REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
Scott Derrick
reflector@tvbf.org
Wed, 07 May 2003 07:47:41 -0600
The last news letter indicated Scott Swing had given up for lack of
interest.
I think the only way we could restart his engines would be to provide
him a list of interested "Flying" owners. It would have to be 30+ people.
Scott
Wayne Owens wrote:
> If auto engines are not excluded I'm interested.
> Wayne
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Hugel" <bhugel@lehightechnology.com>
> To: <reflector@tvbf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:43 PM
> Subject: RE: REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
>
>
>
>>Scott Swing can count me in..
>>Bob
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On
>>Behalf Of Scott Derrick
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 8:56 PM
>>To: reflector@tvbf.org
>>Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
>>
>>
>>A coop was suggested by Scott Swing last year. He requested everybody
>>who was interested to let him know. I think only about 4 or 5 of us
>>responded.
>>
>>I think he though that we needed a minimum of 30 to 40 individuals to
>>make it work.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>Chuck Jensen wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>The seeming endless inconsistencies and disparities of insurance
>>>practices are not really incongruent when you consider that "they just
>>>make up the rules as they go along." Honest, no kidding. Insurance
>>>underwriting and the weather have one thing in common; they change
>>>daily...and usually for the worse. As Hytec45 mentioned, the insurance
>>>companies took a whippin' on 9/11, and now we're the "whippees."
>>>
>>>It's so darn complicated, but a Coop for hull insurance that was talked
>>>about in the Newsletter really does make good sense. Hull insurance is
>>>a different animal than liability insurance because hull damage is
>>>quantifiable and estimable, unlike liability which only stops at the
>>>limits of a lawyer's mind.
>>>
>>>I'm not going to volunteer to set it up, but a non-profit Coop that
>>>charged 3-5% of the hull value and rebated the excess over the paid-loss
>>>experience (and overhead), could end up providing hull insurance for an
>>>effective 1-2% of the hull value.....which is something we could all
>>>live with. The loss experience on the Velocity since the Factory
>>>started their Checkout and Aircraft inspection program has improved
>>>markedly (at least according to anecdotal comments in the Newsletter).
>>>
>>>If someone is brave enough (ne: stupid enough) to want to think about
>>>setting up a Coop, I'd be willing to seriously consider putting in seed
>>>money. I suspect that Velocity would be most helpful in establishing
>>>a "relationship" to the factory for continued aircraft inspection and
>>>pilot checkouts. Given the relatively low cost of repairing Velocities
>>>compared to Kansas Cans after a fender-bender, there is little reason
>>>that hull insurance should be 5% of the value of the plane....when we
>>>can even get it. If I lived in FL close to the Factory, I'd try doing
>>>it tomorrow, but I don't, so I won't, but that doesn't mean it's not a
>>>good idea for someone else that has time on their hands, is
>>>organized, knows Velocities and is hands-on.
>>>
>>>Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On
>>> Behalf Of Andy Millin
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:36 PM
>>> To: reflector@tvbf.org
>>> Subject: RE: REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> Funny, I JUST renewed my "Aircraft Under Construction" with Avemco.
>>> It was $550/yr.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org
>>> [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On Behalf Of Bob Hugel
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:31 PM
>>> To: reflector@tvbf.org
>>> Subject: RE: REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
>>>
>>> Larry,
>>> I called Avemco on Thursday of last week to ask about Builders
>>> Insurance. They told me that they do not insure Velocity Kits
>>> because they felt that since they do not insure the plane when
>>> it is complete it was not fair to insure the kit. This seems
>>> like a recent change on their part.
>>>
>>> I was quoted for a $60K replacement cost kit, $600/yr by Falcon
>>> on the same day (I'm instrument rated). Falcon suggested that I
>>> call Avemco because they felt that Avemco could do a better
>>> price, but as it turns out, they will not bother.
>>>
>>> Today, I emailed Pam with all the particulars and I'm awaiting a
>>> response on price.
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: reflector-admin@tvbf.org
>>> [mailto:reflector-admin@tvbf.org]On Behalf Of
>>
>>Milehitaz@aol.com
>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 2:46 PM
>>> To: reflector@tvbf.org
>>> Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:More Insurance Woes
>>>
>>> I am using Avemco for builders insurance. It runs me about
>>> 450 a year. Your right, it's very strange that they will
>>> offer me the build Ins, and the cheapest in the biz, but
>>> don't want me when it comes time to fly. Oh well. Best to
>>
>>all,
>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To change your email address, visit
>>http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>>
>>Visit the gallery! tvbf:jamaicangoose
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To change your email address, visit
>
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
>>Visit the gallery! tvbf:jamaicangoose
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery! tvbf:jamaicangoose
>