Nov 24, 2011, 11:13 AM
Post #1 of 52
(2141 views)
Shortcut
Liability insurance
Can't Post
I am getting ready to get my tandem rating. I am lucky enough to have a good job and am concerned about personal liability. Are there policys that cover the TI against liability?
Not that I know of, and I wouldn't want it even if it was available. If they know you have insurance, they are more likely to sue since they know you (your insurance) have the ability to pay. I know several people who have turned in their rating or choose not to get it because of personal liability.
I am getting ready to get my tandem rating. I am lucky enough to have a good job
You don't hear those two things together very often! Sure there are TIs with good 'day' jobs, but how many that had the good job before they got the rating (I'm sure at least a few will post to prove me wrong, but I'm sure that money is big motivator for people getting tandem ratings).
It's hard, dangerous work, and it exposes you to a great deal of liability, and I don't believe there an insurance carrier that would cover you. Forget having insurance as making you a target, try being involved in an incident in any way, pilot, TI, DZO, gear manufacturer, etc, and you'll be named in a lawsuit. The idea is to throw as much shit at the wall as possible, and see what sticks (and then see who's got money out of that group).
Look into video work. If you can manage not to run into anyone, you'll be liability free and 'involved' with students. I know a guy who filmed a jump that resulted in a fatality, and everyone under the sun got sued, except him. He got one voicemail from a lawyer looking for him to come to a deposition, and he didn't even return the call. Everyone else spent years and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves in a case that was eventually dropped. The instructor spent more in legal fees defending himself than he would have made doing tandems for 5 years (summer weekends only).
(This post was edited by davelepka on Nov 24, 2011, 12:46 PM)
I'm familiar with personal liability (I'm an ER doc) so it goes with the territory. Not having insurance definitely doesn't keep you from getting sued just keeps the judgement from stinging. I currently do videos, just wanting to get TI. Just have to shield myself. Can't afford 50+k to fight a lawsuit.
It begs the question "what can we do"? Or better yet how can we get some sort of coverage. I'm from the CSPA side of things ( not that it matters) and find it a little nerve racking that some fucking asshat can drag me into court because "i didn't know it could be dangerous" It's almost come to the point where surviving the jump wasn't the scary thing, surviving the lawsuit is.
Is there seriously no sports insurance out there? I mean if J Lo can insure her ass, why cant I cover mine?
I'm familiar with personal liability (I'm an ER doc) so it goes with the territory. Not having insurance definitely doesn't keep you from getting sued just keeps the judgement from stinging. I currently do videos, just wanting to get TI. Just have to shield myself. Can't afford 50+k to fight a lawsuit.
I gave up my AFF rating when I finished residency for this very reason.
Edit: If you want to continue, you can ask your insurance agents about Umbrella policies that are strict liability policies. That should cover you if it all goes to hell. I do not know details beyond that idea however.
(This post was edited by wildcard451 on Nov 25, 2011, 1:48 PM)
Is there seriously no sports insurance out there? I mean if J Lo can insure her ass, why cant I cover mine?
That's a fair question. The answer is, the insurance premiums on J Lo's policy are huge, but given the income and profits, they calculate it as an acceptable part of necessary overhead. So yes, a TI might be able to get decent liability coverage, but he might have to turn to, say, Lloyd's of London to get it, and expect to pay huge premiums. It's a safe bet that the medical malpractice insurance premiums the OP pays as an ER doc are pretty high.
(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Nov 27, 2011, 6:11 AM)
You might find this thread helpful. I had similar concerns and it generated some interesting points.
I've done tandems when needed over the last couple of seasons, and one of the scariest was a lady who could barely demonstrate an arch or lift her legs for landing. I let her know that if she didn't, we weren't going. That motivated her enough to at least show me that she could. On the way to the boarding area I asked her what she did for a living and she responded: "corporate lawyer." Predictably, she was more like cargo than a participant in the jump. I'm still not sure why I took her.
Despite all that, tandems can be a real blast with a good student.
I am getting ready to get my tandem rating. I am lucky enough to have a good job and am concerned about personal liability. Are there policys that cover the TI against liability?
I am getting ready to get my tandem rating. I am lucky enough to have a good job and am concerned about personal liability. Are there policys that cover the TI against liability?
I would go with prepaid legal over insurance.
At best (if that), "prepaid legal" might help defray his legal fees. Whether he'll get an attorney experienced in the defense of serious aviation claims is another matter.
But in any event, unlike insurance, it will do nothing to indemnify him or protect his assets.
Checking into a few umbrella policies. Don't hold out much hope as I think the cost will be more than makes sense given the fact I'm already doing video. If I cannot get an umbrella policy I won't be doing the tandem course.
Checking into a few umbrella policies. Don't hold out much hope as I think the cost will be more than makes sense given the fact I'm already doing video. If I cannot get an umbrella policy I won't be doing the tandem course.
Can't say I blame you. As a doc, you're well familiar with how many (most?) individual docs (assuming they're not already part of a practice group which is incorporated) often form a 1-person corporation to shield their personal assets from med mal liability. I'm not giving you legal advice, but you may wish to consult an attorney in your state to explore this general idea as a TI.
form a 1-person corporation to shield their personal assets from med mal liability. I'm not giving you legal advice, but you may wish to consult an attorney in your state to explore this general idea as a TI.
This has proven to be less than effective. Somebody mentioned it upthread, somthing about personal action and being sued personally. If a UPS driver was drunk and hit your car, you could sue UPS but you could also sue the driver personally as it was his personal action that casued the harm.
In the case of a DZ, I'm sure the DZ and the 'shell' corporation would be sued, but with neither one of them being insured, they would also sue the TI, the pilot, the gear manufacturer, and maybe the aircraft manufacturer. It comes back to the 'sue everyone first, see who has money later' plan.
I think the main advantage of creating an LLC is tax based at this point, and even than varies from state to state.
form a 1-person corporation to shield their personal assets from med mal liability. I'm not giving you legal advice, but you may wish to consult an attorney in your state to explore this general idea as a TI.
This has proven to be less than effective. Somebody mentioned it upthread, somthing about personal action and being sued personally.
It's a half-measure, to be sure. Of course one can (and will) always be sued individually. But forming a corporation, and properly operating solely within the formalities of the corporation (which some incorporated individuals carelessly neglect to do), measurably increases (there is no guarantee) the individual's chances of avoiding a liability judgment in court (legal fees aside), even if the corporation is formally adjudged liable. It really does make a difference, beyond taxation considerations.
Technically, maximizing one's protection may be a package: incorporate, observe and operate within all corporate formalities, don't inter-mingle anything corporate with anything individual, and insure both the corporation and the individual. Which might just be practically unaffordable.
Another philosophy which does have some legs is that taken by "The Uninsured Relative Workshop", et al.: don't insure, and don't have substantial assets, thereby presenting a much less attractive target. Believe me, when a potential liability case walks through a plaintiff attorney's door, one of the first things he finds out, to decide whether or not to take the case, is whether & how much insurance the potential defendant(s) have.
But in any event, the OP, being an individual and a physician, may find the "uninsured" approach to be impractical to him: he doesn't want to lose his house or have his future earnings garnished (if he's in a state that permits wage garnishment to satisfy a civil judgment; not all states do).
(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Nov 30, 2011, 6:11 AM)
don't insure, and don't have substantial assets, thereby presenting a much less attractive target
When I said that the LLC idea had 'proven' to be less than effective, it was in reference to a TI who had an LLC who got sued, and this guy had no assets to speak of.
I think the bigger consideration here is that the pay a TI can expect, and the liability of even defeneding a baseless lawsuit, just don't add up. If you look at it from a risk/reward perspective, if you make $35/jump and as a weekend TI you end up doing 250 tandems a season, you're looking at less than $9000/year. Consider that the above instructor spent in excess of $30,000 defending himself against a suit that was ultimately dropped, it just doesn't add up.
At the end of the day, the pay a TI can expect doesn't even justify the risk of defending a baseless lawsuit, let alone the risk of losing and have a judgement brought against you.
don't insure, and don't have substantial assets, thereby presenting a much less attractive target
When I said that the LLC idea had 'proven' to be less than effective, it was in reference to a TI who had an LLC who got sued, and this guy had no assets to speak of.
I think the bigger consideration here is that the pay a TI can expect, and the liability of even defeneding a baseless lawsuit, just don't add up. If you look at it from a risk/reward perspective, if you make $35/jump and as a weekend TI you end up doing 250 tandems a season, you're looking at less than $9000/year. Consider that the above instructor spent in excess of $30,000 defending himself against a suit that was ultimately dropped, it just doesn't add up.
At the end of the day, the pay a TI can expect doesn't even justify the risk of defending a baseless lawsuit, let alone the risk of losing and have a judgement brought against you.
Yeah, I can't argue with any of that, Dave. For some people, it's why they choose not to be TIs.
Here is my story . I ve done 2200 tandems and i have 1 pax injury .He didnt lift the legs up when i told him to.And now I and DZ owner have been sued for 24k euros.Not sure if insurance company will cover it . I have to wait next 2 months to see what the judge will say .But i start thinking about give up doing tandems after all is just not worth the money you earn.
Yeah, I can't argue with any of that, Dave. For some people, it's why they choose not to be TIs.
It's a big reason why I don't use my TM rating. The OP might consider some of the other things I do for fun:
1 - AFF. Far more rewarding than tandems for people who are skydiving for reasons other than income. 1, you actually get to help people learn the sport rather than "just give a carnival ride". 2, while the liability risk is still there, I generally assume it to be much less since you're working with people who have a better understanding of risk that they're undertaking.
2 - Rigging. Not nearly as rewarding as AFF, but there's more cash flow if you care about that. Again, still some risk, but you can limit it by choosing your clients. Rigging for your friends is very different than rigging for the DZ student gear.
Here is my story . I ve done 2200 tandems and i have 1 pax injury .He didnt lift the legs up when i told him to.And now I and DZ owner have been sued for 24k euros.Not sure if insurance company will cover it . I have to wait next 2 months to see what the judge will say .But i start thinking about give up doing tandems after all is just not worth the money you earn.
See? THAT shit. Not even remotely worth hauling meat. As long as you can be sued by some sack of meat over their own stupidity....makes me sick.
Here is my story . I ve done 2200 tandems and i have 1 pax injury .He didnt lift the legs up when i told him to.And now I and DZ owner have been sued for 24k euros.Not sure if insurance company will cover it . I have to wait next 2 months to see what the judge will say .But i start thinking about give up doing tandems after all is just not worth the money you earn.
See? THAT shit. Not even remotely worth hauling meat. As long as you can be sued by some sack of meat over their own stupidity....makes me sick.
I ve done 2200 tandems and i have 1 pax injury .He didnt lift the legs up when i told him to.And now I and DZ owner have been sued for 24k euros
That sucks, and I hope it works out in your favor.
In the US, that money would just cover your legal bills, the actual lawsuit would be for 10 times that amount. You'll spend that on a laywer even if you win the case and the pax gets nothing.
don't insure, and don't have substantial assets, thereby presenting a much less attractive target
When I said that the LLC idea had 'proven' to be less than effective, it was in reference to a TI who had an LLC who got sued, and this guy had no assets to speak of.
I think the bigger consideration here is that the pay a TI can expect, and the liability of even defeneding a baseless lawsuit, just don't add up. If you look at it from a risk/reward perspective, if you make $35/jump and as a weekend TI you end up doing 250 tandems a season, you're looking at less than $9000/year. Consider that the above instructor spent in excess of $30,000 defending himself against a suit that was ultimately dropped, it just doesn't add up.
At the end of the day, the pay a TI can expect doesn't even justify the risk of defending a baseless lawsuit, let alone the risk of losing and have a judgement brought against you.
I forgot to add the LLC bit. I would have prepaid legal and operate within an LLC. Legal taken care of if needed and liability is restricted if, as mentioned above, the TI operates within the parameters of their LLC. You can also layer a couple of LLC's and pass through the money so you have a few layers of protection along with the prepaid. I've been sued a few times and this is how I do it and it has protected me.
A wise mentor once told me..... "you haven't made it in business until you have been sued"
A wise mentor once told me..... "you haven't made it in business until you have been sued"
Which business is that? Not skydiving, for sure.
The problem with being sued for skydiving is that it's almost always personal injury or wrongful death, and that's expensive.
If you have a business deal go bad, the judgement rarely exceeds the value of the deal. There may be some slight punitive damages, but more times than not, the plantiff is 'made whole' and that's the end of it.
If you injure or kill someone, that's another story. An injury case is a bitch because you start off with every penny of their outrageous medical bills, followed by the punitive damages for their pain and suffering. If you kill someone, the damages for the familes pain and suffering alone is enough to casue you pain and suffering.
What this means is a potentially big judgement, and plantiffs lawyers willing to work the case ad nauseum to get their cut said judgement, which leads to your lawyer working their ass off (billing your ass off) fighting the case.
In a bad business deal, the value of the deal is commensurate with the business you're in, so the judgement should be easy for you to swallow. In a bad skydiving deal (an incident) the value of the jump ($30) is nothing like the money you're going to spend simply defending yourself and winning. If you lose, the difference between the money you made and the money you lost is literally 1,000-fold or more.
At the end of the day, the laibility just doesn't add up. Some guys are OK with the risk, but if you're not that kind of guy, being a TI just isn't the business for you.
A wise mentor once told me..... "you haven't made it in business until you have been sued"
Which business is that? Not skydiving, for sure.
The problem with being sued for skydiving is that it's almost always personal injury or wrongful death, and that's expensive.
If you have a business deal go bad, the judgement rarely exceeds the value of the deal. There may be some slight punitive damages, but more times than not, the plantiff is 'made whole' and that's the end of it.
If you injure or kill someone, that's another story. An injury case is a bitch because you start off with every penny of their outrageous medical bills, followed by the punitive damages for their pain and suffering. If you kill someone, the damages for the familes pain and suffering alone is enough to casue you pain and suffering.
What this means is a potentially big judgement, and plantiffs lawyers willing to work the case ad nauseum to get their cut said judgement, which leads to your lawyer working their ass off (billing your ass off) fighting the case.
In a bad business deal, the value of the deal is commensurate with the business you're in, so the judgement should be easy for you to swallow. In a bad skydiving deal (an incident) the value of the jump ($30) is nothing like the money you're going to spend simply defending yourself and winning. If you lose, the difference between the money you made and the money you lost is literally 1,000-fold or more.
At the end of the day, the laibility just doesn't add up. Some guys are OK with the risk, but if you're not that kind of guy, being a TI just isn't the business for you.
Dave I was not referencing skydiving, rather my mentor was no as he is a whuffo. Just tossed that out there bc I always liked it. As for the liability of being a TI..... although not bullet proof I still like the model I proposed. I will set it up that way when I get my AFF rating.
2 - Rigging. Not nearly as rewarding as AFF, but there's more cash flow if you care about that. Again, still some risk, but you can limit it by choosing your clients. Rigging for your friends is very different than rigging for the DZ student gear.
What about subrogation?
Although I wouldn't sue you, my health insurance company has the right to pursue potentially liable parties to recover their costs and might do so after paying off a six figure claim.
For something like a bad landing that seems unlikely to go anywhere "I made a bad parachute landing on public property" (and nobody else could possibly be at fault) but things may be more ambiguous with equipment malfunctions.
(This post was edited by DrewEckhardt on Dec 1, 2011, 2:07 PM)
Although I wouldn't sue you, my health insurance company has the right to pursue potentially liable parties to recover their costs and might do so after paying off a six figure claim.
For something like a bad landing that's seems unlikely to go anywhere "I made a bad parachute landing on public property" (and nobody else could possibly be at fault) but things may be more ambiguous with equipment malfunctions.
Well, like I said - there's some risk. You can't avoid it all, or we'd be playing golf - as they say. I'm familiar with the concept, but in reality I haven't seen that happen to any skydivers yet. I've seen enough chopper flights to know they're expensive, but I've yet to see an insurance company try to recoup. Yet.
The risks you describe are no different than someone getting knocked out in bigways, for example. Yup, it could happen, and yup - skydivers have sued - but it's rare, and I don't know of any insurance companies doing it on their behalf - yet.
I've seen enough chopper flights to know they're expensive, but I've yet to see an insurance company try to recoup.
Get ready to owe beer. I tore a muscle in my shoulder flaring a tandem with a fat pax, and required a relatively minor shoulder arthroscope to reattach some torn tendons. I didn't even take a chopper or ambulance, just went to the doc the next week. The value of my total surgery and physical therapy was a scant $20,000- you can't get much cheaper than that for anything that puts you under anesthesia. It was paid for by my insurance- Anthem BC/BS. I have a pretty good policy and paid less than a grand out of pocket. Also, the passenger was fine.
About two months later I got the subrogation letter in the mail asking who they could sue to recover the cost of my care. I was pretty vague in my description, just replied with once sentence that I tore a muscle landing my parachute and they seemed satisfied with that and didn't pursue anyone.
I've seen my share of injuries and chopper rides too and I have to say that I have heard of several health insurance companies trying to recoup. You would be surprised how little they have to spend to want to recover it.
Edit to add that the only reason I even mentioned to the ambulance chaser that a parachute was involved was because I was honest with my doc in describing the flaring motion that resulted in the dislocation/ tear. They could have audited my records if they wanted to. You can bet that if you get carted off the DZ on a stretcher, there will be a note about how you got hurt in the docs notes. Lying to the insurance company is not a good bet.
(This post was edited by VTmotoMike08 on Dec 1, 2011, 3:43 PM)
This thread has got me curious. With all the alk of liability, insurance, judgments, lawsuits, etc. I'm wondering how valid all these fears are. If someone gets hurt, yes there's a chance of them suing. But realistically, how many of them actually make it to court once the liability waiver (that Every tandem student signs) is thrown in their face? Of those that do make it to court, how many actually make it past the judge when the waiver is brought up? And of the ones that make it farther, how many actually succeed in convincing a jury that the tandem student didn't assume the risk of this highly dangerous activity after signing the waiver that uses terms like "serious injury" and "death" in every other sentence?
I'm being rather serious here, because I'm not aware of a single successful lawsuit in the US for a tandem injury. Yes, someone might sue. And that alone will cost you some money. But realistically it'll likely only cost a minimal amount...just enough for your attorney to send a copy of the waiver to the other guy's attorney, and maybe file a motion. Insurance premiums will cost you more than that in the long run.
I'm being rather serious here, because I'm not aware of a single successful lawsuit in the US for a tandem injury. Yes, someone might sue. And that alone will cost you some money. But realistically it'll likely only cost a minimal amount...just enough for your attorney to send a copy of the waiver to the other guy's attorney, and maybe file a motion. Insurance premiums will cost you more than that in the long run.
The problem with the waiver, any waiver, is that you cannot waive gross negligence. Let's say you sign a waiver, then the TI pushes you out of the plane un-attached, and attempts to catch you mid-air (ala Dropzone the movie), but fails. That wouldn't be covered by the waiver.
The above example is easy for anyone to understand that the TI acted improperly, but in real life incidents, the suttle details of what happened are what's important, and no judge knows enough about jumping to unilaterally throw a case out of court. The end result is that they agree to hear the case, and then it's up to the lawyers to prove negligence (guilty) or that it was an accident and that the TI acted properly (not guilty).
In the end, the cost of the defense is what get's you. Waiver or no, you better have a good lawyer on your side when you walk into court (the plantiff will), and that's going to run you $300/hr. Between all the pre-trial jacking around that lawyers do mailing letters back and forth, trial prep, and time in court, it's not unreasonable to run up between 50 and 100 billable hours. Do the math, it's not cheap to win in court.
The main problem is that everyone in the courtroom (expect you) is a whuffo, and needs to be explained in great detail what happened, how it happened, and how it was an 'acceptable' incident. That takes time, and costs money.
realistically, how many of them actually make it to court once the liability waiver (that Every tandem student signs) is thrown in their face? Of those that do make it to court, how many actually make it past the judge when the waiver is brought up? And of the ones that make it farther, how many actually succeed in convincing a jury that the tandem student didn't assume the risk of this highly dangerous activity after signing the waiver that uses terms like "serious injury" and "death" in every other sentence?
The simplified answer to each of those 3 questions is: Not many, but a few do.
95% of plaintiffs' attorneys will decline to take a case like this if there's a valid waiver. Trying to prevail on a "gross negligence" theory is an iffy, expensive investment for a plaintiff's attorney: possibly as much as $50,000 in expert consultant/witness fees (plus the value of the attorney's time, which is considerable), which the plaintiff's atty has to eat if he loses the case.
As noted in other posts, win or lose, legal fees are always very expensive. If there's insurance coverage (the availability or expense of which is another issue), then the usually insurance company pays those legal fees.
If you're a defendant in any kind of lawsuit, you can be as right as right gets, but if you can't afford the fees for an attorney to defend you, you're buggered right from the start.
As for the 3-5% of plaintiffs' attorneys who might take the case, it's pretty likely that they already know about the waiver even before they send out their first "letter of representation" to potential defendants. And "just filing a motion" is not as simple as you think. What you're referring to is a "Motion for Dismissal" or "Motion for Summary Judgment", and it takes a shitload of pretrial legal process - discovery, depositions, experts, etc. - many scores of billable hours - just to get to that stage of the case. So even if a skydiving defendant wins a Motion for Summary Judgment, he could easily be into more than $50,000 in legal and expert witness fees.
(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Dec 5, 2011, 8:22 AM)
I'm being rather serious here, because I'm not aware of a single successful lawsuit in the US for a tandem injury. Yes, someone might sue. And that alone will cost you some money. But realistically it'll likely only cost a minimal amount...just enough for your attorney to send a copy of the waiver to the other guy's attorney, and maybe file a motion. Insurance premiums will cost you more than that in the long run.
I am aware of at least one that settled out of court.
The problem is that with the OP, he is a physician. There is an assumption of wealth there, and high potential for continuing to take a healthy portion of his paycheck in a lawsuit victory. This may or may not be true depending on profession.
Like I said before, this is why I gave up my AFF rating, and won't get a tandem rating. It's just not worth the extra risk from these sue-happy meat sacks, especially to potentially lose my current/future income/practice for a few extra thousand a year.
If you're a defendant in any kind of lawsuit, you can be as right as right gets, but if you can't afford the fees for an attorney to defend you, you're buggered right from the start...
...So even if a skydiving defendant wins a Motion for Summary Judgment, he could easily be into more than $50,000 in legal and expert witness fees.
If I understand corectly... In extreme case, but possible... Wealthy enough guy can, out of pure sport, sue any non-court-wealthy guy with any frivolous charge and get him ruined/bancrupted because non-wealthy guy could not afford court/lawyer fees? Is that the situation? Like: I`m minding my own business, but if someone sues me over anything I`m f*cked because I don`t have 50K to defend myself?
Rhich people could then make sport out of suing and destroying people`s lives.
I hope I did not get this right, and that there are some measures one can take to prevent this.
If I understand corectly... In extreme case, but possible... Wealthy enough guy can, out of pure sport, sue any non-court-wealthy guy with any frivolous charge and get him ruined/bancrupted because non-wealthy guy could not afford court/lawyer fees? Is that the situation? Like: I`m minding my own business, but if someone sues me over anything I`m f*cked because I don`t have 50K to defend myself? $50.00 for a Saturday Night Special (bullets extra).
Rhich people could then make sport out of suing and destroying people`s lives.
I hope I did not get this right, and that there are some measures one can take to prevent this.
If I understand corectly... In extreme case, but possible... Wealthy enough guy can, out of pure sport, sue any non-court-wealthy guy with any frivolous charge and get him ruined/bancrupted because non-wealthy guy could not afford court/lawyer fees? Is that the situation? Like: I`m minding my own business, but if someone sues me over anything I`m f*cked because I don`t have 50K to defend myself?
Rhich people could then make sport out of suing and destroying people`s lives.
I hope I did not get this right, and that there are some measures one can take to prevent this.
Not exactly but something along those lines. A frivolous charge (and it would have to be fairly obviously frivolous) could end up with the plaintiff having to pay the defendant's legal fess. In particularly egregious cases the attorney who brought the frivolous case could also be sanctioned.
Skydiving lawsuits are particularly susceptible to this reasoning though: You are allowed (in most states) to waive ordinary negligence. You are not allowed to waive gross negligence (as it is against public policy to allow people to do so). The line between ordinary negligence and gross negligence, though, is ssometimes a question of fact for a jury to decide. Iif not that, then at least an area the judge is not familiar enough with all the technical details to dismiss the suit in summary judgment. So, in a lot of cases you will have to go through depositions, pre-trial motions, etc. to even get to a ruling on whether the waiver is valid.
In many cases the problem is not that the waiver won't hold up, but that this is a battle you cannot afford to win. I'm sure one of the lawyers will correct me if I am wrong on these details, I'm not a lawyer but have been involved in a lot of activities and organizations where risk-mitigation was a factor.
In many cases the problem is not that the waiver won't hold up, but that this is a battle you cannot afford to win.
That`s what shocks me... Some rich daddy`s little boy sprain an ankle doing tandem and daddy sues everybody at the DZ. Until you prove your innocence as you were manifest/camera/janitor you are 50K short and out on the street.
As for the 3-5% of plaintiffs' attorneys who might take the case, it's pretty likely that they .
86% of all statistics are made up on the spot. raff Especially if they're made up by people who don't have expertise in what they're talking about. I, on the other hand, have been a litigation attorney for over 25 years, so I really do know what I'm talking about when it comes to my own industry.
That`s what shocks me... Some rich daddy`s little boy sprain an ankle doing tandem and daddy sues everybody at the DZ. Until you prove your innocence as you were manifest/camera/janitor you are 50K short and out on the street.
That's an exaggeration. It's not quite that simple or easy, and the cost of defending a lawsuit is generally related to the size of the suit.
In order for a case to make to trial, a judge has to review the facts of the case and determine if there's any legal precedence to the case. For example, if I tried to sue my neighbor because they look at my house too much, the case would not make it to trial because there's no law against looking at a house. In your example, a sprained ankle would not be enough of an injury to merit a trial in the face of the waiver, and the general assumption of risk when jumping out of a plane.
Let's say the student could prove negligence led to his broken ankle. In that case, he might get to trial, but all he could recover would be the cost of medical bills and something for 'pain and sufering'. Given that the injury isn't that severe, the monetary reward wouldn't be that large, and there's always the chance that they lsoe the case, and are stuck paying their lawyer on top of their medical bills.
To take it one step further, if such a case did make it to trial, the severity of the injury and size of the judgement their after would make it a very short trial, and keep the legal fees down. If that type of case did arise, you might just offer the guy $3000 or $4000 to settle the case without any of the trial or lawyer bullshit.
What's been discussed in this case is a more significant lawsuit. If a student is injured to a high degree (broken legs/back/coma/paralysis/death) the medical bills alone could top $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000 (or more). On top of that is the pain and siffering, and the loss of income during recovery or maybe the rest of their lives. If you put a guy in a wheelchair and he can't work anymore, he's going to sue you for enough for him to live on for the rest of his life. In those types of cases, with the money involved, your legal bills could top $50,000 just for you to defend yourself.
When the lawwsuit is for $500,000 or $1M, the plantiffs lawyer will do all sorts of work trying to get their cut. If they collect 30%, that's a big chunk of change, and they'll go after it like a rabid dog. On top of that, when the lawsuit is that big, the lawyers will pour on the pressure and push for a settlement. If they're suing you for $1M, and they'll settle for $300,000, the lawyer will pocket $100,000, so you can see why they invest the time and effort, and why it takes an equal amount of time and effort from your lawyer (who is billing you hourly) to defend you.
I was thinking more in general, because of Andy`s comments.
Quote:
If you're a defendant in any kind of lawsuit, you can be as right as right gets, but if you can't afford the fees for an attorney to defend you, you're buggered right from the start...
Quote:
...So even if a skydiving defendant wins a Motion for Summary Judgment, he could easily be into more than $50,000 in legal and expert witness fees.
Quote:
In many cases the problem is not that the waiver won't hold up, but that this is a battle you cannot afford to win.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95% of plaintiffs' attorneys will...
As for the 3-5% of plaintiffs' attorneys who might take the case, it's pretty likely that they .
Especially if they're made up by people who don't have expertise in what they're talking about. I, on the other hand, have been a litigation attorney for over 25 years, so I really do know what I'm talking about when it comes to my own industry.
You are still making up a statistic and implying a reliablity of that number of +- 5% without quoting any source or study. Regardless of your esteemed litigation career, you are making numbers up. A better way to have said it would be "an overwhelming majority" or "nearly all" thus leaving 'wiggle room'. The precision you used does not stand up to scrutiny.
You are still making up a statistic and implying a reliablity of that number of +- 5% without quoting any source or study. Regardless of your esteemed litigation career, you are making numbers up. A better way to have said it would be "an overwhelming majority" or "nearly all" thus leaving 'wiggle room'. The precision you used does not stand up to scrutiny.
Just saying.
In the absence of a specifically defined variance, I usually assume it's 100%.
Blues, Dave
Edit to add: I haven't completely cut all my liability exposure in skydiving, but I have stepped a long ways back from the "professional" ranks in the last two years, in large part because I like my house. Fewer jumps, more restrictive on weather/students, and I only jump my gear, and I'm the only person who does so.
(This post was edited by livendive on Dec 20, 2011, 1:44 PM)
Interestingly enough, going through the USPA's new insurance connection, they have found a carrier that says they are willing to underwrite an umbrella policy for me as an individual tandem instructor. Won't write for anyone who is part of a buisness. As an independent contractor they will cover me. Now have to wait and see what the quote is. If it's cost effective (may be a big if) for TI work I'll let everyone know as they seem to be interested in providing this to others.
aren't all TIs that are paid per jump considered independent contractor?
The legal standing of a TI has nothing to do with how they're paid. You can pay an employee 'piece-work', and still have them legally considered an employee. You would take care of their taxes and pay unemployment/SS to the gov on their behalf. The majority of the garment industry is structured that way, with workers being paid for the number of goods they sew.
That aside, most TIs are paid as independent contractors because most DZs don't want the hassles/overhead of actual employees, and most TIs don't want taxes taken out before they get their money. Some pay their taxes, some pay some of their taxes, and some don't pay any taxes at all. It's not legal to short (or ignore) the IRS, but it's impossible to do as an 'employee' with your employer reporting and paying taxes on your behalf.
Note the distinction hinges on whether, and to what degree, the DZ retains to itself the right to "control what will be done and how it will be done" (employee), as opposed to controlling only the result of the work, but not how it's performed (contractor).
Note the distinction hinges on whether, and to what degree, the DZ retains to itself the right to "control what will be done and how it will be done" (employee), as opposed to controlling only the result of the work, but not how it's performed (contractor).
That's true, but like a contract, it's only relevant when there's a problem. In the case of DZs, I think that both parties prefer to operate as contractors/contractes, so if push comes to shove, they'll catagorize their relationship however they need to make the gov boys happy.
You could also make the argument that the work is performed to the standards of the USPA and the manufacturer, not neccesarily the DZ. Just like the plumber and electritian perform their work to the local building codes, with the contractee just being concerned that the lights will turn on and the toilets will flush.
It's all academic, of course, because DZs are hubs of under-the-table payments and illegal immigrant labor anyway.
One of the best ways to reduce your $$$ liability is to live in or establish residence Florida where a lot of what you own can be judgment proof. Things like your home, IRA, 401-K, Annuities (ways to use, save and keep cash safe) and I'm sure that there are others... That's why so many well paid athletes have residency here and protect money in large expensive homes.
Note the distinction hinges on whether, and to what degree, the DZ retains to itself the right to "control what will be done and how it will be done" (employee), as opposed to controlling only the result of the work, but not how it's performed (contractor).
I'm no longer contracting other instructors, however the distinction in my mind was always the details of their work schedule. I'd ask them when they'd be available and schedule work accordingly. I'd also encourage and sometimes help them find work elsewhere when I didn't have enough. My requirements related to the manner in which they did their work were pretty minimal...follow the BSRs and/or standard industry practices, don't hurt anyone, and don't be a retard.
