"Insurance & PRO" Update

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Has USPA insurance refused to pay when BSR's were not followed?

Actually, no, not that I know about. This is where the insurance company 'gets their way' over whatever USPA has to say.

I can think of two major incidents that occurred in the past 10 years.

One case was a TM that used a Strong rig. The TM was rated under RWS. I forget the exact details of the landing/canopy problem. The TM lived & the passenger died. It happened in central California several years ago.

Anyway, the TM was NOT rated for the rig he used. (This was before the USPA tandem rating existed.) The TM, USPA, Strong and half-a-dozen other companies were named in the lawsuit. USPA vehemently asked the insurance carrier NOT to pay off on this case. (I do not know if it's the same carrier we have today.) The insurance carrier paid off the claim. Strong continued to fight and pay mucho bucks to clear its name. The TM was definitely violating USPA BSRs & FARS, but the insurance company paid off.

The second case was a demo jump where an infant was killed by a demo jumper. There was apparently a BSR violation, but I do not know what it was. There were BOD members that said 'do not pay off on this'. The insurance company did pay it off.

Recently, I specifically asked Chris Needels about what HQ does with claims. He said they just forward them to the insurance carrier without comment.

I believe back in the Ottley days, Ottley would send in an evaluation about the BSR/FAR violations, if any, per claim. I'll ask him about this in Feb.

If you ask me, HQ should be sending in comments about BSR/FAR violations to the insurance company. But this only really, really matters in the BIG FUCK UPS. In those instances, the insurance company will, more than likely, pay off the claim.
That's cheaper than a lawsuit.

So, in the real world, following the BSRs does not matter if you file a claim.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

But the DZO(s) aircraft in the air or on the ground are not third party chattel are they?

This is true.
That is why it is an option for removing it from coverage.
It does not make a significant difference in the premiums.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

But the DZO(s) aircraft in the air or on the ground are not third party chattel are they?

Quote

This is true. That is why it is an option for removing it from coverage. It does not make a significant difference in the premiums.

OK, so the DZO(s) aircraft are covered by the insurance that an individual member has being a member of the USPA, or is this a benefit of the DZO being a USPA GM-DZ? In other words, would a NON-USPA GM-DZ be covered for damage caused by a current USPA individual member?

[tkhayes 123]

stop blaming uSPA, all they can do is shop for the best insurance they can get for the $$$. stupid idoits that cause demo accidents are making the insurance industry raise rates, not USPA.

I do not agree with average joe member having to subsidize demo insurance either. The customer (spectator) needs to pay for the costs and if we are being priced out of business, then get all the demo jumpers together and go to Washington.

The insurance needs to change, not USPA. The tort laws in this country need to change, not USPA. How about writing your state reps and congressmen/women and telling them that.

As far as hold harmless agreements go, I would not risk my ass on one. spectators and 'victims' of demo accidents may not even be part of the event, unaware that such an agreement even exists, and therefore not really bound into the agreement. If you injure or hurt someone, chances are that you DID ACTUALLY FUCK UP (negligence). THat makes you liable, insurance or not.

As well, you are assuming that the event host actually has any money to pay for your costs. Afterall you are really saying that they will cover your ass in the event of an accident. So now you have to look into their financials and insurance to see if they could even defend you. Agreement or not, you would end up suing them, since they will probably not 'defend' you in any way should you be the cause of any sort of accident.

sounds like too much work for a silly demo. When customers call me, I say $3000 for a 4 person demo within 50 miles of our location. Sometimes they balk, sometimes they don't. I look at the ones that don't balk. Demos are a lot of work and I want to be insured so I do not have to worry about it.

No different than when a customer calls and wants a tandem jump. I say $169 - sometimes they balk and sometimes they don't. It is now the cost of doing business.

Do we do uninsured demos? Sometimes for good community relations, yes. I choose the locations wisely, large areas, not small ones. only the best jumpers, not any schmuck who thinks they can do it. Fly different parachutes, not radical ones. Jump-fly-land-that is all the customer really want to see.

write congress and get some changes to the laws in this country that allow/encourage lawyers to share settlements and allow them to advertise on daytime television, feeding the frenzy that nothing in the world is ever your fault and you "get the money you DESERVE" for you pain and suffering......

TK

[airtwardo 6]

Dead Center on THAT post!

Well thought out, articulated and accurate.

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

[rmsmith 1]

Great post there TK!

I am a USPA member, and I know that the USPA is working with a limited insurance market. However, I am not sure if the USPA is developing an insurance solution to address all their individual members, or are they working on a GM-DZ solution that will eventually mean compulsory USPA membership to be able to skydive. I'm sure the Comrades among us won't be bothered by a single provider, but I'd find it to be a disturbing development that would lead to run-away costs in the future. At some point this liability extortion will reach a limit, financial or political. I really like the national solution that the ski industry settled upon, as stated by a previous poster above. Personally, I think Bill Booth did the right thing with the Uninsured RWS reconfiguration; the best target is no target!

[tkhayes 123]

not sure what you mean by USPA working on a solution..... they are not an insurance company and I doubt we are large enough an organization to self-insure, so we are a the mercy of the insurance industry. Good luck at lobbying like the ski industry does - they have money and lobbyists,
We have Ed Scott - who by the way does a great job, but I sincerely doubt it is enough. Jesus i cannot even get local and state authorities to helpo look at hot-fuelling......
TK

[airtwardo 6]

***I am not sure if the USPA is developing an insurance solution to address all their individual members, or are they working on a GM-DZ solution that will eventually mean compulsory USPA membership to be able to skydive.

Quote

I have been in conversation with both USPA and
some of the alternative 3rd party liability coverage
brokers they are currently working with
to rectify the current situation...

I DO understand what you are saying...

But I believe, at this juncture anyway,
that the organization is trying to find a workable,
affordable solution that will benefit all its members.

But...
as you are inferring...it's in ALL of our best interest
to pay attention,
and keep a sharp eye on what is going on here!

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

• Quote

[airtwardo 6]

*** I doubt we are large enough an organization to self-insure

Quote

Well....

That's not necessarily true,
we're currently paying almost 1/2 a million
a year in premiums...

Wouldn't take but a couple of years to put together
a 'War Chest" to enable a 'self-insure' solution...

But what would we do about coverage during the interim?

And imagine the headache involved in enveloping
such a program?!

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

• Quote

[tkhayes 123]

a single lawsuit could wipe out that warchest in no time the lawyers and the costs. I seem to remember Ted Strong spending 300K to defend Strong in a tandem lawsuit where in the end his company was only found partially liable in the suit.

risky business - that is why we have insurance companies. No insurance at all may be the option, but I am not willing to risk my personal savings, home, and everything else over a demo jump.
TK

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

a single lawsuit could wipe out that warchest in no time the lawyers and the costs. I seem to remember Ted Strong spending 300K to defend Strong in a tandem lawsuit where in the end his company was only found partially liable in the suit.

risky business - that is why we have insurance companies. No insurance at all may be the option, but I am not willing to risk my personal savings, home, and everything else over a demo jump.
TK

***

TK-
On one hand I agree with you...
for pretty much all the reasons cited.

But on the other hand,
If the USPA were more in control of the 'payouts'
for incidents, I'm convinced there wouldn't be
but a fraction of the 'losses' we currently see.

The insurance carrier has never refused to pay on a claim.
The USPA has no say over this policy in that regard.

If it was 'general fund' dollars at stake,
I bet more scrutiny would follow prior to any settlements.

But then again,
how much would be pissed away in lawyer fees?!

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

• Quote