Just got renewal quotes from BWI. My first year with no maule time was $3300 last year. Just had to do a 1 hour checkout.

2022 will be $2500, same hull of $80k. Have only flown it 25 hours in that year, but have flown 600hrs in other planes in the year.

Pretty good drop, most ant plane of mine has ever dropped on a year.

I just renewed with Travers Insurance under written by AIG and it was $2300 for 80K hull. 200 hours in a Maule, 300 TW, and 1300TT. Only change from last year was that AIG no longer allows an open pilot clause, named pilots only.

Just got my final quote from BWI...not happy and considering liability only. Commercial/SEL/MEL/IFR/High Perf/Jet/Turboprop; 3500 TT, over 1100 hours flying in AK, 220 TW, 210 in the M-7. 95K Hull value and the price went up from $3600 to $4100 for the year. Current BFR/Class III Medical and under 60 years old...

I feel like this is way out of bounds considering other recent posts on here. I know AK drives rates higher but this will make insurance my single highest cost of airplane ownership.

Thoughts?

It’s infuriating, but nothing to be done that I can see to change the rates.

In the end, it’s a numbers game. Figure out how many years of premium adds up to the hull value on your policy. Then look dispassionately and honestly at your type of flying and your chances of going that many years without having a significant claim. For some, like those who stick to airports and nice weather, the math may be in favor of going without. For others, especially those who spend a lot of time landing off-airport, in short, rough spots, especially pioneering new landing sites, and/or operating in bad weather, the math may make having insurance the better bet, despite the increased cost.

Andy, that is great insight and yes it is infuriating...especially for us Alaskans that seem to take the brunt of these high rates based on other posts on this topic from fellow Maule owners in other states. As for your considerations, I often land off airport, but not at strips that others have not pioneered first and told me about. I rarely push the weather...that is the advantage of being an airplane owner and flying when I want to fly, not being told by an employer I have to fly. So for your considerations I put my risk right in the middle of the spectrum. Your thoughts about how many years of insurance to replace the airplane are also great. At this point I am leaning toward liability only to protect my family and assets and taking the risk of not flying anymore if the worst case were to happen.

My renewal with AIG this year was $2,921 for $120K hull and $1M/$100K/$5K liability. Only $454 was the liability. Hull was $2,466. That includes the broker's fee but it wasn't broken out separately so I don't know how much it was - probably around $300. That's with about 2,900 hrs total, 1,700 make/model, commercial certificate, instrument rating, no claims and over 70 age. As you can see, hull coverage is the main driver of premium cost. I'd consider lowering, but not dropping your hull coverage. If you drop it, you might not be able to restore it at all if you change your mind later.

The thought of a reduced hull value has crossed my mind. If you bend the plane then hopefully you have part of the money to put it back together. The only problem with that thought is that once you have an insurance claim, the plane belongs to the insurance company. I have not figured out how to make sure that the plane stays with me. What I have been told is that once the damage reaches half the value, the insurance company will call it a total lose. At that point it gets auctioned off for the insurance company to try and recover some of there money. At this point my though process is liability only, or insure it for the hull value that makes you feel like you got enough of your money back when the insurance company cuts you a check.

Does any one else have thoughts on this?

I have read articles cautioning under insuring for hull. As described in your above post, the insurance company will be more likely to write off a total loss. It’s their airplane then, they get to call the shots.

If you have high value avionics and a low time engine, they are more likely to auction some or all of it. They will make more money than offering you a low amount to keep the airplane. One advantage you have to settling with the insurer for a reduced payout to keep the airplane is that they will most likely save the expense of moving, storing and auctioning the aircraft.

I don’t have any experience with real world numbers to offer as an example. In the automotive world, I had a vehicle totalled by hail damage. The options were: 1) $2300 payout car is theirs. 2) $1800 payout and I keep the car.

In that case, I had been planning on selling the car anyway, so I jumped on the full payout.

Kirk

When I had a hail claim the totaled versus hull value percentage was closer to 65-75%. I actually had to reduce the payout costs by paying for some of the work myself versus having the plane totaled. I had to sign away my rights to additional costs if the plane had any more repairs required over and above the agreed to estimate to fix it.

Good to hear they worked with you and gave you options. Hope I never have to find out.

Kirk

I was really frustrated with Avemco when I sold my RV6 and added the M5. I have 5K of TW (banner towing ill spent youth) and my rate went from $790 annual to $2870 ($80K hull value) I had the RV insured comprehensive ground which fully covers the value up to and including application of T/O thrust. But $2000 more for the same hull value seemed excessive. When I queried my agent he said they don't consider experience valid for claim discounts on high risk aircraft. Wut??? Hey I'm an ATP with 20K no accidents...don't matter.
Ok cancel my policy por favor...
I got a quote for $1795 annually with $80K hull locally. (TX) Still high but less than Avemco
Had me hooked up in less than 5min.
Give em a ring...
V/R
Smokey

Ladd Gardner Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc.
PO Box 183 | Addison, TX 75001
Office: 972.250.0400 | Fax: 972.250.0401
www.lgainsurance.com

I have a MXT now because an insurance company refused to pay a claim for the previous owner because the insured spelled their name incorrectly on the policy. Hummmm, sounds fishy and maybe sleezy. I stopped buying full coverage years ago. Liability and thief is all that I get.

The problem with us Bush flying backcountry crowd is that the data indicates more claims than say a RV or other type. Heck, my Aerostar insurance was cheaper. (Best twin ever made).

The point is that the only way to get get the rates down is either through less claims, and or more competition. Until then, us tailwheel folks got to lick our wounds and stop filing claims. Fix it or sell it to me and let me put it in the pile of projects I have lined up while I grow old.

The problem with deciding on the amount of hull coverage is determining what your airplane is worth and convincing the insurance company. I was able to convince AIG to value my airplane at $120K because of all the things that Maule Flight did during the rebuild in 2010. When I rented Lori MacNichol's Super Cub in 2012 for mountain-canyon flying training, she insisted that my insurance be at least $120K to cover their airplane so that's how I arrived at $120K. Full replacement value for my airplane would likely be over $200K now. Since hull coverage is the main driver of the premium cost, you have a lot of room to work with in deciding the hull value. You could use VREF to value your airplane but there aren't many standard ways to come up with a hull value other than looking for similar aircraft for sale.

It seems like Assured Partners / AOPA is still coming up with comparatively reasonable rates on my MXT: $115K hull coverage for $1595. A little over 1000 hour pilot with right at 100 hours in the Maule.

Tricycle gear always cost less to insure than conventional gear. Since the rates are adjusted annually based on industry costs for losses, I'm afraid they will go up again next year. A lot of the cost of hull insurance isn't driven by pilot errors, but by weather. When hurricanes and tornados destroy airports and planes on the ground, that all adds significantly to the losses the insurance companies have to protect against. As severe weather gets more and more common, I fear rates will increase to the point that I have to sell my Maule. It would be helpful (for me) if hull insurance rates were based on conditions at my home base (mild weather year round and no severe weather issues like tornados, hurricanes or forest fires), but since planes were designed to cover distance quickly, where we're based is not necessarily where the loss will occur unless we have a hangar queen. If you have a hangar queen, you might as well sell it anyway. I get about 120 hours/year on my Maule but high ownership costs are making me think about a different hobby for the future. That makes me sad.