X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [70.8.200.177] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.3c5) with HTTP id 946794 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 16 May 2005 22:29:35 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lancair Mutual Insurance? To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.3c5 Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:29:35 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for Dan O'Brien : I've often wished that insurance companies would be willing to write more "complete" insurance contracts, i.e., contracts that specify more contincencies that will or will not be covered. There are at least two reasons why the market might not offer more complete contracts of the type that Stu proposes: 1) the sample is too small to make a reasonable risk assessment of a particular contingency; 2) a gazillion lawyers stand ready to contest whether a particular contingency has or has not been met. It seems like the first issue can be overcome with risk assessments based on all light planes. However, if insurance companies are suspicious of Lancairs for any reason, the sample size becomes an issue. The second issue is almost surely a major obstacle. Companies don't want to write policies that are likely to lead to significant litigation expense. Until we see serious tort reform in this country (unlikely given the vested interests), I doubt that policies will become much more tailored to individual customers' preferences. Such policies are just too expensive for the companies to enforce. I hope I'm wrong. I am more than willing to go in on a group if we can get a policy aimed at covering those risks over which the pilot has the least amount of control. Dan