[Geico266]

The municipal airport I hangar at now requires a $1 million dollar insurance policy naming the airport authority as named insured. The entire building costs $700K why would you need to insure a $700K building for $9,000,000? This may make sense to someone, but it makes no sense to me.

In talking with my insurance guy he says this started in Kalifornia and is spreading across the country;"Because they can."

If you have insurance the rider is little to no cost, but if you do not have insurance the cost is $350 / year for a 2 seater and $550 / year for a 4 seater. While this is not a deal killer for most owners, it certainly can be for some.

What does your airport authority require for insurance if any?

 

[Ironflight]

At our Airpark, we are required to have liability insurance, but the Airpark does not have to be named on the policy.

Paul

 

[ccsmith51]

At Palatka, 28J..

My hangar lease requires that I carry liability insurance, and that the City of Palatka be named as an additional insured. I was told by an insurance agent that this is very common for municipally owned airports...

 

[Peterk]

but it makes no sense to me.

...we don't have that deal here at Pecan but then a hanger fire caused by an individual would unlikely spread "next door" (though it might in these winds!). My hanger insurance is included in my homewoners as an "outbuilding." I would have to assume municipalities are concerned about a spreading fire and all of the lawsuits that would ensue. Maybe I'm way off base...certainly there is a city/county employee in this group or even an AVEMCO type.

All the more reason to avoid government run business'. You're better off finding a place where someone leases all of that business from the city.

Pete

 

[Louise Hose]

But, Paul forgot....

We do have to have the insurance for our hangar in Big Bear, CA. (Easy for him to forget since he doesn't deal with the paperwork at that airport.)

 

[plehrke]

Since we own our hanger and lease the ground from the airport owner, we need no issurance as the ground should be there no matter what happens.
Of coarse we have insurance for our hanger and contents.

 

[fehdxl]

Is liability insurance to only cover the building, or the building and the other aircraft in adjoined hangars?

Maybe that's why they want $1M...to cover a $700K building and 9 other planes @ $100K each. Just a thought.

-Jim

 

[rwhittier]

A little different for us

We also own the building (a condo association with 26 hangars) and lease the ground from the city. The lease with the city requires insurance but the hangar association carries the insurance and then charges each tenant for their share. total insurance (Liability plus coverage for the building costs about $200 per hangar.

FWIW, our condo neighbors 1 building north had a fire (motorhome caught fire inside the building). They were thankful to have the insurance. Stuff does happen...

Since we own our hanger and lease the ground from the airport owner, we need no issurance as the ground should be there no matter what happens.

 

[az_gila]

My hangar lease requires that I carry liability insurance, and that the City of Palatka be named as an additional insured. I was told by an insurance agent that this is very common for municipally owned airports...

Are we mixing up an insurance policy on the hangar, and one on the aircraft?

Our Airpark requires a $1M liability insurance on your aircraft.

But if you own/lease a hangar and have other aircraft in it you might want to check your and their insurance policies.

The hangar fire we had 15 months ago lost 2 Glasairs and a Comp10 with only one being insured. I am told the possibility of lawsuits has not yet settled...

If the fire starts in one plane - apparently the case here - that plane owner could be held liable for the entire damage - especially if the structure is under-insured as a private hangar which is quite common when it is a % of your home insured value.

 

[Bavafa]

Since we own our hanger and lease the ground from the airport owner, we need no issurance as the ground should be there no matter what happens.

This is the exact situation for me

I am required to have hanger insurance but I am the named insured.

 

[az_gila]

This is the exact situation for me

I am required to have hanger insurance but I am the named insured.

I presume that insurance gives you liability if your hangar fire spreads to the adjacent hangars too?

That might be a bigger $$$ loss value...

 

[kbehrent]

The Liability policy protects the gov

I am a member in a hangar association. We individually own our hangars, but lease the ground from the County. Because the County owns the dirt, they require our "Association" to carry Liability insurance, with them as the named insured. This protects both the County and our Association from law suites if someone gets hurt in/around our hangars.

As an association, we also carry Property insurance to cover the structure of buildings, but not the content. This ensures that our building will get rebuilt should it get destroyed by fire or whatever. The County also required this because they didn't want us to walkaway from the structures if they got destroyed, leaving them the mess and loss of income from the land lease.

It is up to the individual owner to get their own Property insurance to cover personal items within the hangar. In some cases, their aircraft policy included some coverage for hangar content. I chose to have both a aircraft policy and hangar property coverage. There is a little overlap, but at least I know I'm covered.

 

[JDRhodes]

You're getting there Kevin...

The airport (or FBO) asks to be an ADDITIONAL insured (not a named insured - they may say named insured, but that's not what they mean). Adding any enity as an additonal insured means that you are extending your aircraft liability coverage to cover the added entity in the event that they are named in a suit as a result of YOUR aircraft operation.

It's not necessarily for damage to their building. If you damage their building, they can sue you and SOME policies will provide coverage for liability for damage to hangars and contents - some don't.

The additional insured wording says that, for example, if you injure a passenger and that passenger sues you, the airport, the maintenance shop, the fuel provider, and the aircraft builder... YOUR policy will defend that lawsuit aganst the airport (the additonal insured) and pay on their behalf if the suit is sucessful. What it means for you is that you are now splitting your liability limits with that additonal insured. So your $1 Mil in coverage might end up being 500K for you and 500K for them.

What's worse is that you don't really have 1 Mil for injuries to passengers - you have $100,000. Split with the airport, that's $50,000.

It is very common. And they kind of have you over a barrel if you don't have somewhere else to keep your airplane.