The International Cessna^® 170 Association

In another thread I responded to a member's decision to fly without any type of insurance, not even liability insurance. That response was criticized for complicating that discussion, and perhaps it did. Another member took me to task for making the response I did, as did the person to whom I responded, who asked me to take insurance discussions to another thread of it's own.

The decision to own/operate airplanes without insurance is a matter which I hope everyone who does so will reconsider. In a private msg to a fellow member I wrote:

"Yes, I am very opinionated on this subject. I have had my airplane seriously damaged by another un-insured person's airplane which was not tied down properly. A wind picked it up and dropped it on my Aeronca. I had to eat the repairs while he did nothing about it and continued to operate without liability insurance.
If you operate an automobile...you are likely forced by state law to carry a minimum of liability insurance. I am in favor of federal law to require aircraft and boat owners to do the same, and I hope to bring popular attention to the issue. (How does one rationalize the costs of 10 hours of fuel burn (80 gals @ $4.50 equals the price of a simple liability insurance policy) against the failure to be financially responsible toward others....not just for property damage...but also for physical/medical injuries?)
How does our association deal with this issue? I'll tell you. We expect aircraft owners to carry liability insurance so we don't collectively have to carry convention/fly-in insurance. In other words, we expect our members to carry liability insurance."

I hope everyone who is operating without liability insurance will recognize their responsibility to others (and their responsibility to their own family to protect them from the consequences of their actions.)

I'm just a pauper who had to finance my 50 year old Cessna, so I was required to carry hull insurance by the bank. When my loan is paid off, I fully intend to continue carrying hull insurance so that if I bend the plane, the process of getting back to a flyable state (for myself and the plane) won't be such a financial burden.

When you're used to paying $1300 a year for the full meal deal, carrying just liability seems like a bargain. But, most people only see the insurance as a way to protect their investment, the plane. The day your plane gets blown down the ramp on top of a Citation jet owned by lawyers who WILL come after you is going to be a rough day.

As far as enforcing liability insurance, I am wary of state or federal laws requiring this. Although it seems to work for the autos, there's a lot more of them out there. I worry that the insurance companies could really start gouging if they knew it was required by law. Industry competition is the only thing keeping it affordable.

Actually, insurance company's hate mandatory insurance laws. They don't like it for several reasons, the primary one being that they want to be able to choose who to insure and who not to insure. (Assigned-risk programs are their nemesis. If the law req's us both to have insurance, the law must also provide a method for both of us to obtain it, therefore it must require the insurers to carry us. When TX legistators considered mandatory insurance in this state, the underwriters spent tons of money on their lobbyists fighting it. It resulted in an under-insured/un-insured clause for those who drove into the state with out-of-state registered vehicles. A national/federal law would more accurately/fairly address the issue, in my opinion.)

gahorn wrote:In another thread I responded to a member's decision to fly without any type of insurance, not even liability insurance. That response was criticized for complicating that discussion, and perhaps it did. Another member took me to task for making the response I did, as did the person to whom I responded, who asked me to take insurance discussions to another thread of it's own.

The decision to own/operate airplanes without insurance is a matter which I hope everyone who does so will reconsider. In a private msg to a fellow member I wrote:

"Yes, I am very opinionated on this subject. I have had my airplane seriously damaged by another un-insured person's airplane which was not tied down properly. A wind picked it up and dropped it on my Aeronca. I had to eat the repairs while he did nothing about it and continued to operate without liability insurance.
If you operate an automobile...you are likely forced by state law to carry a minimum of liability insurance. I am in favor of federal law to require aircraft and boat owners to do the same, and I hope to bring popular attention to the issue. (How does one rationalize the costs of 10 hours of fuel burn (80 gals @ $4.50 equals the price of a simple liability insurance policy) against the failure to be financially responsible toward others....not just for property damage...but also for physical/medical injuries?)
How does our association deal with this issue? I'll tell you. We expect aircraft owners to carry liability insurance so we don't collectively have to carry convention/fly-in insurance. In other words, we expect our members to carry liability insurance."

I hope everyone who is operating without liability insurance will recognize their responsibility to others (and their responsibility to their own family to protect them from the consequences of their actions.)

I agree with everything you said and I am happy to see your opinion presented in a non-condescending manner that does not have the feeling of a personal attack.......

gahorn wrote: I hope everyone who is operating without liability insurance will recognize their responsibility to others (and their responsibility to their own family to protect them from the consequences of their actions.)

Well said and I totally agree!

gahorn wrote: I hope everyone who is operating without liability insurance will recognize their responsibility to others (and their responsibility to their own family to protect them from the consequences of their actions.)

I put liability insurance in a similar category as maintenance: The day I can no longer afford it for my airplane, is the day I can no longer afford to fly. That is an absolute. No questions asked.

The very first in the list of the purposes for which The International Cessna 170 Association was formed is To encourage, aid and engage in the preservation, improvement, and better understanding of Cessna 170 aircraft. Hull insurance goes a long way toward the preservation of my 170. It wouldn't bankrupt me to lose the airplane, but it would be a hard financial pill to swallow to have to pay out my pocket to return it to airworthiness after substantial damage for which I was responsible. I figure I owe it to the breed to do what I can to ensure (by insuring) the prolonged existence of '98C.

Miles

Don't feel bad, George, you're opiniated, but that's fine. Better than 'Wishy-Washy'!
I too think a person is foolish to operate without liability insurance. One should be responsable for one's actions toward others. In the past I have forgone hull insurance, which is my business, but I want to be responsable to others.
As cessna170bdriver said, it's like maintance - if I can't afford it, I shouldn't fly.
I know insurance in Alaska is high. I remember going there for the 1988 convention. I bought insurance from AVEMCO, as whomever I was with at the time wouldn't insure me. AVEMCO only insured to the Arctic Circle. I worried all the time I was North of that.
I'll keep my insurance, it's only about $1000/year. Enough to hurt, but not as much as destroying someones property, or worse, hurting or killing someone!

We carry liability and Hull insurance on our 171 and have for over 20 years. Recently I got to figuring how much we had paid in those years, thinking since we had never had a claim for anything, and with our vast experience maybe we should go with just liability .
Aopa kept raising our rates so we switched to Travers this year. Shortly after that Dad apparently got caught in a dust devil on landing. Despite full Lt rudder and brake he went into the Rt fence. Doing the after incident review the ground track confirmed his story. The comparision bid for repair by Beagles in Denver came to $32,000.
Just for your information, supposedly insurance companies total after the estimate adds up to 70% of the insured value . The way Travers agent was talking they talk total at about 50% of the insured value. Long story short Travers offered us $25,000 and said take it or leave it. If we said no they would take the airplane,and pay us off. When I offered to split the difference to get closer to our $29,000 bid while keeping them within their self imposed 70 % I was told " Our offers are NOT negotiable" .
So moral of the story is make sure you are sufficiently insured no matter what your experience level or you could be in a tussel to keep your pride and joy for being scrapped out.

Insurance people LOVE folks like all of you

Don't get me wrong I have insurance 1) because I have to thanks to the bank, and 2) because I can't afford not to in case of a lawsuit. But that stops far short of a moral obligation

How is it a moral obligation to subsidize an industry that by definition profits on the potential misfortune of others?

gahorn wrote:In another thread I responded to a member's decision to fly without any type of insurance, not even liability insurance. That response was criticized for complicating that discussion, and perhaps it did. Another member took me to task for making the response I did, as did the person to whom I responded, who asked me to take insurance discussions to another thread of it's own.

The decision to own/operate airplanes without insurance is a matter which I hope everyone who does so will reconsider. In a private msg to a fellow member I wrote:

"Yes, I am very opinionated on this subject. I have had my airplane seriously damaged by another un-insured person's airplane which was not tied down properly. A wind picked it up and dropped it on my Aeronca. I had to eat the repairs while he did nothing about it and continued to operate without liability insurance.
If you operate an automobile...you are likely forced by state law to carry a minimum of liability insurance. I am in favor of federal law to require aircraft and boat owners to do the same, and I hope to bring popular attention to the issue. (How does one rationalize the costs of 10 hours of fuel burn (80 gals @ $4.50 equals the price of a simple liability insurance policy) against the failure to be financially responsible toward others....not just for property damage...but also for physical/medical injuries?)
How does our association deal with this issue? I'll tell you. We expect aircraft owners to carry liability insurance so we don't collectively have to carry convention/fly-in insurance. In other words, we expect our members to carry liability insurance."

I hope everyone who is operating without liability insurance will recognize their responsibility to others (and their responsibility to their own family to protect them from the consequences of their actions.)

Gee I didn't see this thread before I made the other posts! But now I'm starting to get a little bit pissed off! So I'm going to go to bed and think about what you have written. Right now I think I'm going to drop it because I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you. It would take far too much time to debate and I don't think anything good would come of it, this is one of the topics you should have Dropped. But that is just this man's opinion.

futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
How is it a moral obligation to subsidize an industry that by definition profits on the potential misfortune of others?

Your obligation is not to the insurance industry. It is to your fellow citizens.

For example, if a pilot visiting you were to misjudge his base turn and put his airplane into the Black Bear Coffee Shop, he would have a moral obligation to replace the damaged property and pay the medical bills of the tourists who are inside experiencing the wilds of Alaska with a double skinny latte with extra foam.

In the event that he perishes in this unfortunate mixture of espresso, steamed milk, and airplane, his estate will be held responsible. If he, or his estate, cannot afford to reimburse your neighbors for the potential losses, then he has an obligation (to you and your neighbors) to carry insurance.

It's easy to forget that even though insurance companies profit from the potential misfortune of others, they do provide a service. That is they spread the risk. When one pilot has an accident, all the others pay a little more in premiums to cover it. We all pitch in and pay a little because most of us can't afford to pay for all the potential losses by our self.

If some bozo comes along and injures you or damages your property, I'm pretty sure you would think he has a moral obligation to you to reimburse you for your losses.

KG wrote:
If some bozo comes along and injures you or damages your property, I'm pretty sure you would think he has a moral obligation to you to reimburse you for your losses.

Nope. Just a legal one

I try to keep money and morals and insurance salesmen all separate from each other

And I differ from George's opinion in that I believe it is best to keep insurance men and politicians from jumping in bed together, at all costs.

George, why didn't you sue the guy who dropped his plane on your Aeronca? Lots of lawyers would have taken that case for a third of the judgement and it would have gotten you some condiseration had you won.