RV-10 $18,000 Insurance Quote

[raabs]

Originally Posted by Northernliving

Something sounds very wrong with your quote. Try BWI. https://bwifly.com/

Agree. I reviewed BWI yesterday.

It was Starr that was the only one that would write the $230k hull with the 215 hours and was $18,000. I have my non-owned through them and will be happy when I can end it.

I’ll have to lower hull and increase hours to get to $3-$4k range.

[raabs]

Originally Posted by RV10Pilot

I got insurance for my newly completed RV10 in early October. I had 210 hours total, not instrument rating, and 3 hours PIC in a RV10. $200K hull for $3,800 and no additional RV10 time required. Only one insurance company quoted. Not really the second quote was something like $18K.

For me, and my experience, $3,800 was a bargain. I was high risk and I was shocked that 3 hours waived any additional RV10 time. I did mitigate my personal risk, by getting some additional transition training and my first few flights were only done when the weather was close to perfect.

Who was the insurance company?

[BobTurner]

This is slightly, but only slightly, off topic: I see some posts suggesting that they are ‘willing to go without hull coverage, but never without liability’. Then they turn around and get liability coverage for a passenger - where statistically most of the risk lies - limited to $100K, often a smaller amount than the hull value. Does this make sense? The point is, the typical liability coverage is woefully inadequate if a passenger is killed or seriously injured. The vast majority of owners are hoping to not be unlucky, or are hedging their bets by carrying only family members (who gain nothing by suing). Truly adequate liability limits are obscenely expensive, if available at all. The odds are pretty small, but let’s not pretend that even with $1 million ‘smooth’ coverage, we don’t still carry some risk.

[Bill Boyd]

Age 64, ASEL, 1200 hrs TT and 1000 in RV-6A. Hull value 160k. Starting this September paying $2600/yr and was required to get 3 hours in a -10 before first flight coverage.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by Bill Boyd

Age 64, ASEL, 1200 hrs TT and 1000 in RV-6A. Hull value 160k. Starting this September paying $2600/yr and was required to get 3 hours in a -10 before first flight coverage.

I’m 10 years younger and have 300 more hours, but the quotes I’ve gotten are very close to this.

[Kooshball]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

This is slightly, but only slightly, off topic: I see some posts suggesting that they are ‘willing to go without hull coverage, but never without liability’. Then they turn around and get liability coverage for a passenger - where statistically most of the risk lies - limited to $100K, often a smaller amount than the hull value. Does this make sense? The point is, the typical liability coverage is woefully inadequate if a passenger is killed or seriously injured. The vast majority of owners are hoping to not be unlucky, or are hedging their bets by carrying only family members (who gain nothing by suing). Truly adequate liability limits are obscenely expensive, if available at all. The odds are pretty small, but let’s not pretend that even with $1 million ‘smooth’ coverage, we don’t still carry some risk.

Good point. I wonder if it is possible to have passengers sign away their rights to sue or if something that not isn’t really possible. It isn’t like an Experimental plane is going to be used to run an air charter operation.

[rocketman1988]

Pretty sure asking a passenger to sign a document stating “if something happens” will eliminate the need for such a document...

[BobTurner]

Originally Posted by Kooshball

Good point. I wonder if it is possible to have passengers sign away their rights to sue or if something that not isn’t really possible. It isn’t like an Experimental plane is going to be used to run an air charter operation.

In most states this is difficult, because it isn’t the passenger that’s suing you. He’s dead. It’s his wife, his kid, his parents, etc. And generally speaking, one person has no right to ‘sign away’ someone else’s right to sue. I have seen some attempts to have passengers sign documents, authorizing their estate to pay any judgements against the pilot, making lawsuits by other family members pointless. I have no idea if these work.

[N804RV]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

I don't think there are many people who have the financial ability to fly uninsured...you may be able to cover the aircraft damage/loss but the LIABILITY is where it will be expensive...

I was under the impression that hull coverage was the more expensive part of insuring an EAB. I thought typical liability premiums, without hull coverage was pretty small compared to getting "full" coverage. Am I wrong?

Years ago, I asked about insurance for EAB. At that time the popular consensus seemed to be just liability (no hull coverage), "if you wreck it, you eat it!"

[Kooshball]

Originally Posted by BobTurner

In most states this is difficult, because it isn’t the passenger that’s suing you. He’s dead. It’s his wife, his kid, his parents, etc. And generally speaking, one person has no right to ‘sign away’ someone else’s right to sue. I have seen some attempts to have passengers sign documents, authorizing their estate to pay any judgements against the pilot, making lawsuits by other family members pointless. I have no idea if these work.

I wonder how they handle it at a Young Eagles rally? I guess with S***loads of insurance??