PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE LOOKING AHEAD
INTERNATIONAL DIVISION INSURING RISKS IN CANADA
A CALL TO ACTION
STANDARDIZING AIRCRAFT DATA
UNDERWRITER DIVISION
CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY IN A CHANGING MARKET
AIA 2025 IN PICTURES
SAFETY REPORT
PILOT TRAINING AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS TO LEARNING
Ian Wrigglesworth, Global Head of Aviation and Aerospace Specialty, Guy Carpenter aia president 2025–2027
Greetings to all members of the AIA. It is both an honour and a privilege to write to you as your newly elected President. Based in London and working in the aviation reinsurance sector, I am committed to ensuring the AIA continues to serve all stakeholders connected to aviation insurance across all regions and disciplines.
Next year will mark my 25th AIA conference, an event I have attended faithfully out of the 50 years of the AIA’s existence. It’s a milestone that offers both a sense of continuity and a renewed sense of purpose.
I follow in the footsteps of many outstanding leaders who have each made their mark on this great organisation. I would particularly like to thank Chris Morin, our immediate past president, for his exemplary leadership and professionalism. It was a pleasure to serve as vice president under Chris, whose high standards and inclusive approach ensured that the Board functioned as more than the sum of its parts.
Our recent conference in Orlando was a great success, and I am grateful for the many positive comments we’ve received about the venue, programming, and hospitality.
I’d like to thank the AIA staff, especially Executive Director Mary Gratzer and her deputy, Ellie Wnek, for their support, not only during the event but particularly when I stepped in for Chris during his unavoidable absence on urgent legal business.
I follow in the footsteps of many outstanding leaders who have each made their mark on this great organisation.
Looking ahead, we’re introducing a notable change: our 2026 conference in Dallas will be held midweek, running from Monday to Thursday.
This change comes in response to feedback from members who balance heavy travel schedules with family commitments. We recognise that all changes bring trade-offs, and as always, we will listen carefully to your feedback following the event.
We are seeing the arrival of several new underwriting entrants. While their presence may be more warmly welcomed by brokers and agents than by competitors, their entry brings expertise, ambition, and a willingness to invest in our sector. Starting a new venture in today’s market takes not only capital but courage, and we wish them all well.
On a more sobering note, the first half of the year has seen several significant claims, both in the airline sector and across general aviation. While airline losses often receive greater public attention, the steady accumulation of general aviation losses continues to challenge our market.
Meanwhile, the ongoing legal process related to the Russia–Ukraine conflict has reached a critical point. The recent UK court ruling has clarified the applicable loss date and provided a framework for coverage decisions. We are now seeing claims paid, and this will continue over the coming months. This has been a complex, demanding situation requiring the best minds in the industry. There is still much to learn from this unprecedented matter, particularly for reinsurers, who will ultimately bear much of the financial burden.
Despite these headwinds, I believe the market remains vibrant and resilient. The spirit of optimism that defines aviation insurance endures, even as we navigate its cyclical and occasionally turbulent nature.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the AIA Board for entrusting me with this role. To the newly elected members, thank you for volunteering your time to serve our community. Your dedication to representing your sector within AIA is both valued and essential.
Looking ahead, I see AIA’s role as threefold:
A facilitator of discussion and connection across all areas of our industry.
A commentator on emerging trends, rather than a lobbyist for single-issue causes. A champion for education and safety.
their expertise. Equally, our Safety and Loss Control volunteers deserve great credit for the commitment and insight they bring to this vital area.
Finally, thank you to our sponsors. Your generosity allows AIA to remain a non-profit organisation dedicated to providing real value to its members.
Please do not hesitate to reach out to me, to your division representative, or to Mary Gratzer with your thoughts or suggestions. I hope to meet many of you at the upcoming golf outing in Atlanta, the London Symposium, or next year’s conference in Dallas.
Our roots in general aviation remain strong, but our branches now extend globally. We welcome continued growth, provided it strengthens our collective knowledge, network, and purpose.
A key pillar of AIA’s offering is our educational programme. I am especially grateful to the Education Committee for their ongoing work in supporting those new to our industry, as well as those expanding
With warm regards,
Ian Wrigglesworth
Ian Wrigglesworth currently serves as Global Head of Aviation and Aerospace Specialty at Guy Carpenter, based in London, U.K. As an active AIA member for more than 25 years, Ian has served in several capacities on the AIA Board of Directors. He assumed the role of AIA President in April 2025.
Paul O’Ryan, Vice President — Canadian Territory Manager General Aviation, Starr Aviation
AIA
My client has an office, base, or exposure in Canada. Does his current policy cover this? If not, how do I arrange local admitted insurance for them in Canada? What is admitted insurance in Canada? Moreover, what is required to meet “made in Canada” standards for admitted insurance in Canada?
Several factors come into play when looking to place coverage in Canada. In this article, I will try to shed some light on the regulatory environment and what is required for coverage to be placed on an admitted basis in Canada.
financial institutions in Canada. One of the key frameworks within OSFI’s regulatory oversight is Part 13 of the Insurance Companies Act, which establishes guidelines for the governance, risk management, and financial stability of insurance companies operating in Canada.
What is OSFI Part 13?
First, some background on the regulatory environment. Insurance companies are governed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), which plays a crucial role in regulating and supervising
Several factors come into play when looking to place coverage in Canada.
OSFI Part 13 pertains to the capital and liquidity requirements for insurance companies. It is designed to ensure that insurers maintain adequate capital levels to absorb potential losses and continue operations during adverse conditions. This regulatory framework is essential for protecting policyholders and maintaining trust in the insurance industry.
Key components of Part 13 regulations include:
Capital Adequacy Requirements: Insurers must maintain minimum capital levels based on their risk profile and the nature of their operations.
Risk Management Framework: highlights the importance of a robust risk management framework. Insurers are required to identify, assess, and manage various risks, including operational, credit, market, and underwriting risks.
Reporting and Disclosure: Insurers must provide detailed reports to OSFI regarding their capital position, risk exposure, and governance practices.
Stress Testing: Part 13 mandates that insurers conduct regular stress tests to assess their resilience under various adverse scenarios. This is crucial for identifying potential vulnerabilities and ensuring that insurers can withstand economic shocks.
In Canada, the “Made in Canada” status for insurance policies relies on the requirements set by the Canadian regulatory authorities to ensure that insurance products are genuinely developed, underwritten, and issued within the country.
The key factors that constitute “Made in Canada” status for insurance policies are:
Issuance by Canadian Insurers: The insurance policy must be underwritten by an insurance company that is licensed and regulated by the provincial or territorial insurance authority in Canada.
The underwriting process, which assesses the risk and determines the premium, must take place within Canada. This means that the insurance company must evaluate the risks of Canadian clients according to local laws and market conditions.
The terms, conditions, and coverage of the policy should be tailored to comply with Canadian regulations and the specific needs of Canadian consumers.
to Canadian Regulations: The policy must comply with the applicable Canadian insurance laws and regulations, including consumer protection laws, coverage requirements, and any specific provincial regulations.
Claims related to the insurance policy should be managed by the insurer within Canada. This includes having local claims adjusters and support teams who understand the Canadian context and regulations.
The policy must uphold the consumer protection standards outlined by Canadian regulatory bodies, ensuring that policyholders’ rights are respected and that they receive fair treatment.
Operations in Canada: The insurance company should have a physical presence in Canada, which means having offices, staff, or operations based within the country. This can also involve having representatives who are knowledgeable about the Canadian market.
Insurance brokers play a vital role in the insurance distribution chain, and understanding OSFI Part 13 regulations is crucial for several reasons. Brokers can provide better advice to clients by understanding the financial stability and risk management practices of the insurers they represent. By aligning with insurers that adhere to Part 13 regulations, brokers can enhance their credibility in the marketplace. This alignment signals to clients that the broker is committed to working with financially sound and well-governed insurers.
Can a U.S.-licensed broker legally place business in Canada?
In short… Yes, a U.S.-licensed broker can do business in Canada, but they must adhere to specific regulations and requirements.
Each province in Canada has its own regulations regarding licensing for insurance brokers. A U.S. broker must obtain the appropriate license in the province where they intend to conduct business. This often involves meeting specific education and examination requirements. Some provinces may have provisions for nonresident brokers, allowing U.S. brokers to apply for a non-resident license. This license typically requires the broker to comply with local regulations and may have additional stipulations. All brokers must comply with the Insurance Act and other relevant provincial legislation. This includes adhering to rules concerning consumer protection, disclosure, and conduct.
Brokers should be prepared to handle transactions in Canadian currency and understand any implications for payment processing across borders. Many U.S. brokers partner with Canadian brokers or firms licensed in Canada to facilitate business operations. This can provide valuable insight into local regulations and market conditions.
OSFI Part 13 regulations are a critical component of Canada’s insurance regulatory framework, ensuring that insurers operate with adequate capital and robust risk management practices. As the insurance landscape continues to evolve, staying informed about regulatory changes will be crucial for brokers to navigate the industry’s complexities successfully. The use of nonadmitted insurers, or policies deemed not to meet the threshold for “Made in Canada” status, can carry significant penalties that affect both brokers and policyholders.
To mitigate these risks, brokers must ensure they only work with licensed insurers, ensure the policy meets “made in Canada”
standards, and stay informed about the regulatory landscape in the respective provinces or territories. Remember that for an insurance policy to qualify as “Made in Canada,” it must be underwritten by a licensed Canadian insurer, adhere to local regulations, and be designed and managed with Canadian consumers in mind. This status is important for ensuring that policyholders receive the appropriate coverage and support in line with Canadian standards.
While U.S. brokers can conduct business in Canada, they must navigate a complex regulatory landscape that varies by province. By obtaining the necessary licenses, ensuring compliance with local laws, or by collaborating with Canadian broker counterparts, U.S. brokers can successfully operate in the Canadian insurance market.
Paul O’Ryan serves as Vice President of Canadian Territory Manager Aviation at Starr Insurance.
In April 2025, he joined the AIA Board of Directors as the International Director-at-Large.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of Starr Insurance.
Carl Ashenbrenner, FCAS, MAAA, Principal & Consulting Actuary, Milliman and S. Andrew Kline, Actuarial Analyst, Milliman
Reprinted with permission from the Milliman Report.
We are pleased to summarize key yearend 2023 financial results for domestic U.S. General Aviation (USGA) admitted market insurers. This review includes data from the “Aircraft (All Peril)” line of business within the statutory annual statement obtained from S&P Global Market Intelligence, along with other sourced information. We excluded insurers with surplus line eligibility or domestication, which comprise the majority of the market for U.S. large aviation risk, such as airline and major product liability. As a result, we believe the data we reviewed provides the best publicly available snapshot for the performance of the USGA market. We have compiled various metrics for the industry, categorized by:
Written premium
Underwriting results
Incurred losses
As a note, “incurred losses” within this report includes both loss and defense and cost containment expenses (DCCE). Additionally, we modified the admitted market’s incurred losses for select insurance companies that reported favorable development due to the takedown of reserves from the terrorist attack events on September 11, 2001 (9/11).
The USGA admitted market reported $2.9 billion in direct written premium in 2023 (see Figure 1 on the next page). This is a 7% increase from 2022 and contributes to an 84% cumulative surge from the $1.6 billion reported by insurers in 2018. This growth period represents the largest increase in written premium for the USGA market since the era immediately following 9/11. The rising tide has yet again lifted most boats, as nearly 70% of admitted carriers who wrote at least $1 million in 2022 reported higher top-line revenue in 2023.
The pace of premium growth continues to decline, however, with this year’s 7% rise coming on the heels of last year’s 11% growth and three consecutive years around 15% before that. Looking ahead, we anticipate that this slowdown will continue into 2024. A review of second-quarter 2024 statutory financial data suggests that USGA premium volume could grow approximately 5% over the full year.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data1 show that, while overall flight activity was lower in 2020 due to the pandemic, general aviation traffic recovered more quickly than the commercial airlines. Going forward, we expect to see moderate growth rates in USGA active aircraft, meaning that premium changes may stem from this steadily increasing exposure and from potential increases in policy limits rather than from general rate increases.
The USGA market has always represented a small slice (less than 0.5%)
of the overall property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry, which is dominated by personal lines (e.g., home and auto) and general liability business. Insurers with at least $1 million in annual aircraft premiums derive, on average, about 5% of their business from the USGA market, meaning that carriers in this space are principally multiline writers.
Aircraft policies can protect against losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so USGA insurers tend to cede a significant portion of business (approximately 50% of premium) to the reinsurance market. These risk transfer mechanisms lessen the concentration of aircraft perils on any given insurer’s book of business, which, all else equal, can serve to reduce overall solvency risk.
Poor underwriting results in the late 2010s were the catalyst for the USGA market’s recent firming. From 2016 through 2020, the market lost approximately $700 million on an underwriting basis (i.e., excluding investment income), as displayed on Figure 2.
In 2019 alone, the market lost nearly $300 million on $1.8 billion in premium. This period of unprofitability, followed by the aforementioned rate increases, guided the USGA market to small underwriting profits in 2021 and 2022 ($92 million and $100 million, respectively). The 2023 underwriting income of $343 million represents a return to the profit level experienced by the industry in the years leading up to 2016.
From a longerterm perspective, the post-9/11 rate increases led to 14 consecutive years of underwriting profitability for the market (2002 through 2015). Thus, after nearly $700 million of losses between 2016 and 2020, the underwriting profits in 2021 through 2023 have demonstrated that profitability may once again be trending in the right direction for long-term sustainability and solvency. It should be noted, however, that the market’s 4% profitability level in both 2021 and 2022 (measured as a percentage of earned premium) lagged materially behind the USGA admitted
market’s post-9/11 historical average. After adjusting for premium growth, the 2023 profit level is in line with results from years prior to the period of underwriting losses.
Underwriting expenses in recent years are higher across the board. Certain of these expenses—agent commissions, brokerage fees, and taxes — are tied to premium volume and help to explain the recent rise in costs. Other acquisition and general expense ratios were somewhat lower, however, which effectively reduced the underwriting expense ratio (as a percentage premium) during these past three years to levels that are three percentage points below the ratio experienced during the unprofitable years (see Figure 3).
USGA incurred losses in 2023
Incurred losses were slightly lower in 2023 than in 2022, but remained at a level higher than all other recent years, continuing a general trajectory that has witnessed losses more than doubling since 2014 (see Figure 4).
Over this period, the steady increase in USGA losses along with premiums that essentially held steady through 2018 led to loss ratios that were well above pricing targets. Figure 4 also shows improving loss ratios in recent years compared to the high-water mark of 2019. Although the 2023 ratio is on par with the post-9/11 years through 2015, claim costs continue to be a challenge for the USGA industry.
Rising losses are caused by increases in claim frequency and/or severity, so which component is driving the losses?
Claim frequency
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) U.S. data2 show that both fatalities and severe injuries have generally trended lower since 9/11 (see Figure 5). Assuming that the lower amount in 2020 stemmed from reduced exposure on account of the pandemic, the slight uptick in fatalities and severe injuries in 2021 and 2022
is still materially consistent with the NTSB data’s longterm downward trend trajectory. Combined fatalities and severe injuries reported in 2023 amounted to only 532, representing the lowest amounts in the entire 42-year dataset. The use of NTSB head counts as a proxy for liabilitybased frequency is reasonable, and this data suggests that the frequency of liability-based events is not driving the recent increases to incurred losses.
Besides liability, USGA policies typically cover the cost of repair or replacement of aircraft due to adverse weather events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, hail, wind, and heavy snowfall. Weather-related losses are on the rise, and may continue to increase in frequency, but alone they do not explain the magnitude of the multiyear upward trend in incurred losses.
Claim inflation continues to be a problem for the P&C insurance industry and the aviation market is not immune to these trends. Given
the relatively high policy limits provided in certain general aviation segments, the risk of social inflation (e.g., an increased tendency to punish those who cause injury to others) is of particular concern. U.S. juries have been awarding significantly higher sums in recent years. After a reduction due to the pandemic in 2020, both the number and average size of jury verdicts regarding motor vehicle events have continued to climb (see Figure 6 on the previous page). Of particular note is that the timing of acceleration in the chart mirrors the period in which USGA incurred losses saw rapid growth.
Insurers are also experiencing an increase in the frequency and severity of runaway verdicts. The aviation market has not been immune to this trend either, with multiple nine-figure verdicts in recent years, including:
$116 million awarded to families of three crew members who perished in a cargo flight in Afghanistan3
$148 million awarded to a person paralyzed at O’Hare Airport4
$352 million awarded to a United Airlines employee paralyzed at George Bush
International Airport 5
$100 million settlement after a Grand Canyon helicopter crash6
These judgments and settlements have had a spiraling effect, with past verdicts leading to routinely higher demands by plaintiffs, and increased costs of settlements. Some of the claims that are impacted are those that have occurred in the last few years. These claims had previously been reserved using historical loss values but may be under-reserved based on recent claim trends. Changes in reserves on these claims are likely also having an impact on the 2024 profitability, as any adverse reserve development on claims in older accident years will suppress profitability levels in the current year.
Newer-generation aircraft are made with composite materials that are much more expensive to repair than aircraft of previous generations. They require proprietary bonding techniques and specialized equipment that significantly reduce the number of entities with the expertise to make the repairs. Recent inflation, labor shortages, and supply chain issues have impacted the aviation industry as well.
Figure 7 displays the monthly increase in aircraft costs relative to 12 months prior.7
An increase in severe convective storms that has impacted the U.S. property insurance market has also impacted general aviation. A tornado ripped through Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Nebraska, in April 2024. The tornado destroyed four hangars containing 32 general aviation aircraft.8 This storm highlighted the concentration risk of insuring aircraft.
The USGA insurance market had been very competitive for a number of years, with USGA policyholders benefiting from reduced premiums and competitive rates up until around 2019, at which point rates in the market began to harden.
We are witnessing some indications that USGA insurers continue to progress through the market cycle — years of
premium hikes beginning to stabilize, loss ratio relief, and a return to long-term profitability levels. However, the rising frequency and severity of weather-related events and the increasing uncertainty of the broader liability environment — both of which can disproportionately impact reinsurers’ bottom lines and future capacity — continue to be significant challenges for USGA insurers and may not be fully contemplated from a pricing perspective.
While underwriting expense ratios have flattened in recent years, premium growth has masked the higher general expenses and other acquisition costs, which for USGA carriers have risen about 25% since the pandemic. We tend to consider these “people costs,” and they have noticeably increased post-pandemic across the broader P&C industry.
All considered, our analysis indicates that the USGA insurance market has taken the necessary steps in recent years to return to profitability. Although premium growth may now be flattening, significant risks in both claim costs and reinsurance capacity have increased the uncertainty of this market and may ultimately lead to another period of rate increases.
1. FAA data retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://www.faa.gov/data_research/ aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation and from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ by_the_numbers/media/Air_Traffic_by_ the_Numbers_2023.pdf.
2. NTSB accident data retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://data.ntsb.gov/avdata
3. Nolan Law Group (June 30, 2017). Jury Awards $115.75 Million to Families of Flight Crew Killed in Afghanistan Cargo Plane Crash. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.prnewswire. com/news-releases/jury-awards-11575million-to-families-of-flight-crewkilled-in-afghanistan-cargo-planecrash-300482616.html
4. Wojciechowski, C. & Orlando, T. (August 24, 2017). Jury Awards $148M to Dancer Paralyzed in O’Hare Shelter Collapse. NBC 5 Chicago. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.nbcchicago. com/news/local/verdict-reached-in-caseof-dancer-paralyzed-by-ohare-sheltercollapse/22562.
Carl Ashenbrenner, FCAS, MAAA is a principal and consulting actuary with Milliman.
Andy Kline is an actuarial analyst with Milliman.
Reprinted with permission from the Milliman Report.
5. Langford, C. (October 26, 2021). Texas Jury Awards $352 Million to Family of Paralyzed Airport Worker. Courthouse News Service. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.courthousenews. com/Texas-jury-awards-352-million-tofamily-of-paralyzed-airport-worker
6. Gordon, A. (January 19, 2024) Parents of Man Who Died After Grand Canyon Helicopter Crash to Receive $100m Settlement. Time. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://time.com/6553836/ grand-canyon-helicopter-crash-victimparents-settlement.
7. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; see https://fred.stlouisfed.org.
8. Epstein, C. (April 29, 2024). Nebraska Airport Raked by Tornado. AIN Media Group. Retrieved September 17, 2024 from https://www.ainonline. com/aviation-news/generalaviation/2024-04-29/nebraska-airportraked-tornado.
Matt White, CEO BWI Aviation Insurance Agency & iFlyQuote
“There’s no VIN number for airplanes.”
That was one of the first things I heard back in 2018 at my first AIA conference. It came up casually in conversation with brokers and underwriters, but it stuck with me. I didn’t realize then how deeply that one missing piece of data would ripple through everything: quoting, clearance, claims, software development, and so on.
Everyone is wondering how artificial intelligence will change the way we work, quote, assess risk, and handle claims. But here’s the truth: before AI can do anything meaningful for our industry, it needs clean, structured, and consistent data to work with. Right now, we don’t have it.
Fast forward to 2025: I had the honor of presenting to the AIA Board in Orlando as Chair of the Technology Subcommittee, sharing our team’s progress on what we believe is one of the most foundational digital infrastructure projects in aviation insurance: standardizing aircraft model identification across the industry.
If there was one big conversation thread across this year’s AIA, it wasn’t just about market conditions or reinsurance or capacity. It was about AI.
And the timing couldn’t have been better. If there was one big conversation thread across this year’s AIA, it wasn’t just about market conditions or reinsurance or capacity. It was about AI.
Unlike the auto industry, aviation has no universal vehicle identification number. The FAA registry contains over 43,000 model codes, but no standard. Every insurance company, MGA (managing general agent), and brokerage uses a different aircraft make and model list.
If you’ve ever quoted a Beech 36 Bonanza across three markets, you know how frustrating it can be to retype or re-select a different version of the “same” aircraft depending on the system. Multiply that by every aircraft, every broker, and every quoting platform in the country.
What we’re dealing with is data fragmentation, and it’s slowing everything down.
The Technology Subcommittee has spent the past year developing a unified mapping between FAA model codes and a clean, industry-standard list called the AMIN codes.
We’ve launched a live browser-based user interface (UI) where brokers, underwriters, and reinsurers can search N-numbers or model codes and see both FAA and standardized results.
And we’re working on an application programming interface (API) that allows platforms and carriers to connect and build integrations.
Better collaboration: APIs between carriers, brokers, reinsurers, and tech vendors become possible once we’re all speaking the same aircraft language.
This isn’t just about saving time. It’s about building an industry where digital workflows don’t break down at the first dropdown menu.
Most of us didn’t get into aviation insurance because we love data taxonomy or normalization protocols.
We’ve started with a manageable group of aircraft: Cessna (120–172), Beech (33/35/36), and Vans RV models. It’s a demo, but it works. This isn’t theoretical anymore. It’s real.
This is the foundational layer we need to support the next wave of innovation:
Cleaner quoting: No more dropdown chaos or cross-mapping in software platforms.
Faster clearance: Reduce human friction during binding.
AI-readiness: If we want to leverage machine learning for submissions, risk scoring, pricing, or claims modeling, we need clean, standardized aircraft data first.
We entered this field because we care about aviation, risk management, and delivering results when it matters most to our clients.
But the future is coming fast. AI, automation, predictive modeling, and dynamic underwriting — none of it works without a solid foundation. This is that foundation.
We’ve called it the AMIN Project, short for Aircraft Model Identification Number. But it’s really about giving the entire industry a shared map to move faster, smarter, and more collaboratively into the digital age.
As someone who has led a brokerage and built iFlyQuote, a quoting platform used by over 50 insurance brokers with more than 487,000 light aircraft quote requests sent to insurance companies, I can tell you firsthand: this problem affects all of us.
This is just the beginning. We’re looking to expand the model mapping significantly this year, and we can’t do it alone.
We’re looking for passionate contributors from across the aviation insurance industry: brokers, underwriters, reinsurers, developers, and especially anyone managing technology at their company or brokerage.
We’re also looking for volunteers to join the Technology Subcommittee. If you’re passionate about improving the way our industry works, we’d love to have you at the table.
If you’re interested in shaping the tools and systems that will drive the next era of aviation insurance, we’d love your input and involvement.
Email me directly: matt.white@bwifly.com
Or contact the Technology Subcommittee team through the AIA at info@aiaweb.org
Let’s build something that outlasts the hype cycles. Let’s create infrastructure that AI, and all of us, can stand on. Because the future is coming fast. And the only way to prepare for it . . . is to build it.
Matt White is the innovator behind iFlyQuote and owner of BWI, a leading aviation insurance agency.
A second-generation aviation insurance broker, Matt blends tradition with technology, driving industry innovation while fostering a strong company culture. Matt serves as Chair of the AIA Technology Subcommittee. He’s also a dedicated father of three and an avid runner.
short,
AIA Director-Elect, Claims Division
I learned to fly at Lakefront Airport (KNEW) in New Orleans 10 years ago. When I arrived for my discovery flight, it was pouring rain with low visibility. A first flight with a new student in a Cessna 172 was a definite no go. I left disappointed but returned a week later on a beautiful June afternoon to complete my first flight.
When my CFI (now my husband — but that’s a story for another day) told me I would be sitting left seat and performing the takeoff, I was apprehensive. But I’ll never forget the feeling of sitting at the end of the runway for the first time: pushing full throttle, feeling the aircraft race down the runway, pulling back on the yoke, and — surely with significant right rudder input from my equally apprehensive CFI — suddenly I was in the realm of the birds and the clouds. I was addicted.
Aviation is a profound source of joy and a technological marvel. But like most great things, flight is not without risk — after all, even Orville Wright was injured in a plane crash.
I learned this firsthand when the plane in which I made my first flight tragically crashed into Lake Pontchartrain two years later, killing two of the three people on board.
Aviation is a profound source of joy and a technological marvel. But like most great things, flight is not without risk.
It was this crash that led me to a professional career in aviation. As a practicing attorney and the only pilot at my firm, I was asked to give my armchair accident investigation perspective on the cause of the crash at Lakefront Airport. Apparently impressed with my prowess as an amateur accident investigator, a partner pushed me to pursue a career in aviation law. After several years as an aviation litigator, I found myself with an opportunity to work in aviation claims with an insurer.
I feel so honored to have landed in the aviation insurance industry. Aviation insurance is an integral function of the miracle of human flight. Without us, aviation is too risky an endeavor for many in the industry to support. Without insurance, operators like the flight school that owned the 172 in which I took my first flight, and which eventually crashed, would not be able to continue to operate.
What I love about AIA is that it allows those of us lucky enough to be in the aviation insurance industry to connect outside of our usual roles as brokers, claim handlers, lawyers, reinsurers, and underwriters. I enjoy learning about the needs of our insureds from our brokers, connecting with our lawyer and reinsurance partners, and learning about our business models from underwriters. Together, we are a critical cog that makes the aviation industry fly.
Most important to me is Claims. We are here for our insureds on their worst day, be it a gear-up or a catastrophic loss of life. I am proud of this sensitive work that keeps the aviation industry airborne. I am grateful to AIA for connecting claims departments across the industry.
This year at the AIA Conference in Orlando, I had the honor of being elected as claims director-elect to the AIA Board. I am excited to take on a leadership role in this incredible industry.
However, my experience in aviation is limited to my unique niche as a claims manager, an aviation litigator, and a general aviation fixed-wing pilot. I want to understand the issues impacting the other sectors of the multifaceted aviation industry. I want to hear from you about how we can collaborate to best serve you and the aviation industry.
What education topics do you wish were available to you and your team?
How can we best train our young professionals so that they become the future leaders of the aviation insurance industry?
What topics would you like to see on claims in The Binder?
Of course, I want to hear from claims personnel, but I also want to hear from underwriters, reinsurers, brokers, and attorneys: What do you want to learn about claims that would help you better serve your sector? Please reach out to me with your ideas. Let’s talk about flying machines and what we can do to support this incredible industry.
Clear skies and soft landings.
Stephanie Short is divisional vice president and deputy director of claims with the Aviation Division of Great American Insurance Company. Before joining Great American, Stephanie was an aviation litigator in private practice. Stephanie is a private pilot and a graduate of Tulane University and Lewis and Clark Law School.
With 15 simulators, four locations, and 30+ experienced instructors, Executive Flight Training is proud to be expanding while ensuring individualized, custom instruction for our clients.
Meghan Griffin, Senior Underwriter, W. Brown & Associates Insurance Services
AIA Director, Underwriter Division
The aviation insurance industry is clearly on another turn of the tide; rates have been flat or decreasing over the last 18 months at the very least. At the same time, there has been an uptick in contracts coming from every direction: municipalities and FBOs requesting higher limits, dry and wet leases, and manufacturers firming up with their developers. Reading these contracts can range from overwhelming to tedious, depending on their length and the number of contracts someone must read.
underwriting company, you’ll be on the hook for the coverage without realizing it. But what about the terms in the insurance section?
The Certified Aviation Insurance Professional (CAIP) designation’s textbook defines contractual liability as “liability imposed on an entity by terms of the contract.” Under a premises CGL policy, this refers to the assumption of the other contract party’s liability under specific conditions, and basic policies cover some of these assumed liabilities under incidental contracts. Because of this, when a contract comes across my desk, I try to read the contract in its entirety rather than just focusing on the insurance section, and I bring any sections that are confusing to a claims lawyer for discussion. A contract will be added in its entirety, and as the
The two most common contractual terms are “additional insured” and “waiver of subrogation.” While I’m sure every underwriter has a definition for both terms, the CAIP book defines additional insured as “an insurance provision that includes the naming of the contracting party as an additional insured.” This frequently includes unlimited defense costs beyond the provided limits, but, as always, check your company’s policies.
Since additional insureds are protected as if they’re the actual insured, the Named Insured’s liability coverage is diluted, and protection is usually confirmed or secured with an additional insured endorsement, not through the indemnification agreement of the contract. Because of this, an insurance carrier may be obligated to provide insurance coverage or a payout, even if it’s against the Named Insured’s wishes. While additional insured covers a party for claims against third parties, a waiver of subrogation is an agreement where one or both parties agree
that their insurers will not seek recovery for loss or damage from the opposing entity, even if that entity is responsible for the loss or damage. In other words, the waiver shifts the risk of loss from the parties of the contract to the insurance carrier.
Still, it is hard to subrogate against an additional insured even without the waiver. Because of this, underwriters should be just as wary and do their due diligence before adding additional insureds, just as they would with a waiver of subrogation. Losses and defense costs due to both types of coverage add to the loss ratio of the insured taking on the additional insured.
Contracts frequently contain an “indemnification” or “hold harmless” clause. These terms are often used interchangeably, particularly in relation to additional insureds, but there are key differences between them. Hold harmless clauses can potentially prevent a lawsuit altogether, while indemnification ensures that damages and losses will be compensated. Both may be one party or reciprocal. All of this sounds the same as additional insureds, except indemnification is secured through the contract, not the insurance policy. Indemnification is on the actual insured.
Because of this, it typically does not have a capped limit, and unless the contract states otherwise, it is unlimited in time. The additional insured endorsement specifies the capped amount that an insurance company may pay; however, the indemnification clause can leave the insured on the hook for more money. When reviewing contracts, it is best to ensure that a contract’s indemnification clause is reciprocal, not just on the insured.
Contracts can be incredibly complicated documents that add exposure to a risk that an underwriter wasn’t expecting. Given that courts are leaning more towards catastrophic payouts, focusing on controlling the exposure by understanding the differences between interchangeable terms may be the difference between paying out several thousands or millions.
Meghan Griffin currently serves as Senior Underwriter at W. Brown & Associates Insurance Services. With over a decade of underwriting experience, Meghan specializes in general aviation. She holds two professional designations: Certified Aviation Insurance Professional (CAIP) and Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter (CPCU). Meghan serves as the AIA Director of the Underwriter Division.
Thank you to the more than 625 attendees from across the aviation insurance industry who joined us in Orlando, Florida, for the 2025 AIA Annual Conference, held April 25–28.
This year’s event brought together professionals for four days of networking, continuing legal and insurance education, and plenty of Florida sunshine.
Explore highlights from AIA 2025 in the following pages and visit the AIA WEBSITE for the full photo gallery!
Congratulations to Jim Gardner, who received this year’s AIA Pinnacle Award. The AIA Pinnacle Award is the most prestigious award given by the Aviation Insurance Association.
Pictured L–R: Jim Gardner and AIA Vice President Ian Wrigglesworth
Congratulations to the four AIA members who achieved their CAIP designation this year: Beth Clark; John Fitzpatrick; Tahsha Mill; and Michael Schneider. Additionally, congratulations to David Sales who achieved his CAIP Gold designation.
Pictured L–R: Beth Clark, John Fitzpatrick, Tahsha Mill, Michael Schneider, David Sales, and AIA Education Committee Chair Britt Kral
Each year a select group of aviation insurance professionals are nominated and inducted into the AIA’s prestigious Eagle Society. Thank you for your continued service to the AIA and the aviation insurance industry.
Congratulations to this year’s class: Chris Arnold; Dave Gourgues; Greg Sterling; and Joe Williams
Pictured L–R: Chris Arnold and Greg Sterling
Mark your calendars to join us for the next AIA Annual Conference May 4–7, 2026 (Monday–Thursday) in Dallas, Texas.
Douglas S. Carmody, Owner, Executive Flight Training AIA Safety Committee Member
Every pilot has heard it before: “It’s not the airplane — it’s the pilot.” But what if the greatest threats to safety and operational reliability have less to do with technical skills and more to do with psychological blind spots? For aircraft insurance professionals, including underwriters, brokers, and risk managers, understanding the cognitive and emotional aspects of pilot behavior is crucial for accurate risk assessment.
Many pilots, especially high achievers, struggle with the fear of looking incompetent. This fear doesn’t always manifest as avoidance — it often shows up as silence, tension, or hesitancy to ask questions. In recurrent training or transition courses, these pilots may “nod along,” memorize procedures, and freeze under pressure.
The aviation industry often evaluates pilots based on hours, certificates, and training completion. But these metrics overlook a key truth: Most incidents aren’t caused by engine failures — they’re caused by training failures. Not failures of curriculum, but failures in how individual pilots absorb, adapt to, and apply that training under pressure.
Red Flag: The pilot avoids clarifying questions, resists simulator debriefs, or rushes through training just to check a box.
Best Practice: Recommend structured training with a strong debrief culture and supportive instructor relationships.
Most incidents aren’t caused by engine failures — they’re caused by training failures.
Identifying the psychological barriers to learning is not just the job of instructors and examiners; it should be part of the underwriting conversation. Here’s what those barriers look like, and why they matter.
Normalize learning setbacks as part of professional development.
Experience is valuable, but it can become a barrier when it blinds a pilot to the need for adaptation. Pilots who say “I’ve flown everything” or “I’ve got 30 years in this business” may be dismissive of updated procedures, new avionics, or aircraft-specific nuances.
Red Flag: The pilot declines in-aircraft or simulator training, resists checklist updates, or downplays aircraft-specific instruction.
Best Practice: Encourage initial training with a type-rated mentor pilot or through a formal in-aircraft program. Underwriters should confirm not only the hours but also the pilot’s attitude and recent relevant training.
Today’s flight decks are packed with complexity: glass panels, automation layers, data links, and custom FMS logic. Many transitioning pilots — especially those coming from analog cockpits — can be overwhelmed, even when they meet basic proficiency requirements.
This is especially true for pilots returning after a long break or later in their careers. While age is not the issue, comfort with layered digital systems often correlates with exposure rather than total time.
Red Flag: Missed programming steps, autopilot mismanagement, or difficulty adapting to screen-based workflows.
Best Practice: Look for training that includes scenario-based, layered instruction, not just system reviews. Encourage longer lead-in times and validate that the pilot had more than a brief informal checkout.
Some pilots bring invisible challenges into the cockpit: performance anxiety, fear of judgment, or even trauma from past incidents. These pilots may appear competent on paper, but they often operate with hesitation or avoidance.
Red Flag: Avoids certain types of airspace, delays flights unnecessarily, or over-relies on autopilot and co-pilots even in routine conditions.
Best Practice: Recommend mentoring arrangements or observation flights with experienced instructors. Underwriting can require initial dual time, especially for turbine transitions or return-to-flight scenarios.
A pilot’s mindset may be the strongest indicator of future success — or risk. Pilots with a fixed mindset see ability as innate and interpret feedback as criticism. Those with a growth mindset view learning as a continuous process and strive for improvement.
Red Flag: The pilot bristles at feedback, externalizes errors (“It was the sim,” “The instructor was wrong”), or doesn’t review training materials after sessions.
Best Practice: Partner with training providers who emphasize reflective learning and active self-evaluation. Ask pilots how they prepare and how they handle mistakes.
Aircraft insurance isn’t just about total time and type ratings — it’s about pilots. And not just what they’ve flown, but how they think, how they train, and how they respond under pressure.
Underwriters and training providers should treat psychological readiness as a risk factor just like currency or health. Ego, fear, overload, and resistance to learning are not personal failings; they’re operational risks.
Red Flag: Relying solely on hours and certificates to evaluate pilot suitability.
Best Practice: Engage with flight schools, DPEs, and instructors to understand the pilot behind the logbook. Ask hard questions. Support mentoring. And remember: the biggest risks don’t show up on the application — they show up in the cockpit.
Douglas S. Carmody is an ATP-rated pilot, FAA Designated Pilot Examiner, and instructor with over 30,000 flight hours. He operates Executive Flight Training, providing turbine instruction in both aircraft and simulators. He is also the author of several aviation books published by McGraw-Hill.
President
ian Wrigglesworth
Guy Carpenter
London, United Kingdom
VICE PRESIDENT
Luke Uithoven
Kimmel Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc. Greenwood, MS
Treasurer
Nicole Wolfe Stout
Strawinski & Stout, P.C. Atlanta, GA
Secretary
David Hampson
Schrager Hampson Aviation Insurance Agency Bedford, MA
Director, Agent / Broker Division
Kristen Suarez
BWI Aviation Insurance Agency, Inc. Warrenton, NC
DIRECTOR-ELECT, AGENT / BROKER DIVISION
Rachel Lewis
Schrager Hampson Aviation Insurance Agency Bedford, MA
Director, Attorney Division
Mark Meyer HFW
London, United Kingdom
Director, Claims Division
Jeff Sheets
Applied Underwriters Aviation Los Angeles, CA
DIRECTOR-ELECT, CLAIMS DIVISION
Stephanie Short
Great American Insurance Company Bellingham, WA
Director, Reinsurance Division
Raffaella Basile
Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd
Zurich, Switzerland
Director, Underwriter Division
Meghan Griffin
W. Brown & Associates
Alpharetta, GA
International Director
Andy Trundle
Starr Aviation London, United Kingdom
Director-at-Large
Michael McGrory
Amundsen Davis, LLC Chicago, IL
Director-at-Large
Jeffrey t. Sutton
London Aviation Underwriters, Inc. Federal Way, WA
International Director-at-Large
Paul O’Ryan
Starr Aviation Toronto, Canada
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Christopher S. Morin
Murray, Morin & Herman, PA Tampa, FL
AIA General Counsel
Bob Williams
Victor Rane PLC Pittsburgh, PA
Executive Director
Mary Gratzer
Aviation Insurance Association Lexington, KY
AIA — Aviation Insurance Association
AOPA — Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ASAP — Aviation Safety Action Program (FAA)
ASIAS — Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing system (FAA)
ASRS — Aviation Safety Reporting System (FAA)
CASA — Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia)
CAAC — Civil Aviation Administration of China
COPA — Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association
DPE — Designated Pilot Examiner
EAA — Experimental Aircraft Association
EASA — European Union Aviation Safety Agency
E6B — A type of manual or electronic flight computer
ESG — Environmental, Social, and Governance
EVTOL — Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Vehicle
FAA — Federal Aviation Administration (U.S.)
FBO — Fixed base operator (service station for aircraft and pilots)
FDM/FOQA — Flight Data Monitoring / Flight Operations Quality Assurance
GA — General Aviation
GAMA — General Aviation Manufacturers Association
GHSP — Ground Handling Service Providers
HUD — Heads Up Display
IATA — International Air Transport Association
IBAC — International Business Aviation Council
ICAO — International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR — Instrument Flight Rules
IMC — Instrument Meteorological Conditions
IS-BAO — International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations
IS-BAH — International Standard for Business Aircraft Handling
MRO — Maintenance Repair Organization
NBAA — National Business Aviation Association
NTSB — National Transportation Safety Board (U.S.)
P&C — Property and Casualty
SMS — Safety Management System
UAM — Urban Air Mobility
UAV — Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (also known as a drone)
VFR — Visual Flight Rules
VR — Virtual Reality
WAI — Women in Aviation International
This is an abridged list of aviation insurance terms that appear in current and previous editions of the AIA’s The Binder.