NWFlyer 2 #76 March 4, 2014 PhreeZoneUPT was until fairly recently known officially as The Uninsured Relative Workshop. And they're still officially known as Uninsured United Parachute Technologies, LLC."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doug_Davis 0 #77 March 4, 2014 wolfriverjoe Really? Idiots for not having insurance? Care to tell me where you can get liability insurance for anything in skydiving? There's "Trip and Fall" type liability for people on the DZ on the ground, but that's about it. Do you know what UPT used to be called? The "Uninsured Relative Workshop." That was the actual business name. Put there because they found out that you couldn't state in court that you had no insurance because it wasn't available. But you have to say the name of your company. Oh my God the stuff you guys will fall for.First he changed the name from Relative Workshop to Uninsured United Parachute Technologies. Secondly, the company has insurance. You can do a simple LexisNexis search. In the event of a lawsuit a company under Florida law has 30 days to provide proof of liability insurance. Lastly the rules against testimony involving liability insurance under federal and state rules of evidence are for the following reason: Quote Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible to prove whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. Attorneys were attempting to make the argument that simply having insurance meant you were acting in a negligent manner and thereby needed protection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doug_Davis 0 #78 March 4, 2014 PhreeZoneQuoteThe only money they lost was due to possibly increased insurance rates. If they didnt have liability insurance and had to pay out of pocket then they are idiots You are showing your newness to the sport here. UPT was until fairly recently known officially as The Uninsured Relative Workshop. My understanding is it helped to deflect lawsuits against them when they were a smaller company since potential plaintiffs realized right up front that there was no insurance money coming and they would get a limited settlement if any at all since there were no assets worth anything to claim. It is not possible in a lot of cases for skydiving companies without military contracts to even be able to get or afford liability insurance since a single claim would bankrupt the company. Skydiving is still an industry where even the largest companies in the world do not employ more than 100 people for the entire company. Some of the medium size companies only employ 15-20 people and see margins of only a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. Skydiving is very much a niche industry where without a military contract its a fight from year to year to stay open and well above water. Also my understanding is that Strong had to declare bankruptcy in 2009 over the tandem student falling out of their harness since even if they had insurance it would not pay out at those claim rates and the settlement was worth more than their total assets were worth. http://www.chapter11blog.com/chapter11/2009/11/se-inc-dba-strong-enterprises-files-for-chapter-11.html S.E. Inc., doing business as Strong Enterprises, 11236 Satellite Blvd., Orlando. Filed: Nov. 16. Assets: $514,937. Liabilities: $1,445,517. Major creditors: Regions Bank, Birmingham, Ala., $998,285; Critchfield, Critchfield & Johnson Ltd., Wooster, Ohio, $113,512; Edward T. Strong, Orlando, $86,189. Creditors meeting: Not available. Here is a note from Strong back in 2006 from a fatality that their rig was in use on and all they had did was sell the rig and they still owed money: Quote California jury awards $650,000 in wrongful death tandem parachute suit. That was the headline of the Press Release that Strong Enterprises distributed on November 27th. If you are interested, we will send you a copy of the two page report. The bottom line is that SE was found 5% negligent in not controlling and supervising the Dual Hawk owner. That five percent translates into $25,000 plus additional expenses that bring the total to $63, 500. This lawsuit has cost Strong Enterprises over $300,000 in legal costs in addition to the judgment. How does this effect you? The Dual Hawk owner, Milt Burton has judgements of $668,670. against him. He has leans on everything he owns, he lost his planes, his parachutes, his ratings - his ability to work in the skydiving industry! His life has been seriously damaged I know the history as I just said in the prior post. I carry a $5 million dollar aggregate policy for my business which will cover up to $2 million for any individual claim. We are paying in the neighborhood of $2.5k annually last time I looked. Thats for whitewater kayak instruction, which does involve youth as young as 12. Just placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. My point is most of the stuff in this thread involving insurance, getting it, reasons for not carrying it, costs of it, etc etc is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #79 March 4, 2014 So, lets discuss the real problem here, not the BS distractions about insurance or bankruptcy. Those are external factors that we have no control over. How can the USPA Board pass a rule that is unprecedented in any industry? And not consult their own attorney? And not listen to the attorney who is on the BOD who says its a very bad idea? How come with all the Robert Rules of Order sticklers we have on the BOD, no one called the question on conflict of interest? How can Board Members who receive direct and indirect compensation from manufacturers vote in good conscience and how can the other members allow it? The entire vote reeks of cronyism and back-door politics to benefit entities outside USPA at the expense of the membership. The entire vote is illegal and immoral. Look carefully at the members on the Board. Many of them directly make their money buying, selling, and using the very equipment whose makers they are protecting. The USPA Governance Manual Section 1-2.3 Board of Directors C.Responsibilities 4. Identifying, reporting, preventing, and eliminating financial conflicts of interest on the board a. A financial conflict of interest occurs when a board member compromises, or appears to compromise, his or her duties in carrying out USPA policy because of an external relationship that directly or indirectly affects the financial interest of the board member, any family member, or any associated entity. b. Board members may not make or participate in the making of a decision or vote on any matter if there exists a financial conflict of interest. Since the question was called before any discussion was allowed, this was circumvented. Purposely. If you cannot imagine how a Board member could be influenced by a manufacturer, I will spell it out for you. Remember, it doesn't have to happen, but just have the "appearance" of a conflict. A DZO owns five tandem rigs, but wants to expand to ten for the season, so they would like a discount on the rigs from the manufacturer. Since they don't sell enough gear to be a "super-duper dealer" of 40%, they only get the "regular Joe-Bob" discount of 30%. But after this vote, they suddenly get the "ultimate buddy" discount of 50%, a huge savings on 5 rigs (several thousands of dollars), plus now they can sell some sport rigs with a bigger profit margin. Hey! Our profits on gear sales are way up this year! funny how that works.... Some will say that almost every BOD member has some financial interest in skydiving. That may be true, but some are way more financially tied to gear sales than others. Those that make money selling gear had an obligation to recuse themselves from this vote. By voting on this BSR they have violated the rules of the organization and our trust. The question is, which Board members are going to realize this, save face, and rescind this BSR like the last time it was passed? I wonder if a member can contact the New York Attorney General as to the fiduciary violations by the Board? topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #80 March 4, 2014 Quote How can Board Members who receive direct and indirect compensation from manufacturers vote in good conscience and how can the other members allow it? Funny how that works sometimes... ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #81 March 5, 2014 topdocker The other part of this is that Group Member DZ's must now include gear manufacturers in their waiver, and incur the cost of changing that waiver. Unheard of any other industry.... So DZo's, call your attorneys and get out your checkbooks. And for the average Joe Jumper.... we know where that cost will eventually end up. top Are they required to list all the gear manufacturers, or just those used in their tandem and training programs? This may come back to bite them. Ex: UPT targeted in a lawsuit at a Strong only DZ simply because they're listed on the waiver. Sometimes being on the waiver just makes you an easier shotgun lawsuit target. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #82 March 5, 2014 fencebusterI don't know exactly how many US DZs and DZOs there are, but I am one of them (yeah, I know I could probably get out my Parachutist and my fingers and toes and count em). I would love to let 16 YOs jump, but I am a lawyer, and have been accused in the past of knowing what I am doing as a lawyer. Taking a 16 year old Tandem student on a jump, or a 16 year old solo student on a jump, for which their waiver would be legally a nullity in the event of an accident, is just plain stupid. You don't have to be a lawyer to know "stupid" from "not stupid." The new BSR will not affect me because i have been turning down 16 year old jumpers for 2 years. For those DZOs willing to accept that liability, good on ya, but one law suit, win or lose, will probably end your business as a going concern. You can win a case and be bankrupted by attorneys fees, coasts and bad publicity. And in doing so, it will damage the rest of the sport's DZs. ................................................................................... Then there is all the psychological damage to the victim, when they have to re-tell the worst day of their lives umpteen times in front of doctors, shrinks, lawyers, judges, juries, reporters, etc. Often the psychological trauma - of the legal process - is worse than the psychological trauma of the accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #83 March 5, 2014 Doug_Davis Just placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. Product liability insurance is a different creature. Unless something has changed (and I doubt seriously that it has) there is no liability insurance available in the United States to cover skydiving activities at any price.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #84 March 5, 2014 +1Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starkmtn 0 #85 March 6, 2014 topdockerTo make a BSR (S meaning Safety!) which has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with litigation is just ridiculous! The BOD is just showing how much they are willing to give into the manufacturers. Every time they have asked the BOD to do something, the BOD has eventually caved and its total BS. The BOD passed this once before and it was repealed because many BOD members became uncomfortable with the ramifications after the vote. What has changed? USPA is no more responsible for keeping manufacturers or DZ's from getting sued than they are preventing heart attacks at soccer games. Members should start emailing their Regional Directors that this vote is totally screwed, too many of the BOD members have direct links to the requesting manufacturers for there to not be a conflict of interest. Since electronic voting is working so well for USPA, maybe we should just put in a rule that all BSR's must be approved by a quorum of members. This will let the BOD go back to the business of running operations and allow the membership to dictate safety, not the manufacturers. top Craig, I'm in agreement with all you wrote except for one important point I'd like to make as a veteran of two different boards (one of which I still sit on) - the BoD should _not_ be in the business of running operations - that is the job of the staff. The Board should be _setting policy_ and trusting the staff they chose to enact it. Eli"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starkmtn 0 #86 March 6, 2014 NWFlyer Quote it shows how far down the "we will do anything to keep the gear manufacturers happy" trail the BOD has gone As one board member is now calling it, it's the USPIA. Assuming they meant it as an indictment, can you share that name, if only privately? I'm making a list of who will definitely get my vote next time around, and this person just went on it!"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #87 March 6, 2014 starkmtnThe Board should be _setting policy_ and trusting the staff they chose to enact it. Trust? The board should set policy and INSURE the staff enacts it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #88 March 6, 2014 starkmtn***To make a BSR (S meaning Safety!) which has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with litigation is just ridiculous! The BOD is just showing how much they are willing to give into the manufacturers. Every time they have asked the BOD to do something, the BOD has eventually caved and its total BS. The BOD passed this once before and it was repealed because many BOD members became uncomfortable with the ramifications after the vote. What has changed? USPA is no more responsible for keeping manufacturers or DZ's from getting sued than they are preventing heart attacks at soccer games. Members should start emailing their Regional Directors that this vote is totally screwed, too many of the BOD members have direct links to the requesting manufacturers for there to not be a conflict of interest. Since electronic voting is working so well for USPA, maybe we should just put in a rule that all BSR's must be approved by a quorum of members. This will let the BOD go back to the business of running operations and allow the membership to dictate safety, not the manufacturers. top Craig, I'm in agreement with all you wrote except for one important point I'd like to make as a veteran of two different boards (one of which I still sit on) - the BoD should _not_ be in the business of running operations - that is the job of the staff. The Board should be _setting policy_ and trusting the staff they chose to enact it. Eli Agreed. The Board sets policies and lets staff run the operations. My error. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mountainsky1 0 #89 March 6, 2014 Well said.... I would like to know if there is actual case law affecting this issue as it pertains to minors in skydiving.. not some hypothetical circumstance... the board must reverse this decision.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #90 March 6, 2014 Mountainsky1Well said.... I would like to know if there is actual case law affecting this issue as it pertains to minors in skydiving.. not some hypothetical circumstance... the board must reverse this decision.. And you think there is a chance of that happening??? Is it time yet for boycotts of those manufacturers, DZO's and BOD members who pushed for this travesty??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starkmtn 0 #91 March 6, 2014 chuckakers***The Board should be _setting policy_ and trusting the staff they chose to enact it. Trust? The board should set policy and INSURE the staff enacts it. Chuck, I think we're agreeing to agree here. They _do_ need to trust their staff, or they run the risk of micromanaging, which is a poison to any organization. Of course, if they are given reason not to trust that the staff will enact policy, the staff needs to be changed. That said, I don't think that's the source of the problem with this current issue or many others that seem to be putting the interests of business ahead of those of the jumpers."You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #92 March 7, 2014 starkmtn******The Board should be _setting policy_ and trusting the staff they chose to enact it. Trust? The board should set policy and INSURE the staff enacts it. Chuck, I think we're agreeing to agree here. They _do_ need to trust their staff, or they run the risk of micromanaging, which is a poison to any organization. Of course, if they are given reason not to trust that the staff will enact policy, the staff needs to be changed. That said, I don't think that's the source of the problem with this current issue or many others that seem to be putting the interests of business ahead of those of the jumpers. Agreed. This thing is about policy, not execution.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #93 March 12, 2014 I wonder if USPA or the PIA is going to demand this commercial be taken off the air. It obviously shows an underage tandem being done in this country! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk0PG7BzrY8 topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #94 March 12, 2014 topdockerI wonder if USPA or the PIA is going to demand this commercial be taken off the air. It obviously shows an underage tandem being done in this country! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk0PG7BzrY8 top Lol. "Shhh, don't tell HQ!"Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #95 March 15, 2014 Doug_DavisJust placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. What news on the Rialto? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doug_Davis 0 #96 March 16, 2014 mark***Just placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. What news on the Rialto? Mark I asked two carriers for quotes. Had to fill out questionnaires about the training from program for instructors, emergencies procedures in the event of an accident, etc etc. Submitted all the paperwork Thursday. Hope to hear something back next week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 369 #97 March 16, 2014 Doug_Davis ******Just placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. What news on the Rialto? Mark I asked two carriers for quotes. Had to fill out questionnaires about the training from program for instructors, emergencies procedures in the event of an accident, etc etc. Submitted all the paperwork Thursday. Hope to hear something back next week. If you get coverage for liability on the actual skydiving operations you will be the first in the country that I know of to ever obtain it. Not even Lloyd's of London will provide it. If you do get it, be sure to be sitting down when you see the premium.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,339 #98 March 16, 2014 chuckakers *********Just placed a call to my carrier to see if they will carry me for skydiving instruction as well which Im sure they will. I will let you know what the cost of an annual policy is when they give me the quote. What news on the Rialto? Mark I asked two carriers for quotes. Had to fill out questionnaires about the training from program for instructors, emergencies procedures in the event of an accident, etc etc. Submitted all the paperwork Thursday. Hope to hear something back next week. If you get coverage for liability on the actual skydiving operations you will be the first in the country that I know of to ever obtain it. Not even Lloyd's of London will provide it. If you do get it, be sure to be sitting down when you see the premium.Bingo. There's a huge difference between personal liability insurance for an individual instructor and overall liability for a DZ. When I got my rigger ticket in 09, I sat down with a copy of the waiver and my insurance agent (I was the rigger for a small club DZ). The agent basically said that my homeowners insurance would cover me if the DZ got sued and I was included. I could get an umbrella policy to add to the liability, but that would make my "pockets deeper" and possibly provide an incentive for someone to sue. Since I don't have much for assets, I decided to keep the coverage I had. So, there is personal liability coverage out there. But coverage for a DZ? No way, no how."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1888 0 #99 March 25, 2014 Some skiing states (if not all) have laws protecting the ski area from liability if one injures themselves while skiing. I have been jumping since the BSR's consisted of one sheet of paper. We got along just great with those. The USPA has gotten out of control over the last 20 years or so. If ya don't think so just add up what it costs to get to an A license now. I did it a while back and came up with a figure of around 8k with the cost of new gear etc. included. The average 20 year old can't afford that. The result is that the people now beginning in the sport must be much better off financially that the average. There is no room left for the poor guy who just has the desire & not too much else. My vote is no for the new BSR. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #100 March 25, 2014 Quote I have been jumping since the BSR's consisted of one sheet of paper. You had paper? Jeez, in my day.... http://www.screenused.com/images/flintstones/TestCap4.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
