What runway requirements do Visicover impose, and is it tailored to the aircraft type? Is it for just the hull coverage, or for the liability too (in other words, legally preventing you from using that runway because you’re effectively uninsured)?
my aircraft is in Germany and it is insured via a German broker.
I pay about 1152 euros for 45k hull insurance with 2k downpayment
I have 150 hours total and about 100 on my aircraft type.
Hello All,
My name is Bob Bevan and I, along with my fellow director Jan Houlberg, set up Visicover.
As there are a number of comments about our service in this thread I thought it might be helpful to run through the main points and hopefully clarify them.
Firstly, with regard to the provision of a phone number, Visicover is fundamentally a web based service which enables owners to not only quote for and buy their insurance online, but also amend their cover whenever they want, 24/7/365. We actively promote it as an ‘online’ service as we want to ensure owners recognise that to use it, they must have internet access and be comfortable using the web-based functionality we provide.
Given the above, we do not promote a telephone number via the site. However, we recognise that occasionally an owner may have a query on how to use the site or some aspect of cover. In these instances, they simply need to email our contact address and we will get back to them as soon as possible. If the enquiry is complex, we may well call them back.
I would stress that we do provide a 24-hour claims hotline service for claims notification and management, the number for which is issued to policyholders.
One of the benefits of an online model is it can allow the aircraft owner to tailor make the cover to their needs. It is this ability to fine tune the cover, in combination with our low admin costs from enabling clients to self-serve, which helps drive our premium competitiveness. One variable an owner can decide is where they want to fly, as there is a difference in risk from a pilot who only stays in their own country to one who wishes to fly far further afield. Thus it is not that we do not cover Serbia, it is just the client can chose whether they wish to include this option for an additional premium. Of course, because the client can change their cover at any time with immediate effect via the site with no admin cost, they may decide not to have cover for that country initially, but only add it later when they need it.
With regard to the cover we provide, our wording, in common with other aircraft policies, is based on AVN1C/E which is a market standard wording. As such there is little real difference between covers so I am unsure of the origin of the point raised regarding departing on a runway which is not authorised by the aircraft manufacturer.
There was a comment in one post to the effect that we might not pay out on common accidents which other providers might cover. Again I am unsure of the basis of this statement in that, as stated above, the cover wordings tend to be similar and we use a claims management assessment service which is also used by other providers. On the grounds that self-praise is no recommendation, I would suggest that if people want to know more about how we handle claims, they google ‘Visicover claims’ and see what comments our clients have posted online.
I would say that, again in common with other aircraft policies, our wording includes a condition to the effect that for the cover to operate the aircraft must be operated in line with the regulations relating to its use. This can include issues such a maintenance regime, pilot licencing etc, but we are not difference from other providers in this respect.
We do take a slightly more benign view of medicals than some, based on the fact that it is illegal for a pilot to fly without appropriate liability cover. There is a regulatory framework to define medical requirements, so if a pilot meets these, it is not for an insurer to effectively ban them from flying by precluding cover.
We do ask for information about a pilot flying history, including experience, claims and violations, so providing information on the last of these is simply part of the rating assessment. Generally speaking, so long as the violation did not incur a penalty (e.g. fine, long term suspension etc) it will not impact the risk assessment.
There were a few other queries in the post which were more about aircraft insurance in general so I will also try to address these.
Firstly, since 30 April 2005, EC Regulation EC 785/2004 made it a legal requirement in the EU that aircraft owners hold at least a minimum level of insurance to cover their potential liabilities to third parties, as well as passengers if their aircraft can carry passengers. Different countries passed their own legislation to apply these regulation (e.g. in the UK it was achieved via the Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005).
The minimum requirements vary based on the aircraft MTOW, number of passenger seats and whether or not it is used for commercial purposes. The minimums are expressed in Standard Drawing Rights which are then converted to local currency, so exchange rate fluctuations come in to play. For example, the devaluation of Sterling over recent years has meant some UK owners have had to buy more liability cover in £ to meet the same minimum SDR requirement.
A given owner with a single passenger seat might need to hold at least £125,000 passenger liability cover and £750,000 third party liability cover. Of course if there is an accident in which a passenger is injured, the owner may well find that £125,000 is insufficient to meet the damages awarded by the courts, in which case they would need to pay any excess amount from other assets. To mitigate this risk what many providers now offer is a ‘Combined Single Limit’ (CSL) of liability. Under the above scenario, the insured might have a CSL of £750,000 which will mean a far higher level of protection for the passenger, and ultimately the owner. Indeed we will only offer cover on a CSL basis for this reason.
As mentioned above, holding appropriate liability cover is an legal requirement in the EU so owners should not operate the aircraft without it. There is however no legal requirement to hold hull cover so it is indeed possible to arrange liability only policies. The one level of compulsion which does exist in relation to hull cover is if the aircraft is subject to a lease agreement as the lender will normally require the hull to be covered as a condition of the loan.
There was reference to the idea of a blacklist if an owner shops around. We would certainly not condone such a list should it exist, indeed I would question if it were even legal! We suggest clients should shop around every year, and as with other insurances, we display last year’s premium as well as the coming year’s premium when offering renewal so clients can see any change. It has always struck me as a little odd that people will shop around for their car insurance which might be a couple of hundred pounds but not their aircraft which might be a thousand or more.
Last but not least, there was a comment about light GA insurance rarely working across borders. There are certainly regulatory barriers which need to be considered to provide cover in multiple states, and Brexit is another potential challenge. Furthermore, the costs that can be incurred in overcoming these barriers can be hard to justify when looking at relatively small markets such as GA (I think I posted a question on Euro GA regarding this back in 2013). However these barriers can be overcome, indeed in addition to the UK we now also operate in Ireland, Netherlands, and across the Nordic and Baltic states.
Please accept my apologies for the long winded and very dull post but there were quite a lot of points to cover. I hope the above is of some help but am happy to respond to any questions posters may have.
Cheers,
Bob Bevan.
I’m curious what “regulatory barriers” you have intra-EU (that is, Brexit aside). I’m based in Luxembourg, and have over the years asked quotes from several brokers in Western Europe, and they didn’t bat an eyelash. I don’t think a single one of them has any special procedure or setup in place for handling Luxembourg :)
I’d be happy to get a quote from you, but … non-listed country.
One thing worth checking is whether your policy has an upper age limit in the small print. These can be surprising… I wonder what Visicover have as standard? I looked at mine but could not see one.
Regards “overseas insurance” I asked all the brokers with stands at Aero EDNY and all said they won’t do UK based aircraft. Usually the muppet at the stand said Yes, took down my details, and then later the office said No. This was years ago, however.
Surprisingly I was alerted recently to a clause which gave an upper age limit of 65 on the policy. Now it was an any pilot policy, but it resulted in a rejected claim. It was a Visicover on line policy, and the insurers were AIG. Certainly worth checking all policy details. That of course is the issue of on line policies. Sometimes very difficult to get what you want on the detail and you only find out when it is too late. I am reverting to the good old broker who I can discuss my exact requirements with.
Stand by for Increased Insurance Premiums
Whilst we watch with some baited breath as the 737 Max saga rolls on and airframes remain on the ground an inside whisper has me looking at the effect of all of this may have on our insurance premiums. An industry known for its love of customers I feel sure that some of the love will be spread our way, GA, as the now massive claims continue as these aeroplanes remain grounded.
We are going to be paying more for the fact that the plane was grounded than for the actual crashes. Had it just been the cost of claims associated with the crash that wouldn’t have been felt in the wider market.
The 10s of billions associated with the grounding of the aeroplanes is what all the insurance companies are now feeling. You can bet they’re going to spread that love across all of their customers. Aircraft owners with our generally higher disposable incomes and resultant price insensitivity are probably getting a bigger share than most but everyone is going to feel it.
Time will of course tell.
In the turbine world, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Sometimes doubling for lower risk.
Don’t Boeing pay compensation to the airlines?
JasonC wrote:
In the turbine world, insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Sometimes doubling for lower risk.
Has that been recent? If so the effect is already being felt. All of us will eventually pay for this corporate mess. I realise some paid with their lives which is totally unforgivable, but as with the banks, all of us pay financially for these decisions made by Corporate boards.
