No Pax - No Pax Insurance

[L'Avion]

Has anyone tried to have their insurance premium reduced by stating that there would never be any passengers in flight in an aircraft that has more than one seat?

I originally bought an RV-3, but came across a deal on an RV-4 that was such a great aircraft that I couldn't pass it up. My original intention was single seat - no reason for pax. The -4 has a passenger seat that someone might conceivably occupy, however in nearly two years, no one has been in the back seat, and I don't care to, or plan to, haul any. I wonder if I might get a reduction in my insurance premium if I fly the -4 as thought it were single seat, and I never have any pax(?).

Barney, in Memphis

[Skyhook]

I did not 'try' that but I did bring it up with my insurance agent. It seems, according to her, that if the plane was designed and constructed with two seats, you, the insurer, will pay for that second seat liability.

Heck, I was even telling her I was going to convert the entire back seat into baggage space and would send her whatever documentation she needed. (I wisely did not let my wife in on those "plans", however.)

No matter... my query went for naught.

[Rosie]

I have a longtime friend who built/owns an RV-4 and RV-6. He has his RV-4 insured for only himself. If you don't get any positive replies, I'll find out who he insures with Rosie

From my friend: On the RV-4, I carry 1 million liability on aircraft and one seat only. It cost about $150 / year; This is less than the -6 that has both seats insured. ~ $250 vs $400. I have done this for 5 or so years. No hull on either. RV-4 still has interior, although the stick is removed. Insurance company (Avemco) had no requirement to strip interior.

[LifeofReiley]

IMHO a single passenger insured plane carrying two persons would void the insurance policy coverage... basic liability and/or full hull coverage. You've misrepresented your intentions to the insuring company. Dunno, I would never do it.