Something I don't understand about the BPA insurance increase

[gus 1]

Help me out here:

I always thought that insurance premiums rose with the risk that you were insuring against - which is why my first year of car insurance was so high but is now slowly coming down as I get older and wiser. So, in my simple mind, when I see the BPA insurance rocket I think that it must be because the risk has increased as well. But here's the bit I don't get: the cover we get through the BPA is 3rd party right? So it's cover against if I land on Farmer McFriendly's prize cow or punch a whole in his barn roof? But how has the risk of that changed from last year to this? I understand that insurance in aviation is going up because of perceived risk to aircraft but that doesn't seem to apply in this case. What's going on?

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[vt1977 0]

That was my understanding too. There are a few others ways in which people are claiming off insurance:

1. Say someone has BUPA private health insurance and they injure themselves on a jump. They then go and get treated by BUPA because they are covered by that policy. BUPA then go after the BPA for the money they have shelled out on treating the injured jumper as they are now a third party.

2. Another reason premiums have gone up is due to a bad claims history. Demos account for 25% of all claims and it only takes a couple of nasty injuries (see 1 above) or an off/crowd landing to push this up. I believe demos carry 13 times the risk of an incident as compared to “normal” skydiving at a DZ. Now, I’d argue that those of us who don’t to demos shouldn’t have to cover this increased risk (that we are not taking!) as is the case in the US.

3. Of the remaining 75% of claims, something like 90% are made by students - often suing their instructor for negligence. Say they break/sprain an ankle on landing and then claim they weren’t taught to PLF properly. (Yeah right, more like they f*cked up – IMHO!). Now obviously written tests ought to get around this, however the very fact that they even make the claim – even if it is a load of arse as most of them are – is expensive. Just getting a lawyer to tell them they have no case is expensive and it seems it is often cheaper to just pay them a small amount of money to get them to go away. Hence the bad clams history.

My personal favourite that I heard about on the grapevine at the AGM (hence the truth of the story is unknown – I like it anyway though!) was that of a girl who hurt herself on landing. She did not PLF properly and apparently admits it but sued her instructor for negligence because she was not told she would be scared and claims that she failed to PLF properly because she was scared!

Now of course, I would also argue that those of us who are not students are less likely to make claims and therefore should not have to pay for the extra insurance risk that students pose. To put it in perspective, a £40 increase for experienced jumpers would generate the same income as an extra £10 on each student. To my mind, if you can afford £200 for a tandem/RAPS jump, then you can just as easily afford £210. And quite frankly since they’re more likely to claim, why shouldn’t they pay it and more to the point why should I!

Does that answer your question? Or have I just been ranting?!
Vicki

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

1. Say someone has BUPA private health insurance and they injure themselves on a jump. They then go and get treated by BUPA because they are covered by that policy. BUPA then go after the BPA for the money they have shelled out on treating the injured jumper as they are now a third party.

I don't think that can be correct. BUPA would not be a third party, they would be the first party insurer. Besides, that would be tantamount to the BPA insurance covering you for personal injury which we know it doesnt. I would be curious if you have heard this from a good source though.

The main reason why we have had an insurance hike this year is that the company who used to supply us insurance has decided to get out of the buisness. We used to have a good deal with them. There are no other insurers who are offering that good deal. Its as simple as that, its not a genuine hike, its just that the place we used to buy from has closed and we must now look elsewhere.

[yoink 321]

it was a good rant though.... Maybe we shold all take up BASE... no £100 membership fee for that

[gus 1]

Quote

My personal favourite that I heard about on the grapevine at the AGM (hence the truth of the story is unknown – I like it anyway though!) was that of a girl who hurt herself on landing. She did not PLF properly and apparently admits it but sued her instructor for negligence because she was not told she would be scared and claims that she failed to PLF properly because she was scared!

I really hope that's not true . It won't be long before we'll be signing pages and pages of waivers and reading video statesments . I think Yoink might have the right idea.

Good rant by the way, thanks for all the info.

Gus

OutpatientsOnline.com

[vt1977 0]

Quote

I don't think that can be correct. BUPA would not be a third party, they would be the first party insurer. Besides, that would be tantamount to the BPA insurance covering you for personal injury which we know it doesnt. I would be curious if you have heard this from a good source though.

I heard it from a fairly (not very, but fairly) reliable source. Apparently BUPA (or whoever) go after the BPA for the cost of the medical treatment. There may well be more to it than that but that was what I heard!

Vicki

PS Don't blame me I voted NO!

[mr2mk1g 10]

Hmmm, that would indeed be odd.

It does work if skydivers X and Y crash into each other. BUPA then patches up Y goes after the BPA insurance because X caused the accident. Here they sue X as the "third party".

But if Y just hooks in, BUPA would have to sue Y to get at the BPA insurance money. Y is not the third party but the insured and I can't see how the BPA insurance would cover it.

I think the person you spoke to may have been referring to the first scenario, I hear its common enough nowadays (my old RAPS instructor happens to be an expert witness and keeps telling me about cases he's involved with).

The worst thing about it is that if you're injured, there is nothing that you as the skydiver can do to stop the litigation - but it can still happen in your name!

[skyjuggler 0]

Often logic goes out the window for insurance companies. Basically there are two terms used to describe the state of the insurance market, a 'hard' market and a 'soft' market. In a hard market premiums increase and conditions for insurance become worse. In a soft market, premiums are lower and underwriters / insurers give better rates and more favourable conditions. Even if no one has claimed, rates may still increase, although a cliams history is an important factor. Why does this happen? Well Insurers don't like to loose money. So the deal is, when they start making losses premiums go up so they can recoup their cash. Insurers also get insurance themselves, called retro or reinsurance, and so the rates are bascially decided on what the market decides to charge. Since 9/11 insurers have been hit hard, they have also lost alot of money from the demise of the world econamy, notably their investments in the stock market. This means you and I have to pay more. Insurance is a funny thing, more of a secret club where people look after each other quiet alot. So don't try to apply logic, they just do what they want. Sucks hey.

[mickb 0]

What’s with the price hike U.S.P.A. next year for overseas is only $58.00 or £32.00
As quite a few of us have U.S.P.A. membership (necessary as B.P.A. only cover this country not worldwide)
Maybe its time to bin the B.P.A.
£105 is a lot for 6 mags and insurance just to jump in this country.

Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed.
Michael Pritchard.

[jas8472 0]

Quote

What’s with the price hike U.S.P.A. next year for overseas is only $58.00 or £32.00
As quite a few of us have U.S.P.A. membership (necessary as B.P.A. only cover this country not worldwide)
Maybe its time to bin the B.P.A.
£105 is a lot for 6 mags and insurance just to jump in this country.

Unlike the USPA, you can't jump at all in the UK unless you join the BPA. (that's my understanding anyway)

[batbex 0]

It's all the increase in the number of claims too.

Like loosing your no claims bonus and your car insurance goes up, the more you claim the more the annual price goes up. Along with the new company we're using and insurance fees in general going to recoup losses, there must ahve been a substantial raise in the number of claims made in the last few years.

just my 2cents

[adamsr 0]

why not just get uk dz's to run under uspa rule, then all we have to do is get uspa membership to cover jumping here, the usa, and most european dz's.

If european dz's like empuria can do it i don't see why the british dz's can't!!

[BBKid 0]

I suggested this, but someone told me that the BPA has the sole permission from the CAA to carry out parachuting operations in UK mainland airspace. So even if no-one renewed BPA membership, we still couldn't demand to jump under USPA rules.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[gremlin 0]

Quote

I suggested this, but someone told me that the BPA has the sole permission from the CAA to carry out parachuting operations in UK mainland airspace. So even if no-one renewed BPA membership, we still couldn't demand to jump under USPA rules.

That was me and I am afraid it is true.

Two interesting things came from the AGM. The first was an open admission that they have to increase BPA membership every year to retain Sports Council funding (hence wasting money on displays for their own office) and secondly that you get out what you put in. Only 13 people bothered to vote against the price rise in an attempt to get it better distributed. If you weren't one of those who voted against then please accept that YOU are responsible for the price increase.

I await the flames.

I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine....

[Andrewwhyte 1]

3. Of the remaining 75% of claims, something like 90% are made by students - often suing their instructor for negligence.

Like your health insurer example, this case also lacks a third party. If the student is the one jumping they are the first party.
In Canada we annually go through the same insurance woes as you. We have managed to keep our rates much lower than yours by limiting the scope of the insurance in a few ways:
1. member to member claims are not allowed. This would leave you exposed in case of a wrap but I only know of one member to member case ever succeeding in Canada. Prohibitions on such behavior on wavers can help
2. Instructors are not covered. If the BPA wants to insure instructors it should be a separate policy. I have been an instructor for twelve years without liability insurance. I do however have access to our $1 000 000.00 legal defense fund. When lawyers for plaintiffs learn that there is cash for defense lawyers but not one red cent for settlements, they tend to lose enthusiasm for working on contingency.
One detail for those of you thinking of USPA only. USPA third party coverage covers residents of the US worldwide, but foreign residents are only covered while in the US. At our DZ we welcome USPA members who live in the US. Non US residents still have to provide proof of insurance.

[gremlin 0]

Quote

I do however have access to our $1 000 000.00 legal defense fund. When lawyers for plaintiffs learn that there is cash for defense lawyers but not one red cent for settlements, they tend to lose enthusiasm for working on contingency.

That sounds like an excellent option. Doubt the BPA will go for it for exactly that reason.

I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine....

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Like your health insurer example, this case also lacks a third party. If the student is the one jumping they are the first party.

Nope - from the insurace point of view, the injured party is the "third party" - the person at fault is the "first party".

In this case the injured student is claiming to be the third party to the BPA insurance and that the instructor is at fualt and thus the first party.

So the third party sues the first party's, third party insurance cover.

(their claim fails 99% of the time as they are the one at fault thus they are the first party to the BPA insurance and not covered by the third party only insurance).

[mickb 0]

Quote

I suggested this, but someone told me that the BPA has the sole permission from the CAA to carry out parachuting operations in UK mainland airspace. So even if no-one renewed BPA membership, we still couldn't demand to jump under USPA rules.

Has anyone checked this with the C.A.A. ?
I know there was a couple of dz's running under uspa
some years back

Fear is that little darkroom where negatives are developed.
Michael Pritchard.