The International Cessna^® 170 Association

swanstedt wrote:Many variables in the quotes (pilot's experience, ratings, hull value, location, etc). Just locked in insurance for the next year with Travers. I got several quotes in the process:

Plane: 1951 170A, hull value $35000
Place: tied down in Rangely, CO....small airport with ~6000' strip at 5270' elev. Low probability or hail.
Pilots: me: 191 TT, 56 C170 time, 59 tailwheel, Private, VFR only
partner: 55 TT, 45 C170 time, Student

For those that aren't aware, insurance goes by the low time pilot. You can add additional higher time pilots without taking a hit.

Avemco: $2001 both ($1842 once partner gets Private), $1562 me only
AOPA: wouldn't cover partner, $1469 me only
Travers: $1481 both, $1323 me only

Full coverage with liability limits were quoted at $1,000,000/$100,000.

Scott

It's still not apples-to-apples, I'll bet.
Did the Avemco quote include a family exclusion? (I'll bet it did.)
Were all quotes "smooth"? Or were some "per person" and some "per passenger" and some "per event".
Did they all have the same deductibles both moving and non-moving?
Did any of them include "war risk"? (Example: Your airplane is stolen, and the police report quotes the theif as saying he was angry at some one and intended to crash the plane into their property. The underwriter will pay nothing because it was a "terrorist" event.... as opposed to a theif who merely intended to use it to haul drugs or paint it for resale...and you'd only have to pay the deductible.)
It ain't always so simple to make real comparisons sometimes.

George,
Apples-to-apples...only one is Red Delicious, another Gala, and the other Granny Smith . I've never seen two companies quote the same policy. I'ts like trying to get 100 lawyers to all agree on how to write a contract.

In the quotes I'm sure there are the type of discrepencies you stated. However, they are a closer comparison than you would get using different people in different locations with different planes.

Scott

mmmmmmmmmm time sure fly's! Started filling out the information to get this years renewal terms. Could of swore I just got that Biannual flight review and medical last summer. Biannual does mean every 2 years right? Records show July 04. Question - is there a minimum amount of hrs that the insurance companies like to see? Like 20hrs or so in make and model.

AR Dave wrote:mmmmmmmmmm time sure fly's! Started filling out the information to get this years renewal terms. Could of swore I just got that Biannual flight review and medical last summer. Biannual does mean every 2 years right? Records show July 04. Question - is there a minimum amount of hrs that the insurance companies like to see? Like 20hrs or so in make and model.

Hey, Dave... if I recollect, I gave you 1 hour of groundschool at Reklaw last year, and I'm pretty certain I also gave at least 1 hour of instruction you utilized on the way back home! (We talked about fuel systems, use of avgas, and flight-time/distance/fuel consumption issues... Right?)

I have been insured w/ Travers for 2 yrs and w/ AIG for numerous yrs before that. '56 172 Conventional Gear (yes they know it is a conv gear). $35,000 hull w/ the $1M liab & $100K per pass lmts--$200 ded in motion, none if not in motion. $893 prem. After discussion w/ representative they agreed to up hull to $40K as expiring for annual premium of $993---same as expiring.

This is my opinion only.

With the exception of my aircraft insurance, I have all my insurance with USAA. USAA simply does not have the experience with aircraft (aviation) insurance as do insurance brokers and insurance companies specializing in aircraft insurance. I carry $50,000 hull plus the recommened liability limits for the 170 association members with Travers & Associates. The premium is $1,151.

John

170C wrote:I have been insured w/ Travers for 2 yrs and w/ AIG for numerous yrs before that. '56 172 Conventional Gear (yes they know it is a conv gear). $35,000 hull w/ the $1M liab & $100K per pass lmts--$200 ded in motion, none if not in motion. $893 prem. After discussion w/ representative they agreed to up hull to $40K as expiring for annual premium of $993---same as expiring.

Hey, Frank.... I realize you're an insurance kinda guy...but don't you think you're a little underinsured there on the hull? ... even at $40K?

George, we also have a 171 with rebuilt wings, flaps, elevators, rudder, verticle and horizontal, with fresh paint and leather interior and IFR panel and we could only get $35,000 hull. Not only that but after several years of listing it as a 172 tailwheel, last year they jumped the premium $100 to ($1250)and said it was because they just found out it was a tailwheel. GRRRR
I was trying to check around but other companies said they couldn't even give us a quote since we had a quote from our present company. With over a 1000 hours tailwheel I am the low time partner. From what the other fellows were quoting I think we are getting the shaft. Brian

Scott,

AOPA: wouldn't cover partner, $1469 me only

What happened to AOPAs Project Pilot campaign

http://WWW.AOPAProjectPilot.org

That's dissapointingly funny. I'm an AOPA member but sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Bill

Indopilot wrote:George, we also have a 171 with rebuilt wings, flaps, elevators, rudder, verticle and horizontal, with fresh paint and leather interior and IFR panel and we could only get $35,000 hull. Not only that but after several years of listing it as a 172 tailwheel, last year they jumped the premium $100 to ($1250)and said it was because they just found out it was a tailwheel. GRRRR
I was trying to check around but other companies said they couldn't even give us a quote since we had a quote from our present company. With over a 1000 hours tailwheel I am the low time partner. From what the other fellows were quoting I think we are getting the shaft. Brian

Look at the sunny-side, tho'.... all those years of cheap insurance!
If I were a converted 172 owner, I think I'd insure it as a 172 (which it is.) Some underwriters take no interest in mods that do not change the aircraft's FAA status unless the owner brings the subject up. This is one time to let one's pride-of-ability remain in stealth mode. If they don't ask... it's a 172, according to it's type certificate and FAA registration. (Just be careful of the fine print in some policies that require a signed statement that no modifications exist. Some underwriters have such a clause in their policies that is missed by owners who don't think of such small facts they have Slick mags installed on an engine that originally issued with Bendix, or that their Monarch fuel caps are a modification to the original configuration.
Generally speaking, if an underwriter feels a claim is legitimate, they will ignore such details/oversights, but a large liability claim might get refused if it's a really nasty one.
(Mods we frequently don't think about having when buying insurance: onepiece windshields, tail pull handles, strobes, cleveland wheels/brakes, Pponk, gelcell battery, oil filter, air filter, newer instruments, solid-state regulator, alternator, etc. While most underwriters will ignore these, a reluctant one may use a policy-holders signed contract to advantage.) Read your policy fine print, to make certain you have not signed a statement that your airplane is unmodified...otherwise it might be wise to specifically list mods with the underwriter.
When I brought this up with my underwriter, all they required was that the aircraft meet it's type certificate and/or approved substitute as evidenced by an effective annual inspection.

Good point about all the mods. I will have to check again but I think They have the clause about mods. We listed the tailwheel only thinking that it was the only one that would in reality affect the Insurance due to a higher risk of a ground loop, even though it seems very docile. Brian

Bill,

AOPA came up with a quote last year for my partner with 0-time. Nothing new this year except he almost has his ticket. The gal handling the quote didn't know what was up since the underwriter that normally accepts these 'higher risk' policies didn't come back with a quote after 48-hrs.

Scott

George, regarding the hull limit on my converted 172--my current policy, which expires 9-9-06 is for $40K @ $993. The renewal letter was for $35K @ $893. All other terms & conditions are as expiring. I called Travers and told them I wanted the same hull limit ($40K) as expiring. The associate said that $35K was as much as the underwriter would put on a '56 172. She contacted that uw & called me back saying the uw was OK with increasing the limit to $40K, as expiring, for the same expiring premium of $993. My only issue last year was the requirement that if I wanted you, George, to be able to fly my plane and have the insurance cover you, you have to have 10 hours in type. I explained to the uw that anyone with reasonable time in a C-170 is more than qualified to fly my plane, but they insisted it has to be in a converted 172. Since the odds of anyone flying my plane without me in it are fairly rare, I just dropped the matter because I realized I was fighting a losing battle---kind of like trying to teach the pig to sing deal How much should I carry? I don't know and if I could determine that it should be more than $40K I don't know if any of the markets would agree to do so. Remember that uw is sitting at a desk, as I do, and is thinking of my plane as a 1956 172. I doubt he/she has a clue what the difference is in a converted one w/ 500 smo vs a non converted one. I went quite a number of years w/ AIG showing my plane as a 172 (which it is), but at one point I got to thinking that my lack of disclosure regarding its landing gear configuration "might" become an issue where I to have any kind of loss. So I advised AIG who passed this on to the actual insurance company underwriter and after giving them my total hours, time in conventiona geared planes and time in type agreed to continue insuring with no additional restrictions or increases in premium. I suspect if I were a low time tailwheel pilot that the premium would have been more, as it should have been. Insurance is based upon risk exposure. The adage "don't ask, don't tell" is an excellant means to find ones self in deep "do do" when a loss occurs. We have an obligation to disclose any factor which would affect our insurability just as the insurance carrier has an obligation to spell out in the contract what is and isn't to be covered. If everyone, insurance company and insured, are above board when it comes to purchasing coverage it ultimately works out best for both parties. Who knows what the market for my plane is. I have two classified ads from July '05 for two converted '56 172's with somewhat the same tt & tsmo. One is "asking" $41,300 & the other one $43,000, but as we all know any airplane (or anything else for that matter) is worth no more than what someone is willing to pay regardless of what someone else sold theirs for or what the current owner "thinks" his or her's is worth. The point about checking your policy for exclusions, etc. is a VERY valid point. While most of the general public doesn't realize it or if they do so they ignore it, an insurance policy is no different than any other legal contract. It is your responsibility to read the contract and hopefully understand what the contact says. If you don't understand any part of it you are remiss if you don't contact your agent/broker and have them carefully explain any questions you have. That is what you are paying them to do. That is what they are being paid their commission to do. I am sure you have read your policy. Some of us unfortunately write a check and put the policy away until renewal time or until something happens. Then we frantically dig out the contract and try to figure out where we stand. It is always best to know before and incident what coverages we have rather than after the fact when its too late to make changes. That reminds me I need to be sure to read my renewal when it gets here

I paid $43K for my airplane, and attempted to insure it for $50K. The underwriter balked at that, and I insisted on the higher hull value based upon my aircraft's restoration quality and condition. They required certain proofs of that condition, and I offered them a copy of the letters from the judges at Oshkosh and Sun-N-Fun, and a long list of the restoration accomplishments, along wiith current photos illustrating the details of it's condition. They quickly agreed to insure it for the requested amount.
Two years later they offered to raise it's hull value to $55K based upon appreciation. They have since agreed to $60K, which is what I have it insured for. In other words, I don't think a well-cared for example of this model aircraft is impossible to obtain higher hull coverage....it's just that it will likely be necessary to do a bit of "convincing".

gahorn wrote: Two years later they offered to raise it's hull value to $55K based upon appreciation. They have since agreed to $60K, which is what I have it insured for. In other words, I don't think a well-cared for example of this model aircraft is impossible to obtain higher hull coverage....it's just that it will likely be necessary to do a bit of "convincing".

I had absolutely no trouble getting Avemco to cover mine for $63K. The amount was never even brought into question.