, all other things being equal? How about an 80-year-old?
 
So far no problem through Global, 70+, RV-7 $80K hull value $1436.
There was a thread here earlier on this subject.
Figs
 
I'm in a similar situation, starting an RV-10 build at age 67. Probably won't be finished until post 70. I'm currently half owner of an Archer that we insure through AOPA Insurance Agency so I called them to get the lay of the land even though I understand there are better options for RVs. Here's what I got back regarding AIG.

"Current underwriting guidelines (as we never know what the underwriting criteria may be in future), AIG would write you until you are age of 75 in the RV 10. And if you continue coverage with them when you are age 80/90, they would require a safety pilot requirement."

There may be better options out there but that's one data point.
 
I'm insured with AIG and I am a little apprehensive about the age thing too, but it is my understanding that in the RV world, high performance, tail wheel, aerobatics, and multiple-passenger are things that might be compounding factors when an underwriter starts figuring premiums.

OTOH, we seem to be in a rather complicated aviation insurance environment these days...no telling what it's going to look like in 3-4 years. Maybe better, maybe worse.
 
age

I had insurance quoted for myself and I wanted to have my Dad listed as well.

He has 50+ years of experience, is an active instructor, and many hours in RV aircraft...he is also 77.

Most of the insurance companies wouldn't even quote me with him listed; the few that did were 3-4 times the price...

Sooo, long story short, he is NOT listed on the policy but flies under the open pilot warranty which was 500 TT and 25 in type.

Silly, isn't it?
 
The best thing to do is to call one of the brokers that re frequently listed here, and just chat with them about the situation. Remember that they are not the insurers, they are your intermediary with the underwriters, and work for you - that makes them (in my experience) very open and honest about the pro and cons.

And from what I have learned chatting with a number of them, continuous coverage (with a carrier) across the magical “70” threshold is important. New policies are harder to get.

We only carry liability on our little fleet, and with two experienced pilots, pour rates didn’t go up at all this year (the total amount went down because I crossed a magic number of hours in the jet). I think what I have learned is that they are much more lenient on giving liability coverage than hull - but that’s just a guess.

Paul
 
Sooo, long story short, he is NOT listed on the policy but flies under the open pilot warranty which was 500 TT and 25 in type.

Silly, isn't it?

Not completely. Read the fine print. If your father has an accident, the insurance will pay you - but, they reserve the right to sue your Dad to get their money back. Most policies even require you to help them with the lawsuit. You up for that?
 
Not completely. Read the fine print. If your father has an accident, the insurance will pay you - but, they reserve the right to sue your Dad to get their money back. Most policies even require you to help them with the lawsuit. You up for that?

That fine print includes, and depends on, the subrogation clause of the policy, which is not the same in every policy. The OPW may or may not allow subrogation (going after the accident pilot for recovery of costs). IOW, it’s not a definitive blanket statement, but depends on the policy. Definitely a good point to consider.
 
Last edited:
but...

Not completely. Read the fine print. If your father has an accident, the insurance will pay you - but, they reserve the right to sue your Dad to get their money back. Most policies even require you to help them with the lawsuit. You up for that?

They can try and sue him...it will cost them far more than they will ever get...
 
My policy includes a Waiver of Subrogation. I got that to cover my buddy, who was the CFI doing my transition training and is named on the policy.
 
Last edited:
So, about tail wheels. . . . .

It appears that, despite 500 hours of tailwheel time, my insurance in a Cessna 180 would be 20-30% higher than in a 182.

Would I likely see the same thing at work in an RV7 vs a -7A?
 
Subrogation

This reminds me of a question I had a while back - in all the policies I've looked at, when someone is an additional named insured, I always see a waiver of subrogation. But I don't know whether that's always the case, or whether its usually the case, or whether it might or might not be required as a matter of insurance law.

Does anyone out there in RV land have a policy with (a) an additional named insured but (b) no subrogation waiver with respect to that person?

My policy includes a Waiver of Subrogation. I got that to cover my buddy, who was the CFI doing my transition training and is named on the policy.
 
Some confusion here. If someone is a ‘named insured’ (listed by name on the ‘who this policy covers’ page), then the insurance company will defend and cover him. No waiver of subrogation is needed - if the insurance company attempted to subrogate (e.g., recover their costs from him) they are still obligated to defend and cover him, so they’re suing themselves! OTOH if someone is flying under an ‘open pilot clause’, THEY have no coverage but the named insured’s coverage is valid, the named insured will get paid. If you want to guarantee that the insurance company will not try to sue the pilot, to get their payout back (this is ‘subrogation’), then you need a clause saying the insurance company will not do that (they ‘waive their right to subrogate’). I read my policies carefully, and in 35 years of aircraft ownership I have never seen a waiver of subrogation (nor did I ask for one). I spoke with Jenny (Gallagher) about this. She said subrogation lawsuits were uncommon, because (1) following an accident everyone gets sued, including the owner, who is a named insured and the insurance company is obligated to mount a defenseman for him anyway; (2) it’s usually not worth the cost to go to trial to subrogate. But, she confirmed, it is always possible that without a waiver it might happen.
 
So, about tail wheels. . . . .

It appears that, despite 500 hours of tailwheel time, my insurance in a Cessna 180 would be 20-30% higher than in a 182.

Would I likely see the same thing at work in an RV7 vs a -7A?

You can ask random people here on the internet, or if you really want an actual answer, just send a note to one of the many fine brokers out there that can give you one.....anything else is here say....
 
Insurance Denied

Yep, insurance is getting ridiculous. I called on an RV3 a guy was selling 3 or 4 weeks ago. His insurance renewal came up and they denied him a renewal because he was 80 yo. He's been with the same insurance company for the last 20 yrs. While talking with him I come to find out he flew F-105's, F106's, F-4's, F-15's, and F-16's.

I looked him up online and found out he was wing commander of the largest tactical training wing at MacDill AFB in Tampa where I live in the mid 80's. He retired as a Brigadier General.

I find that extremely insulting to someone who has a background like that. I understand that an insurance company is out to make money and needs to make money, however they have no data showing older pilots have more accidents than younger pilots. If they want older pilots to have them pass a physical every 6 to 12 months instead of every 2 yrs, then ok. If they want older pilots to have flight review every year, then ok. But to simply deny renewal is BS.
 
I got a quote from the AOPA recently. For a tailwheel with myself having around 100hrs and 60 in a tailwheel for a 80k hull value they told me it would be 3-4k per year. :eek:
 
Yep, insurance is getting ridiculous. I called on an RV3 a guy was selling 3 or 4 weeks ago. His insurance renewal came up and they denied him a renewal because he was 80 yo. He's been with the same insurance company for the last 20 yrs. While talking with him I come to find out he flew F-105's, F106's, F-4's, F-15's, and F-16's.

I looked him up online and found out he was wing commander of the largest tactical training wing at MacDill AFB in Tampa where I live in the mid 80's. He retired as a Brigadier General.

I find that extremely insulting to someone who has a background like that. I understand that an insurance company is out to make money and needs to make money, however they have no data showing older pilots have more accidents than younger pilots. If they want older pilots to have them pass a physical every 6 to 12 months instead of every 2 yrs, then ok. If they want older pilots to have flight review every year, then ok. But to simply deny renewal is BS.

They are out to make money. If the insurance biz could take the risk of taking 80 year old pilots' money (insuring) then I am sure they would. But when the risk isn't worth the payout after an accident, they save money buy not offering a policy in the first place.

Side note: I have given many flight reviews over the years. Not all matured pilots are equal at that age regardless of their background. We all age differently.
 
If they want older pilots to have them pass a physical every 6 to 12 months instead of every 2 yrs, then ok. If they want older pilots to have flight review every year, then ok. But to simply deny renewal is BS.

I think you're being unrealistic. Insurance companies set their premiums and their decisions to insure purely on the basis of broad statistics. That's all they've got to work with. If they charge significantly more to insure a tail dragger (and they do) it's simply because tail draggers have a significantly worse claims record overall. If they refuse to insure beyond a certain age (or increase premiums beyond a certain age) it's for the same reason. It's not personal for insurance companies....it's all in the numbers.
 
I think you're being unrealistic. Insurance companies set their premiums and their decisions to insure purely on the basis of broad statistics. That's all they've got to work with. If they charge significantly more to insure a tail dragger (and they do) it's simply because tail draggers have a significantly worse claims record overall. If they refuse to insure beyond a certain age (or increase premiums beyond a certain age) it's for the same reason. It's not personal for insurance companies....it's all in the numbers.
A key word there is "broad". My gut (not scientific) is that they anticipate a lot higher risk for people just starting out with a specific tailwheel aircraft, but as experience is gained it evens out. My own premiums would seem to support this... Over the past several years with Global I had liability only for less than $300, and full coverage for under $1000. I expect a hike this year but still that doesn't seem exorbitant for a purely recreational pilot in his mid -60s flying an experimental tailwheel aircraft. The instrument rating may help? And listing all those ASF courses although my broker told me they don't pay attention to that these days.
 
Last edited:
Too many birthdays

A friend of mine owns a worldwide large aircraft, (he’ll do some smallstuff) aviation insurance company. I asked him what the numbers were on (older) pilots causing accidents and he said it didn’t matter, the underwriters just decided that they could cut risks by denying older pilots. It’s what it is and it’s probably not going to change. In the turbine world 70 and up is very expensive to fly single pilot if you can even get coverage. Annual training of some sort help at renewal time a bit. Background and experience matter not one whit. If you’ve accumulated too many birthdays you’re done. It’s trickling down into the single piston world rapidly too.
I’m thinking we more experienced pilots may want to start a walker and cane race series! Wheel chairs excluded because of added risk.
 
A friend of mine owns a worldwide large aircraft, (he’ll do some smallstuff) aviation insurance company. I asked him what the numbers were on (older) pilots causing accidents and he said it didn’t matter, the underwriters just decided that they could cut risks by denying older pilots. It’s what it is and it’s probably not going to change. In the turbine world 70 and up is very expensive to fly single pilot if you can even get coverage. Annual training of some sort help at renewal time a bit. Background and experience matter not one whit. If you’ve accumulated too many birthdays you’re done. It’s trickling down into the single piston world rapidly too.
I’m thinking we more experienced pilots may want to start a walker and cane race series! Wheel chairs excluded because of added risk.

In general probably true, but I've noted that there is a wide variety of insurance price points for any given pilot in the same aircraft with the same coverage. When I shopped insurance, I found rates that varied from expensive, to really expensive, to unaffordable, to unobtainable. It appears that not all insurance companies parse the underwriting data the same way.
 
Back
Top