Dear Dr Coetzee
My name is Graham Speller. I am a director of Dennis Jankelow & Associates.
I was concerned to see, in the Microlighters forum, your comment "....do I need to go the expensive Jankelow route for another year...?".
Having discussed the matter with my colleague, Deon Langenhoven, and after reviewing your file, I would like to make a couple of observations.
As you know, we are insurance brokers. We are not an insurance company. We do not set premium rates and we do not decide whether claims are paid or not. As insurance brokers, we represent you in negotiations with Insurers and our function is to (a) provide advice, (b) arrange insurance coverage which fulfils your needs, (c) negotiate the terms and conditions, including premium rates, to your best advantage, (d) collect premium from you and remit it to the Insurers, (d) negotiate claims settlements on your behalf, and so on.
In negotiating the renewal of coverage for ZU-DVE, we secured the best terms available at the time, taking into account the various factors involved, including your current flying experience, the value of the aircraft, etc.
If there were a more competitive alternative available, we would have found it and would have presented it to you. However, there wasn't one at that time.
So what I am really trying to say is that we got the best deal going at that time and so I was a bit disappointed to see your reference to "the expensive Jankelow route.." on the Internet! I think it may have been more accurate - as well as a little fairer! - to refer to "the expensive Santam route" if you felt that way.
I note your comments regarding the ballistic chute fitted to ZU-DVE. Ballistic chutes have been a bone of contention with Insurers for some time. There are differing views as to the value of a ballistic chute from an insurance perspective. Some Insurers (not in SA, but in the global insurance market) feel that ballistic chutes cause more Hull damage than they prevent: usually when the chute deploys accidentally. There is another view that says that the mere presence of a ballistic chute can cause Hull damage when pilots deploy the chutes prematurely (because they are in a state of panic) when, in the absence of the chute, they may have been able to recover control of the aircraft. Please note that I am not saying these are my views, or those of my colleagues, but merely that they are views which have been expressed often within the global aviation insurance industry.
It seems to me that a ballistic chute is there to be used, when all else has failed, in an attempt to save lives rather than to prevent damage to the aircraft itself. The aircraft is expendable, lives are not.
So, I would tend to agree that the presence of a ballistic chute may justify a reduction in the third party and/or passenger legal liability insurance costs, if the available data demonstrated that:
(a) Ballistic chutes do not INCREASE the incidence of accidents
(through malfunction, premature deployment, etc.)
(b) The injury/property damage rate was lessened where ballistic
chutes were installed
I am not aware of any reliable data in this regard, but I would be very grateful if you were able to provide any or to point me in the right direction?
In relation to ZU-DVE, as I am sure Deon has pointed out, your increased experience level resulted in a premium reduction, as did the increased sum insured in respect of the aircraft. For example:
(a) Had your flying experience remained unaltered, the increased
value alone would have resulted in a reduction in rate from 7,25% to 6,65% (-8,27%)
(b) However, your increased flying experience resulted in a further
reduction from 6,65% to 5,90% (-11,27%)
Consequently, overall, your Hull rate reduced from 7,25% to 5,90% as a result of the combination of increased value and increased experience i.e. a rate reduction of 18,62%.
I hope the foregoing comments will perhaps provide some perspective to this issue. Rest assured that we are constantly seeking alternative markets for our clients' insurances. However, we insist on using only those Insurers that can demonstrate an appropriate level of experience and expertise: we will not offer our clients any Insurer purely because their rates appear cheap: if the Insurer cannot provide appropriate levels of coverage, security or service (particularly following a loss), I would agree with one of your colleagues on the Microlighters forum: you're better off not insuring at all.
I know that Deon is working very hard on your insurances and I am sure he will be able to provide a satisfactory solution, but please feel free to contact me for advice or assistance at any time.
With best wishes and kindest regards
Graham Speller
Dennis Jankelow & Associates (Aviation) (Pty) Ltd (FSP No.15808)
Direct: +27 11 840-8331
Switchboard: +27 11 463-5550
General Fax: +27 11 463-5551
Private Fax: +27 11 507-5475
Mobile/Car: +27 82 552-7005
Email:
speller@jankelow.co.za
Website:
www.jankelow.co.za
i am sure you will have the backing of evry one if you can get this right. you can count me in 
????
and all this after reading this heart rendering letter they wrote to Gert. I nearly shed a tear for all Insurance Brokers.
A colleague has a R150k BMW motor bike. Insurance is also underwritten by Santam. His monthly premium is R380. (if it smells fishy, and look fishy...)
