The 170 News / insurance

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:44 pm

4-Shipp wrote:Interesting on how things change in the insurance game. I insured Through Travers last August ( Pheonix was the underwriter) and had a different deffinition of airport. It didn't have to be FAA registered but had to be "inteneded for aircraft use". Non-registered private strips are covered.

Bruce

From my current policy,Phoenix/Old Republic through AIG/Travers:
"Off-airport landing exclusion--it is agreed that coverages provided under this policy shall not apply to operations into or from areas not designed,designated and operated as an airport,unless such operations are the result of a declared emergency"
This is what spurred my conversation with Travers--"designed & designated" by who? Me? The property owner? Travers told me (verbally) that meant FAA-designated--in other word,charted. Reading this policy now,I can see that they cover themselves against the post-wreck "carb ice" story by including "declared emergency" in the wording of the policy,instead of just "emergency landing".
I'd hate to bend the bird & then get my claim denied--I'm really leaning toward AUA now.

Eric

Curtis Brown · Post by **Curtis Brown** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 4:55 pm

Bruce, that is not what Travers told me.... they said "Pheonix did not cover off-airport opertions."

So I changed! The under writer is AIG. The difference for $35k hull was $892 with Pheonix and $1050 with AIG. I guess I could go dig out my policy for last year ( I assume it is with Pheonix) a read it and maybe make sense of it. Why would someone at Travers tell us differently it would be nice if they were consistant.
Curtis

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:11 pm

My buddy, "Bob", started his Debonaire with the towbar attached and Phoenix (which was really AIG purchased thru Falcon) cheerfully paid for a new prop, governor, spinner, and engine teardown-rebuild.
Three weeks later when he mistook a common street for a runway down near Progresso, TX, and wiped out his nose-gear crossing a 6" curb at 60 knots, they hired an armed guard for the plane overnight, paid a ferry pilot to fly the airplane out with a loaner nose-gear, and paid for a new nose gear, oleo, wheel/tire, etc. for him.
Two months later when he decided to move to a private fly in community with a grass runway, they refused to insure any aircraft on grass, so they lost him to someone else (I forgot who.) Apparently it had nothing to do with his earlier claims but the point is, ....it was not a declared emergency. It was a deliberate landing off airport, and they covered all the damage plus extras. His premium would have been increased with both those claims about $120/year he was told. But they simply would not insure an airplane based on grass.
Landing on bona fide grass/turf runways at established "landing areas" was OK, but he couldn't be based on one.

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:49 pm

George -

What do you mean that Phoenix was really AIG? They are two totally, separate and distinctly different companies. Which one paid all of these claims for "Bob"?

I don't know of any company that will insure a Bonanza or Debby based on a grass field.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:44 am

I would think that the actual "flyability" (for lack of a better adjective) of the airstrips in question would be more important than whether they had a paved surface or not. I've seen nice,smooth,well-drainaged 4,000' grass strips with good approaches. Also seen some funky paved strips that were short (1700'),lumpy,humpy,narrow,and unlit,with crummy approaches. Guess where I'd rather base my (hypothetical) Bonanza?

Eric

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:24 pm

I would think that for tailwheel airplanes they would give a discount for landings on a grass or dirt strip

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:58 pm

Dave Clark wrote:I would think that for tailwheel airplanes they would give a discount for landings on a grass or dirt strip

Yeah,sure a lot more forgiving in a stiff crosswind!

Eric

Post by **GAHorn** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:27 pm

eichenberger wrote:George -

What do you mean that Phoenix was really AIG? They are two totally, separate and distinctly different companies. Which one paid all of these claims for "Bob"?

I don't know of any company that will insure a Bonanza or Debby based on a grass field.

Well, Jerry, if I recall the way he related it, he purchased the insurance from Falcon, who insured him thru Phoenix (but Bob related it as if Phoenix had re-sold the policy to AIG. I'm told this is common practice in the industry, although not as common with aircraft insurance. What you've said does make more sense. Perhaps Bob was mistaken. I do know the claim was serviced by Phoenix who used a Houston area adjuster.)
In any case, Phoenix is who refused to insure aircraft on grass, although they had no qualms about re-insuring Bob if he remained based on concrete. (You'd think they'd have realized 6" concrete curbs are almost never installed on grass....perhaps they should have insured him ONLY if he was on grass!)

eichenberger · Post by **eichenberger** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:36 pm

George -

I get your drift about the lack of curbs on grass fields. But seriously, almost no one will insure the heavier trike airplanes on grass fields.

I forget the exact tire size of a Bonanza nose tire, but with the weight that's on that small tire, it acts like a knife in soft ground.

I've got a buddy with exactly this issue - an F33 and his own strip. While it's plenty long, about 3500 feet, he has no hull coverage at all; only liability.

Jerry

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:02 pm

Jerry wrote:

"I forget the exact tire size of a Bonanza nose tire, but with the weight that's on that small tire, it acts like a knife in soft ground"

We have had a lot of Bonanzas into our grass strip with no problem at all, in fact the Bananza is a pretty good plane for short strips, at least the earlier ones.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 8:47 pm

I based my Baron here on the ranch and used our grass runway whenever the winds allowed. I've operated Cessna 414A's and Twin Bonanzas (size of Queen Air/Small King Air) here with no problem as long as it's dry. The C-414 has small footprint/high tire pressure and it had no problem at all (despite the sorry flap system and preference for long runways.) Of course, they were mostly empty except for me and fuel.
I'm lucky and do not pay any penalty for having a grass runway, since my other runway is paved that's what the insurance company bases premiums on.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:11 am

Finally got my revised quote from Travers to include "off airport" coverage & it was $1050,like Curtis. So I'm gonna go with AUA for $950 plus EAA/VAA membership.

Eric