Would you quit USPA if there was an alternative to liability insurance?

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

We're not insuring Mr. B for skydiving mishaps; we're insuring the DZ against a claim against it by Mr. B for the damage to his plane caused by the skydiving mishap.

The USPA member insurance is for members only, it does not extend coverage to DZ's (even group members). In most cases that policy may get in front of claims against the DZ, but thats all. DZs may require insurance or not but it should be their choice. Or maybe an uninsured jump ticket should cost more. Either way it should be up to the DZ to decide what coverage they want from jumpers, not the USPA, Airport management, etc.

I am a DZ owner myself, and do not view jumper caused damages as a very big part of the total DZ risk picture. There are many, many other much more expensive and likely events that I worry about that I am not insured for. If I bought insurance for everything that could happen, I would be out of business. Risk is part of business, and the DZ business is risky indeed.

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

In a perfect world, that might be the case. But in the US, at least, a DZ can get sued for third-party property damage by the owner of property that is damaged by a skydiver jumping out of that DZ. Now, if we don't like that, we should lobby our state legislators to pass legislation to prevent third-party property damage claims against DZ's.

That's the problem. The people who should be lobbying for those kinds of things - the USPA- are in the business of selling us the insurance, which of course only comes bundled together with membership.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

USPA insurance helps us get access to airports, and to pacify angry neighbors.

This is the part that disturbs me. Why should we have to provide insurance to gain access to public airports? I don't know of any other GA user that is required to purchase a "one-size-fits-all" third party liability policy. The USPA should be fighting for equal access.

They are and the insurance doesn't factor into it other than that assurance that damage to property WILL be covered.
I'm willing to bet very few sport skydivers can write a check to Mr. Bonanza for 20-30 grand of damage THEY caused and are responsible to make whole.
An entire operation can be dragged down with the impending suits.
By having that 'bare minimum coverage there, overall liability coverage needed by a DZ isn't passed on through 50.00 jump tickets.

Of course they never will, because it is the USPA who directly benefits from any rules requiring insurance.

How so?

Home owners, car owners, aircraft owners, etc. are the ones who should be responsible for ensuring their assets are adequately insured. If Mr. Bonanza owner feels it isn't necessary to insure his plane against hail damage, vandalism, etc, then why should we be responsible for insuring him for skydiving mishaps?


Are you serious??

Because if WE are responsible for causing the damage, why should HIS insurance cover OUR screw up?
I have auto insurance, but if YOU hit my car with no fault attributed to me, YOUR insurance pays to fix it...not MINE.

How expensive would aircraft insurance be it the underwriter took into consideration that the aircraft is parked near a skydiving operation that may cause damage to the property that the aircraft underwriter WILL have to cover no matter what because the skydivers don't.
Wouldn't be long before organizations like the AOPA would be defending their members by trying to limit the access skydivers have that is making their insurance costs skyrocket.

It is ridiculous to think that two jumpers, one a poor trailer living instructor who jumps at a remote DZ surrounded by nothing but empty fields, and another, a high-dollar yuppie student who jumps at a DZ surrounded by multi-million dollar homes and an outdoor day-care facility, are well served by the same policy.

They might not be 'well served'...which is why many in the 'real world' carry additional coverage.
50,000 is almost NOTHING should a serious mishap occur.
It's a small 'blanket policy' that offers a bare minimum of coverage.
It's 50,000 back up, piece of mind for the cost of a couple of PACK JOBS!
You certainly CAN do better and SHOULD if you have any assents that you are concerned about hanging on to.

My credit card covers me for some minimum liability when renting a car, I would be foolish to have that as my ONLY insurance. It's better than NOTHING, but not my only security blanket.

Insurance should be available for jumpers from a number of competing sources, in various amounts and forms of coverage. Your premium should be determined by your age, experience level, license/ratings, home dz location, amount of coverage etc.

It IS...and again, if you have any assets at all, you probably should consider the USPA policy as an 'in addition' insurance.

Put you boot prints on some lady with a baby that you center punch because of an out landing...that 50 grand won't cover medical much less pain & suffering.

Or, perhaps a jumper may find they are already adequately insured through their other policies, as it has been previously mentioned. It is very wasteful to require people to buy redundant insurance, or require them to buy policies that leave them over/under insured.

It's 12 BUCKS!
A case of beer, a pair of goggles, box of rubber bands, 1/20th of a decent helmet!
The motorcycle I rarely ride costs 10 times as much to insure,
but that 'just in case' makes it worth it.
Is that insurance premium really a break the bank issue?

Jumpers who cause damage should be individually responsible, not the DZ they jump at, or the skydiving community at large. Whether or not they are insured adequately is their own individual problem.

And how many trailer dwelling roman noodle eating jumpers would buck up to cover themselves?
Bang up a Lear or two and tell the owner sorry 'bout that, see ya.
And see how long the 'skydiving community at large' is held in the 'high esteem' it currently enjoys!

If jumpers are concerned with access and FAA lobbying efforts they would be far better off joining AOPA. Our voice is much stronger if we consider ourselves as part of the larger GA community (which we are).

I AM a member of the AIRCRAFT OWNERS and PILOTS Association...and believe that as a skydiver, I'm better served by an organization with my SPECIFIC interests as their mission statement.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[SwampThing 0]

Quote

the USPA- are in the business of selling us the insurance...

Quote

You keep saying that.

Is that your opinion or do you have some factual stats to show how the USPA is benefiting financially as an insurance broker / provider?

That's like saying the USPA is causing global warming because they cut down trees to make a magazine.

The Pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse!"
The Optimist says: "Sure it can!"

• Quote

[GrabGrass 0]

Quote

I am a DZ owner myself, and do not view jumper caused damages as a very big part of the total DZ risk picture.

Quote

Ever HAD jumper caused damage that wan't covered?

If so -you THEN might consider it a risk huh?

Quote

There are many, many other much more expensive and likely events that I worry about that I am not insured for.

Quote

That's interesting, do you make it known to your jumpers or other interested parties, that you are not insured for 'many, many likely to occur' events?

~ "Pack Fast, Pull Low... and Date Your Riggers WIFE!" ~

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

Of course they never will, because it is the USPA who directly benefits from any rules requiring insurance.

How so?

Why would the USPA fight an airport management that is requiring jumpers to be USPA members (for the insurance)? I'm not saying that the USPA profits from the underwriting, but you have to buy a membership to get the insurance, and that benefits the USPA.

Quote

Are you serious??

Because if WE are responsible for causing the damage, why should HIS insurance cover OUR screw up?
I have auto insurance, but if YOU hit my car with no fault attributed to me, YOUR insurance pays to fix it...not MINE.

How expensive would aircraft insurance be it the underwriter took into consideration that the aircraft is parked near a skydiving operation that may cause damage to the property that the aircraft underwriter WILL have to cover no matter what because the skydivers don't.
Wouldn't be long before organizations like the AOPA would be defending their members by trying to limit the access skydivers have that is making their insurance costs skyrocket.

I am. Given the number of actual claims (was it 12?) I doubt aircraft insurance prices are going to skyrocket if jumpers didn't universally have to carry the insurance. They already don't. For example, I can think of a busy DZ where in ten years I can't think of a single instance of a jumper damaging a plane, but 1-2 a year are totaled due to high winds.

Quote

My credit card covers me for some minimum liability when renting a car, I would be foolish to have that as my ONLY insurance. It's better than NOTHING, but not my only security blanket.

Good for you. Should people be required to have such a credit card in order to rent a car, or can people be allowed to make financially foolish (according to you) decisions?

Should skydivers be required to carry health insurance? I bet they break themselves more than they break other people's stuff. Whose protecting the public from the skyrocketing costs of health care? Whose protecting the silly jumper who femurs himself with no insurance and is now responsible for a big medical bill?

Won't someone please think of the children?!

Quote

It's 12 BUCKS!
A case of beer, a pair of goggles, box of rubber bands, 1/20th of a decent helmet!
The motorcycle I rarely ride costs 10 times as much to insure,
but that 'just in case' makes it worth it.
Is that insurance premium really a break the bank issue?

Its not, its $49, you can't get it without the membership. And I the magazine and other benefits aren't meaningful to me, so no need to use the "shiny things" argument.

Quote

I AM a member of the AIRCRAFT OWNERS and PILOTS Association...and believe that as a skydiver, I'm better served by an organization with my SPECIFIC interests as their mission statement.

Good for you again! Me too. But as for the USPA mission and how I'm served, I have a different opinion, which is another thread entirely.

Again, I'm not saying its a bad idea to carry insurance, just don't think it should be mandatory to jump out of an aircraft, just as it isn't mandatory have liability insurance to taxi an airplane next to a Gulfstream even though you may hit it

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

That's interesting, do you make it known to your jumpers or other interested parties, that you are not insured for 'many, many likely to occur' events?Shocked

By likely, I mean relatively. Not being insured does not mean unable to be fiscally responsible.

Read a DZ waiver, it will give you an idea of the kinds of things DZ's are not insured for.

I think most jumpers are aware that if the airplane gears up, or roasts a hot section, that we won't be jumping that afternoon after a call to our friendly state farm agent.

[airtwardo 6]

But as for the USPA mission and how I'm served, I have a different opinion, which is another thread entirely.

Quote

But as a DZO you can opt to not be affiliated with the USPA, and thereby not require membership to participate at your facility.

Would your profits greatly increase?

Would being a 'stand alone' organization benefit you in the overall picture?

If so than you have no reason to require membership and it's a moot point.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[GrabGrass 0]

Quote

Quote

That's interesting, do you make it known to your jumpers or other interested parties, that you are not insured for 'many, many likely to occur' events?Shocked

By likely, I mean relatively. Not being insured does not mean unable to be fiscally responsible.

Read a DZ waiver, it will give you an idea of the kinds of things DZ's are not insured for.

I think most jumpers are aware that if the airplane gears up, or roasts a hot section, that we won't be jumping that afternoon after a call to our friendly state farm agent.

Granted, but I would also like to know if the office roof caves in and kills my wife, I might have recourse to recover!

Of if a fire in the hangar roasts my favorite tee shirt with me in it, I can sue for replacement.

'Many, many other' such possibilities come to mind that as a business owner I'm careful to limit my business's liability over.

~ "Pack Fast, Pull Low... and Date Your Riggers WIFE!" ~

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

But as a DZO you can opt to not be affiliated with the USPA, and thereby not require membership to participate at your facility.

My airport management requires USPA membership, so no I do not have a choice.

They allow other pilots to use the airport without belonging to their respective organization or requiring them to provide insurance, whether they are glider, acro, or experimental, or just regular pilots.

Quote

Would your profits greatly increase?

No they would not. But it would save time, frustration, and general hassle. And save a little money. Every bit makes a difference.

Quote

Would being a 'stand alone' organization benefit you in the overall picture?

Yes, for the above reasons, I think so.

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

Granted, but I would also like to know if the office roof caves in and kills my wife, I might have recourse to recover! Wink

Of if a fire in the hangar roasts my favorite tee shirt with me in it, I can sue for replacement.

Those kinds of things are covered under our general business liability policy, which are required for all businesses in most states.

[airtwardo 6]

Would being a 'stand alone' organization benefit you in the overall picture?

>>>Yes, for the above reasons, I think so.<<<

Quote

Then possibly the AOPA could assist in your circumstance?

You're a member and have an access issue, might make for an interesting and beneficial 'case law' type of precedent.

If you truly have a case for 'unfair' compliance demands then rectifying that issue benefits 'everyone' doesn't it?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[tombuch 0]

Quote

If jumpers are concerned with access and FAA lobbying efforts they would be far better off joining AOPA. Our voice is much stronger if we consider ourselves as part of the larger GA community (which we are).

A while back I started working on getting drop zones depicted in GPS and FMS systems. The idea was to provide pilots with drop zone locations on their digital displays so they would at least know where our DZ's are, and avoid us. The manufacturers wern't interested in helping us (they still aren't), and AOPA said it wasn't their problem. The FAA didn't care, and the various standards groups that manage data and systems had absolutely not a shred of interest in adding drop zone data.

USPA was willing to take on the challenge, and once USPA stepped up to the plate with their 32,000 members, AOPA joined in with their 400,000 members. From there we were able to get FAA on board, and then the national and international standards organizations. We still need the manufacturers, but with USPA in the lead and AOPA working the issue (along with the Air Safety Foundation), we have a good chance of concluding the project.

I've been an AOPA member for many years, and it is without doubt an outstanding organization, and I encourage every skydiver to join. But we still need USPA as our direct representative for general aviation issues that affect drop zones and jump operations, and as our representative for legislative issues unique to skydiving. USPA has a terrific relationship with AOPA and ASF, and with the rest of the GA community. We need USPA in that role.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[scdrnr 0]

***Then possibly the AOPA could assist in your circumstance?***

Possibly, yes. Its an interesting idea.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

We're not insuring Mr. B for skydiving mishaps; we're insuring the DZ against a claim against it by Mr. B for the damage to his plane caused by the skydiving mishap.

The USPA member insurance is for members only, it does not extend coverage to DZ's (even group members). In most cases that policy may get in front of claims against the DZ, but thats all. DZs may require insurance or not but it should be their choice. Or maybe an uninsured jump ticket should cost more. Either way it should be up to the DZ to decide what coverage they want from jumpers, not the USPA, Airport management, etc.

I am a DZ owner myself, and do not view jumper caused damages as a very big part of the total DZ risk picture. There are many, many other much more expensive and likely events that I worry about that I am not insured for. If I bought insurance for everything that could happen, I would be out of business. Risk is part of business, and the DZ business is risky indeed.

You know what? - you're right on this part. My USPA insurance only covers me, not any DZ I jump at. I definitely should have (and do!) known better, and I have no idea why I had a brain fart on this point. I apologize.

Perhaps someone might argue that the DZ can try to get a court to deem it an "additional insured" under my USPA policy, but I think the DZ would lose on that issue, so you're still right.

Let me try to rehabilitate myself a bit (although it doesn't salvage my error):
I suppose that if I jump at your DZ, and cause somebody less than $50,000 damage, the fact that they will get paid off by my USPA policy might make them less likely to go after you for the loss. That, in turn, would be reasonable cause for you to insist that I have USPA membership in order to jump there. But that's about it. (And I'm not going to pretend that was what I originally meant, because that's not true.)
I'm going to go back to school now.

[airtwardo 6]

Perhaps someone might argue that the DZ can try to get a court to deem it an "additional insured" under my USPA policy, but I think the DZ would lose on that issue, so you're still right.

Quote

The problem with that, is if there WAS an additionally insured, then you would both only be covered for 25,000...unless otherwise stipulated in the policy.

That is something for demo jumpers to keep in mind when purchasing the demo policy.
If you get the 1M policy and name the event as a co insured that lowers the amount YOU are insured for...(unless the policy language is different than the one prior)

Another little tidbit I wasn't aware of in the difference in the old & new insurance.
For the 'old' demo policy, the A/C was also insured from the time the first jumper entered it until it shut down after the demo load....not in the new one.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote