Mike highlights one of the biggest problems with insurance in post #38 which is that we as consumers have lost sight of what it should be for!

The earliest forms of insurance were to cover catastrophic loss, such as a ship and its cargo being lost at sea. Individual ship owners could not cope with the financial impact of such calamities so they created a pool of money from which those who suffered losses would be compensated. Building property insurance evolved from this, but the perils covered were limited to risks such as fire where the consequence was again usually a total, catastrophic loss.

However over time insurance has expanded to cover a whole range of risks which, if they were too occur, would not really cause a life changing loss to the owner, such as accidental damage to a TV set on a contents policy or adding cover for personal possessions to a motor policy. Insurers would argue that these are giving better cover but of course what they are really trying to do is generate additional income.

The results is that insurance is generally far more expensive than it needs to be because it now includes cover for minor events which do not really impact the livelihood of the owner at risk but which do cost insurers a lot because of the disproportionately high operational cost of servicing small claims.

This same problem can be seen in aviation insurance where a lot of ‘free’ covers are included which in truth the aircraft owner still pays for within their premium whether they want it or not. In addition owners are not encouraged to pay high excesses because that would reduce premiums and hence the commission paid to brokers. Aircraft owners should be allowed to choose stripped down hull or liability cover if they want, to add optional covers (e.g. spares, PA etc) only if they feel they need them, and to select higher excess levels in return for premium discounts.

Rant over :ugh:

While there is admirable concern for others in your logic, no one insures for the maximum damage they might do to third parties. Some people choose the very selfish, ' I'll be dead and they can sort themselves so I don't need any insurance' strategy. Some look and say, 'I have a £100m estate, if anything happens that involves me at all, 'I will be the deep pockets so I need a lot of insurance'

But most people (who think about it at all) will have a logic something like 'what is the probability of a loss at x level and how much will it cost to insure against it, and what is the consequence to me and my loved ones of loosing everything if I don't insure to this level.

The end result should be, a reasonably high level of insurance for third party liability to cover the overwhelming majority of feasible outcomes. Pretty much everyone flying accepts that if through their negligence they take down a $400m American Airlines 747 with $5bn in personal injury claims, they and their estate are going to be wiped out, but also that the lawsuit will include ATC, American, Boeing, etc. in order to supplement the very shallow pockets of any normal individual.

What should be of concern to pilots is flying with 100k in passenger liability sub limits, which is in adequate to cover even the most basic and high probability liability.

By way of update I heard back from my life insurance company today, there is no rating or additional premium to be paid as a result of PPL training in my particular case.