insurance

[Edward]

Who has the best rates for insureing my kitfox that will be finished this summer? I will be a student pilot and would like some info please help Ed

[sdemeyer]

My dad wanted to get a KF last year. He does not have a license and would have been a student pilot. To make a long story short, Avemco and Falcon both told him they would not insure the airplane with him as a student pilot and the airplane being a taildragger. They said he had to have something like 50 hours before being considered. There are other insurance agencies but he dropped the idea at that point.

[kitfoxnick]

I was in the same situation as Sdemeyers dad when I bought my Kitfox. I called the big boys and the agents who answered had no desire to work that hard to find underwriting. Found insurance I think it was through Hallmark Ins. They required me to have 10 hours dual. Which wasn't a problem as I needed that training anyway. They required anyone not listed on the policy to have a ppl with 500 hours 100 tail wheel and 5 in type. I think 0 time experimental taildragger pilots scare underwriters. My agent name is John Shimer with Aviation Insurance Resources his # is 877-247-7769. Give him a call he was able to help me.

[Paul Z]

Heck,

I have 28 hours of tail dragger time, and I was told I needed 10hours in type if I were going to get a taildragger. I figure I would fly 10 or so hours at risk!

[pperry]

I have purchased my insurance for the 2 years that I have owned my Kitfox IV Speedster through the EAA program which uses Falcon Ins as the broker and the actual insuring company has been Global. I have a little over 700 total hrs, 100 tailwheel of which about 70 is in the Kitfox. I just rec'd my renewal and the premium has increased to $995 and this is for liability and not in motion only coverage. This is about what I paid the first year, but last year it was about $100 or so lower and was hoping it would decrease again this year instead of increasing. Quotes on full coverage the previous years were about $500 more and I haven't asked this year. I realize that the cost of the premium is affected by a lot of factors such as where the plane is located/hangar'd, age of pilot (I'm 58), pilot rating (I'm still a private pilot with current medical), and previous ins claims (I did have a C172 destroyed inside a hangar during a storm). Previous to owning the Kitfox I could get full coverage on a C172 valued at $35k for less than $800/yr and I insured a Cherokee 140 in 2007 ($30k) for less than $600/yr., so I have been disapointed at the cost of insuring the Kitfox. I would appreciate knowing if what I'm presently paying is consistent with what others are paying and if anyone else has a better deal ??? Thanks, Paul Perry
Kitfox IV Speedster
912UL/IVO Prop

[kitfoxnick]

I'm 34 ppl with 165 total hours 150hrs tailwheel no claim history. My insurance company is specialty aviation underwriters.


$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Including $100,000 per passenger sub-limit
$390
Medical Payments: $3,000 each person
$Incl.
Physical Damage: $27,000 Deductibles: not in motion $100 ; in motion $1000
$945
Other Coverage:
$
Total Annual Investment
$1335

[dholly]

...Hallmark Ins. They required me to have 10 hours dual. Which wasn't a problem as I needed that training anyway. They required anyone not listed on the policy to have a ppl with 500 hours 100 tail wheel and 5 in type.
Not sure how long ago that quote was but it appears a bit different today. Requirement now for a student pilot/Kitfox taildragger owner is 15hrs dual flight instruction in MM to include 20 landings to a full stop prior to solo, then remain under CFI supervision until receipt of Sport Pilot (or PPL) Certificate. Requirements for 'other pilots' (including CFI as named pilot) are: PPL,ASEL,TW with 1000TT/250TW/25MM respectively.

[Jerrytex]

Wow. I didn't realize that insurance was so expensive. I know insurance is great to have but I don't believe that I can afford it. Do most people have insurance on their Kitfoxes?

[Slyfox]

I just renewed for something like 985 for year with hull of 25000. Of course I think all my flight time helps.

[tucsonchris]

I'm currently shopping for liability only, as my first flight is coming up soon.

I'm 48, 115 TT, current medical/flight review, and my ship is a tri-gear.

I'm going with Avemco, at $698 per year for 1M in coverage ($650 after 40 hours) in large part due to positive feedback on other sites.

The other reason I went with them is the fact that I first tried Falcon (EAA). I waited 2 weeks after I submitted my info to them, hoping to hear what companies would cover me. After 2 weeks of hearing nothing, I left a message. Not returned. Left another message 2 days later. Not returned. So I called Avemco direct.

I'm sure there are lots of companies out there...

[Dorsal]

I went with Avemco for the same reasons, very helpful to deal with.

[dholly]

I have an insurance question for new Kitfox owners I've never seen asked...
Specifically, during your first year of ownership, did you opt to include physical damage coverage with your liability insurance?
Between all the forum talk, "How To Fly a Kitfox" books and plain old 'taildragger mystique', there appears plenty inferred or written to put [at least some] fear into some new or transitioning pilots. I'm curious how many owners bit the bullet and ponied up for some hull coverage in year one as they got acquainted with their new (or, new-to-you) Kitfox.

If you had it, did you drop the physical damage coverage at renewal? With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a newly tamed Kitfox to your credit, would you do it again if for nothing more than the peace-of-mind? Of course if you actually collected on a claim, by all means, do tell if you're in the mood to share.

With low hours and 0TW from a long time ago, I opted to take the extra coverage when I bought my Kitfox. Hope I never need it but the rust can get pretty thick after 25+ years. :o

[Dave S]

DH,

For your questions - here is where I ended up - everyone will consider this differently and it all has to do with one balancing what they MIGHT lose in a potential future risk/cost against what they KNOW they will pay for the insurance - all depends on if a person has extra cash to cover a loss if they self insure.

Question 1) "Specifically, during your first year of ownership, did you opt to include physical damage coverage with your liability insurance?"

The logic went something like this for me
a) How much am I willing to take a chance of losing?
b) Have I ever built an airplane before?
c) Have I ever been a test pilot before?
d) Has this airplane ever been off the ground before?
e) Although I planned the test period very carefully and felt that I tried very hard to control risks, do we have geese, vultures, deer, in and on the airport?
f) is it categorically impossible for an engine to fail - ever?
g) How much money do I have in this project?

I carried the hull insurance

Question 2) "If you had it, did you drop the physical damage coverage at renewal?"

The logic went something like this for me
a) How much am I willing to take a chance of losing?
b) Is the environment I fly in completely free of risk?
c) Although I think I try very hard to control risks, try desperately not to screw up do we have geese, vultures, deer, in and on the airport, other planes and other hard things out there in the environment?
f) Is it categorically impossible for an engine to fail - ever?
g) Do bolts and other mechanical things absolutely have no chance of breaking?
h) How much money do I have in this project after a year of depreciation?

I carried the hull insurance

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and a newly tamed Kitfox to your credit, would you do it again if for nothing more than the peace-of-mind?

YES

One has to remember the quote the captain of the Titanic is credited with when he left on his date with the iceberg.....about his up till then pristine career.... "Frankly I have never had any challenges I could not overcome, I have absolute confidence that this voyage will be successful" (or words to that effect).......

This whole thing all has to do with how one feels about their willingness to have a complete uncompensated loss of the airplane if things do not go right, because sometimes they do not go right. I have friends in the Kitfox community who self insure hull and some who pay for it - depends. Right now the plane is worth more than I can afford to lose to a crappy seagull who wants to try out the engine intake.

BTW - I carried builders insurance (basically 1% of stated value) during the build - garages do burn down and tornadoes happen and lots of other stuff.

Nothing is risk fee but we do our best and balance our risk and hope to never have to cash in the insurance policy

Sincerely,

Dave S
KF7

[Paul Z]

Do you have Hull Damage. I got FULL coverage, I wish it was $1335. I have 175 hours.

[Av8r3400]

My first year of Kitfox-ing I have carried only liability ($1m for ~$700 from EAA-Falcon) only due to cost. Full coverage was astronomical, something like $4500 for me as a low time tailwheeler and Kitfox driver.

At this renewal I am hoping to add what a friend called "taxi" hull coverage. That covers damage to the plane while on the ground, not including t/o and landing roll-outs. He carries this on his Champ and it was only a nominal cost compared to "full" hull coverage.

I will have over 200 hours in type by this renewal (August), but have not done any research on it as of yet.

[dholly]

Thanks Dave for quantifying your reply, my thought process paralleled yours closely it would seem. However, I would add that it was NOT an easy a decision for me as we are talking about a much less expensive, pre-enjoyed purchase, already flying w/40 flown off vs. a brand new, never flown, several year investment of your blood, sweat, tears and time. IMO, in addition to the value component, the psychological or emotional attachment a builder has can be very strong. When my Avid+ is built and ready to fly, I suspect the decision will be a whole lot easier.

Some of my owner buddies carry hull, others not as well. Of course, since hull value is only one variable carriers use along with location, use, pilot hours and experience etc., insurance costs offered up by folks in threads like this tend to be all over the board and it will be tough to see any pattern in the replies. Obviously, deductibles can have a huge impact as well. As a result, stating our cost for liability and physical damage coverage calculated as a percentage of insured value, as you've done with the builder's insurance premium, is very helpful.

That was the way I compared my quotes, and thanks to a patient agent I was quite surprised to see how higher or lower hull values effected my premium cost for liability, full in motion and simple not in motion only physical damage cost as well. Changing one effects the others of course but, in some cases, I think the ins. co. actuarial were picking numbers out of the air because the intuitive answer was not always the result (ie. increasing the hull value by 20% might cause the %cost of liability plus N.I.M. only to go down 30%+). Was an interesting exercise to say the least and proved the lowest premium quote was not always the best value.

[dholly]

My first year of Kitfox-ing I have carried only liability ($1m for ~$700 from EAA-Falcon) only due to cost. Full coverage was astronomical, something like $4500 for me as a low time tailwheeler and Kitfox driver.

At this renewal I am hoping to add what a friend called "taxi" hull coverage. That covers damage to the plane while on the ground, not including t/o and landing roll-outs. He carries this on his Champ and it was only a nominal cost compared to "full" hull coverage.
I believe that is referred to as "ground-in-motion" coverage, but I've never heard of if being offered for Experimental aircraft. I'd like to know the particulars too, maybe someone will respond if they have the answer.
>>>Caution, detail ahead!<<<
The only physical damage options available through the two carriers willing to write E-AB aircraft in NY for my risk profile (a third NY carrier Chartis-AIG declined to quote), were "in motion" and "not-in-motion". NIM covers the aircraft so long as it is not moving as a result of it's own power. In addition to the typical hanger fire, theft, damage by others etc., this also includes transport on a trailer (not covered under auto or homeowner's ins.), storage off airport in my garage for the winter (when the floats go on hopefully :)), anywhere really. NIM is cheap... 1.25% to 1.50% of value per year in my experience BUT, shop carefully, deductibles can vary widely. NIM deductibles for the same value in my quotes ranged from $250 to $1000! Unlike other ins. products, you don't select your deductibles with aviation insurance, the carriers set them according to their underwriting policies for your risk profile.

Even if you insure your yellow bird for 2x mine, your liability quote sounds quite a bit more expensive than what I was quoted. As a low TT, 0TW returning student pilot, the one and only carrier writing in NY that offered an in-flight option on my own plane did so at a premium cost of 6.36% of value which includes deductibles of $250 NIM, and $2500 IM (ground-in-motion + in flight).

To break it down further, the premium cost of the liability portion of the full coverage policy and the premium cost of the liability portion of the liability + NIM policy from the same carrier were exactly the same 3.82% of value. Since the premium cost of NIM was 1.25% of value, and the full coverage (NIM+in flight) physical damage premium cost as noted above was 6.36%, it is safe to infer the added IM (ground-in-motion + in flight) coverage cost an additional 5.11% of value.

The same carrier also provided two quotes for liability +NIM only, same deductible but with one quote based on a value 25% higher than the other. In that case, the premium cost of the liability portion actually decreased from 3.82% of value to 2.87% for the higher value policy. However, the premium cost of the NIM portion increased from 1.25% of value to 1.50% for the higher value policy. Net result: total premium cost of the policies as a percentage of aircraft value were 5.07% vs. 4.37% for the lower vs. higher value policy respectively. The total premium cost of the policies in dollar$ increased 14.8% for 25% more coverage.

The bottom line of all this is for standard liability ($1mil/$100k), my best quotes were:

- $760.00 or 5.07% of $15k value, includes Physical Damage for Ground NIM only w/ $250 deductible, 10hr dual instruction requirement, named pilots only

- $873.00 or 4.37% of $20k value, includes Physical Damage for Ground NIM only w/ $250 deductible, 10hr dual instruction requirement, named pilots only

- $1527.00 or 10.18% of $15k value, includes Full Coverage Physical Damage (ground-in-motion + in flight), w/ deductibles of $250 NIM and $2500 IM, 10hr dual instruction requirement, named pilots only

At least that's my experience. Some might say not cheap, but not as bad as I was prepared for either. Most importantly, not prohibitively expensive in my mind. I've received a lot of great advice from this site so I do hope taking time to post all this helps you and others here.

[akarmy]

We seem to have the pro insurance side covered pretty well... now I'll put my 2 cents in for the other side.

I've been flying since 17, built 2 planes and traded for my current Kitfox. On all my planes I've carried Ground - not in motion. Even for the first flights and first years of ownership. Cost is a large part of the equation, however I also have a general aversion to insurance, and figure I trust myself more than the insurance company does. We both don't want me to crash. I like not in motion for the things that I have no chance of influencing...

Just another data point. Everyone has to decide how they want to go about it.

[Dorsal]

So here is another perhaps odd point of view.
First protecting others from my actions is my obligation so I do carry liability.
As for could I afford to loose my plane? I view that a little differently. Owning a plane is liability not an asset in my books, if my plane disappeared tomorrow my finances would improve . The question for me is not could I afford to loose my plane but could I afford to replace it and that also leads to another hard reality for me; If I am involved in an incident that does significant enough damage to my plane that I can not repair it I will very likely not replace it. The only coverage I have for my plane is rent on my hangar, but as has been stated by others this very much a personal choice.
To each their own ..... coverage

[dholly]

Thanks, good perspective for all newcomers to ownership. Personally, I ultimately do trust my abilities but feel the additional cost of ~$750 for full coverage during the first year will help lessen the distraction or worry about transitioning from heavier certified to lighter experimental, nose to tailwheel and simply gaining confidence in a 2-stroke plane. It also offers a measure of protection while I must have other named pilots on the policy, ie. CFI for tailwheel instruction. Once the floats go on, I suspect the decision will be made for me by the carriers and I'll end up with liability and ground not-in-motion-only coverage.

[Paul Z]

The cost of Full coverage depends on the Claimed Value of the aircraft. If you insue it for $40,000, or $60,00 is a BIG difference in insurance cost.