0
airtwardo

USPA Member ??? READ THIS !!!

Recommended Posts

I have not really been following this thread and I know I know very little about this sport as of yet, but, are there really that many accidents out there that involve skydivers hurting spectators or damaging spectator property? And what about having spectator's sign waiver's if they want to hang around the DZ. They do not HAVE to be there. And the skyjock pilot should also have to carry his share of the burden knowing that HE is refeuling where 180 lb objects are constantly falling from the sky.

I guess I know so little about any of this and have never heard of a skydiver smacking into say a mom getting out of her car as she goes to the store or a person driving by the DZ getting a windshield full of canopy and crashing into a telephone poll.

Is this really so common that the insurance is THAT high?

And I also thought that the USPA served more than just as an insurance carrier but as a governing body to help keep the government out of our sport. Am I wrong about this too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do other countries handle the risk of third party damage?

Why is this so murcurial to only destroy jumping in the U.S.?

Why do we want a skydive museum?

Do I get my life membership back if USPA folds?
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How do other countries handle the risk of third party damage?

Do I get my life membership back if USPA folds?



The British currently arn't. Our premiums are set to rise by 100% and we pay approx $140 a year to the BPA compared to your $50 to USPA. Again a lot of our claims seem to come from Demo jumpers and it would be interesting to know if the BPA has thought about separating the Demo side.

And no you wouldn't get your membership money back as you would have had membership for the life of the USPA ;);)
I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pissed I just got off AFF and got membership mostly for the Insurance coverage, who needs the magazine. It has been a while since this thread started what is the status on them dropping insurance coverage. Does anyone have stats on the payouts by our insurance for both demo jumpers and pleasure jumpers? To try and put it this way, it seems that you would try to fix the broken part on the car not throw the whole car away. I know if you make alot of claims on your insurance(big or small) they drop you. Is there demo jumpers that have repeated claims for large amounts or small that are still under the policy. It seems at risk(we all are lol, how about really at risk) people are driving the whole plane into the ground. If we drop them out of the loop will it help out any? Also is this REALLY imminent danger or just a heads up. I mean when should people expect to pack their rigs away for eternity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some "Fun Facts" for those interested...

Since 1999, there have been all of TWO claims
against the demo policy.

The TOTAL payout for these two claims is a whopping:
$ 2892.00

(Total payout for all insured demo jumpers since
1999 is a little less than the premium I paid to
cover two events this past summer,)

In that same time period, since 1999
The "General Membership Liability" policy
had 54 claims against it...

Resulting in a total payout of $ 324,292.00


Granted there are more General Members...
(all of us)
than demo policy users.

But that is STILL a rather telling set of figures!

The 'Bad-Rap' demo guys seem to be getting here,
actually comes about 5 years to late.

There were two very high claim payouts in the
decade prior to 1999...
In fact those two claims, resulted in 89% of the total demo insurance payouts for the ten years; 89-99.










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***Last I heard they have found an alternate insurance provider for substancially less. I don't remember where I read that though.


I know of one for sure and possibly two making 'bids' on the policy coverage...
Ultimately it's up to the BOD to decide which company to use.










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand this thread, it calims that you would not be insured for ANY skydive through the USPA. Is that correct?

If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?

Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wouldn't it be easier to just kill all the lawyers?



Shakespeare's been trying to get people to kill them for years.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***As I understand this thread, it calims that you would not be insured for ANY skydive through the USPA. Is that correct?

If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?

Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez



Okay, I see your point...

This thread has been going on for a while,
and certain things have changed and been
revised...
there was a possibility that the USPA
would end it's involvement altogether with insurance..

If that were in fact the decision, you would have to
seek a form of liability coverage on your own...
or jump without it.

The brokers I've spoken with seemed unwilling to
commit to confirming a jumper actually being covered
for liability of injury & damage caused while jumping...
anywhere and anytime...
through their homeowners policy...
So that, I can't answer.

We are in hope the USPA will continue to offer
their assistance in this important matter!
Which it looks like will be their intent.

And as of yet the insurance hasn't actually changed at all
from what it's been for years now.

The current policy does run out soon,
and that is the issue being address in the upcoming
BOD meeting.

To answer your question...as things currently stand
...and I'm not an expert here.
It's my understand that you would be covered under the General Membership
policy as doing AFF and Tandems 'at a dropzone' would be considered
'normal parachute operations' .
Even though you are getting paid.

And I agree...;)
First, we kill ALL the lawyers!! B|










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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are doing a tandem you are working. If you are a carpenter and you damage someone's property while carpenting, your homeowners insurance wouldn't cover you either. If you are being paid as an employee (ie using the dz's rig) this becomes the dz's problem, just like any other workplace.
BTW I am not a lawyer; I'm just guessing.

Peyode Rodriguez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the way I understand it, even if you're using the dz's rigs, you're probably an independent subcontractor - you would have to purchase your own medical insurance. You would only be an employee if the dz issues you a T4 slip at the end of the year. I doubt most tandem masters - in Canada anyways - are viewed as employees or would be covered for things like employee's comp...

In Canada however if you are at an approved school with insurance, all passengers are covered under the school's insurance for 3rd party liability, instructors have access to the defence fund and are covered for their own 3rd party liability through their individual memberships, I believe. That's the only way I could see it work, considering how cheap it is for a school to affiliate and become insured (compared to an individual membership which only covers one person).

Without insurance, in the case of 3rd party liability, yes the dz would probably get sued, but so would you personally, and you would probably have to cover your own legal expenses... It would be possible for the dz to get off and you to be found liable in the case of neglect for instance, or for both of you to be found liable, but very unlikely for you to be exonerated and the dz found liable... Anyway, because of that you'd want to have your own lawyer separate from the dz's. In Canada instructors have access to a defence fund to pay for that through their individual memberships.

In the event that the instructor is not qualified, presumably the insurance for both the school and the instructor would be nullified.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that was a good guess because it was right on as per
NY state insurance law. I am sure most States abide by the same. There is no "bottom line" with insurance in regards to home owners Ins or personal
liability umbrella because all insurance companies
dictate their policies with such ambiguity to go in their favor when the gray area is involved. Here is the deal with homeowners liability and umbrella.
There is an added endorsement called incidental business that would cover you in the event that you damage someone ( punitive or property) it would be covered provided it was incidental & accidental. Incidental would mean that you are compensated and not your main source of income. And accidental
is usually always covered. Now comes the lawyers to
prove without your weekend paycheck you cant pay your bills...UT OH "no longer incidental" Start digging in your own pocket brother.This is just for the part timer. Lets go to the weekend fun jumper,
...if you damage anything or anyone(punitive or property) assuming it was a mistake DUH.. your home owners ins and or umbrella policy have to step up to the plate (as per NY State) and I challenge anyone out there to dispute this. NO I AM NOT A LAWYER!!! just an informed person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually, the way I understand it, even if you're using the dz's rigs, you're probably an independent subcontractor - you would have to purchase your own medical insurance. You would only be an employee if the dz issues you a T4 slip at the end of the year. I doubt most tandem masters - in Canada anyways - are viewed as employees or would be covered for things like employee's comp...

In Canada however if you are at an approved school with insurance, all passengers are covered under the school's insurance for 3rd party liability, instructors have access to the defence fund and are covered for their own 3rd party liability through their individual memberships, I believe. That's the only way I could see it work, considering how cheap it is for a school to affiliate and become insured (compared to an individual membership which only covers one person).

Without insurance, in the case of 3rd party liability, yes the dz would probably get sued, but so would you personally, and you would probably have to cover your own legal expenses... It would be possible for the dz to get off and you to be found liable in the case of neglect for instance, or for both of you to be found liable, but very unlikely for you to be exonerated and the dz found liable... Anyway, because of that you'd want to have your own lawyer separate from the dz's. In Canada instructors have access to a defence fund to pay for that through their individual memberships.

In the event that the instructor is not qualified, presumably the insurance for both the school and the instructor would be nullified.



My tax man says that if they tell you when to come to work and what to do while there you are an employee, not a contractor. This is for California not Canada.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My tax man says that if they tell you when to come to work and what to do while there you are an employee, not a contractor. This is for California not Canada.
__________________________________________________

But how much do you work? Do you work on a regular basis? Can you turn down work if you don't want it? Does your employer deduct pension/employment insurance/workman's comp/taxes etc. from your paycheque? I've no doubt that in your case you're correct - but it can get sort of dicey up here. Of course up here if you're a contractor (self employed) you can deduct the costs of doing business (ie. equipment, courses, training), whereas if you're an employee I don't know if you could.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But how much do you work? Do you work on a regular basis? Can you turn down work if you don't want it?



I work when I want to and only the jobs I want to. Like I said, If they tell you when to come to work and what to do when you get there, you are an employee no matter what the deduct from your check. And as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every state and every provence have there own regs on this, but the essence is usually the same. It is not correct, however to find one definition and transpose it onto other aspects of the law. You are correct in your assumption that our part time tandem masters are independent contractors for income tax purposes (federal jurisdiction). For Workers' Compensation Board purposes (Provincial jurisdiction) you are wrong. They are employees and are covered by WCB premiums which the DZ is obliged to pay. The deciding factor is whether or not the subcontractor/employee provides materials (I am not guessing this time).
While I'm sure I have the rivetted attention of everyone in other jurisdictions, my point is that neither Revenue Canada's nor WCB's definition can be seen as definitive in a liability suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[replyI work when I want to and only the jobs I want to. Like I said, If they tell you when to come to work and what to do when you get there, you are an employee no matter what the deduct from your check. And as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky



Um, it a bit more complex than that. There are a series of legal tests dealing with the topic. Your “tax man” gave you an incredibly dumbed down version. The basic issue revolves around “control”. This is a complex legal issue that is challenged in both civil courts and by the IRS on any number of fronts. Trust me if you had any idea how complex the issue is and how many court cases it had been tested in you would not be addressing it so flatly. Currently, every instructor I know of is being treated as an independent contractor for tax purposes. Does this translate directly for liability purposes, no but it’s a good start. Again this is a widely complex issue that I guarantee won’t be resolved here.
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0