If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:10:06 UTC, "Steve"
wrote: : The post said the "You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event : of many : types of accidents". I doubt this would hold up in court. How do you get : your underage kids give up their rights ? They can't ign the form and I : doubt the courts would let the legal guardian take their rights away Does : your spouse sign the waiver and agree not to sue? I believe that UK gliding clubs have given up the disclaimer of this sort (lovingly knbown as the "blood chit") because it was legally untenable. Ian -- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What is the liability insurance all about ? I thought
it was things like crop damage, damaging vehicles or buildings, hitting innocent bystanders - either relatively inexpensive or relatively infrequent claims. But if it is being abused as a substitute for carrying life insurance, then that's a whole new bucket of snakes. Ian At 13:12 13 June 2004, Ian Johnston wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:22:21 UTC, (Michael) wrote: : A lot less. It's much slower and much lighter, and probably is : capable of delivering no more than a quarter of the energy on impact : that a Nimbus can deliver. I'm going to guess a bit, but assuming that a Nimbus weighs about 5 times as much as a hang-glider all up (750 vs 150kg) and flies twice as fast (60 vs 30kt), it'll have twenty times the energy on impact... Ian -- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ian Cant wrote: What is the liability insurance all about ? I thought it was things like crop damage, damaging vehicles or buildings, hitting innocent bystanders - either relatively inexpensive or relatively infrequent claims. But if it is being abused as a substitute for carrying life insurance, then that's a whole new bucket of snakes. Ian the worst case was a landowner who collected daily use fees, a certificated but dangerous & indigent instructor, the weather turned, the student crashed and died. the instructor had no assets to attach, so the heirs (appropriately) turned to the certificating organization (USHGA) and (inappropriately) to the landowner. laws have now been changed to deny liability for landowners provided they allow access for free; only if they charge, do they have liability. still USHGA is on the hook for the instructors and commercial pilots, the people most likely to be sued. with all students and ride passengers signing the waiver, the organization is theoretically in the clear. in a nutshell, the liability insurance protects the landowners from lawsuits due to injuries sustained when they allow HG/PG to occur on their property. in other sports like scuba, even though an international organization certificates the instructors, the instructors provide their own liability insurance. you can imagine the liability if a scuba instructor tossed a student into the ocean w/o making sure their air was on. Ken |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 9 Jun 2004 16:52:47 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote: Mike, Thankyou for the insight, which may very well be good advice. However, is there not ALWAYS a conflict of interest between insurer and insured at claim time ? Having the SSA as a middleman would not appear to alter that fact. The SSA might even be encouraged to become more interested in overall soaring safety statistics [or at least liability claim incidents], and develop a more pro-active safety program. That would hardly be bad for us. The large pool might well be a captive market for the duration of any one contract; but at renewal time, it should also be more attractive to insurers and thus attract competitive rates. Am I hopelessly naive ? Ian Ian, It hasn't worked that way in Oz. You can also end up with the insurance company dictating the rules or the organisation buying the insurance adding yet more rules over the legal minima to convince the insurance company not to raise premiums. Imagine the effect of your SSA disowning you or not getting involved on the insurance company's decision to pay out. Hvaning soaring advocacy bodies making too many rules is a really bad idea. Right now in Australia someone like Eric Greenwell, who as I understand, operates a self launcher out of a trailer at an airfield with no other soaring pilots around cannot be covered by the GFA's third party insurance as there is a requirement for a second qualified inspector's signature on the maintenance release for that day. Yes, we've had a couple of accidents with controls not hooked up or assembled backwards but what the rocket scientists in the GFA have ignored is that at least two checks in the current rules were not done or not done properly to get to this point. Instead of reinforcing the need to carry out these checks properly they simply added another one which now has the effect of putting at risk the other person's assets etc . This will probably end after the first time someone who signs some else's maintenance release gets sued. Mike Borgelt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
insurance for Sport Pilots! | Cub Driver | Piloting | 4 | September 11th 04 01:14 AM |
Make sure of Your Liability Insurance | Icebound | Piloting | 1 | April 25th 04 09:19 AM |
Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability | Caracole | Soaring | 18 | April 1st 04 09:17 PM |
Aviation Insurance History, data, records? | cloudclimbr | General Aviation | 0 | February 17th 04 03:36 AM |
How find out one's aviation insurance claims history? Aviation Claims Information Bureau? | cloudclimbr | Owning | 1 | February 15th 04 11:16 PM |