If you need insurance...

[aviator79]

How much liability did the insurance company pay out for your incident?

If the answer is $0.00 then getting liability shouldn't be that hard.

They paid zero in liability, but let me tell you, nothing makes sense about the industry right now. None of the underwriters would even quote a liability-only policy for the plane - not even while it's not in motion. They wouldn't even quote a liability policy for my hangar. None of this makes any sense. The agents said right now ANY loss history makes you completely untouchable for two years. The only motivation I can think of for why this is the case is that the carriers want to make it as painful as possible to make a claim in order to discourage pilots from making claims for covered losses. I'm not suggesting there should be no consequence. It would make sense to require additional training, charge higher premiums, and/or to put more specific operational restrictions in place. Completely shutting pilots out who have made one claim in 25 years is purely punitive. Fortunately, Travers found a carrier willing to be reasonable.

I would keep this in mind when shopping. Knowing that the potential consequence of a claim is to be uninsurable for two years makes any discussion of deductibles meaningless. They will all by lower than the point at which it's worth it to make a claim.

[AMK53]

I wonder how they would treat you if the accident is not your fault.

[Clark in AZ]

Thanks Brian for the heads up. Glad you were able to get re-insured. Not a good position to be in for sure.

Clark

[aviator79]

I wonder how they would treat you if the accident is not your fault.

While I was not being reckless per se, my incident was the result of my failure to correctly evaluate the condition of the landing surface. The contributing factors are many, and that's a whole discussion unto itself. That said, bear in mind that this was not a reportable incident, and no official determination of fault or cause was ever made. The only information the underwriters had was that there was loss due to a landing incident, and the amount of the loss. It's reasonable to infer that small claims on landing are almost universally pilot error, but nobody asked probing questions to try to determine the exact circumstances or assign fault.

I have heard, purely anecdotally, that if the claim is very clearly due to mechanical failure, you are not likely be non-renewed by your carrier. Avemco told me that if my policy had been with them, they probably would not have non-renewed my policy over a claim of this size, but they would not quote me on a new policy.

[109JB]

That said, bear in mind that this was not a reportable incident,

I remember seeing your thread about the accident. Technically it was reportable because of the bent wing strut. The other damage during recovery is not included in the assessment, but the bent wing strut was due to the nose over and would put it over the edge for "substantial damage"