Posted for Dan O'Brien <limadelta@gmail.com>:

 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