C\L Insurance claims am I missing something?

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-04 AT 03:28 PM (CDT)
 
In this month's Model Aviation, there is a statement that the Insurance claims on control line activity are very low, only Indoor free flight is lower.

Didn't we get told a year ago or so that it was very high?

See Bob Hunt's space.

I think some of our R/C brethren would like to think we're the problem. Yes we have had our claims in the past, but WE didn't fly a plane into the Goodyear Blimp! I got run off the parking lot of the Texas Motor Speedway a couple of years ago due to a R/C helicopter flyer that lost control and crashed into a haystack across the road, starting a sizeable fire. Now ALL models are banned from BIGGEST, FLATTEST, CLEANEST PIECE OF ASPHALT AROUND! What a shame!

I have repeatedly written to AMA Hq. requesting data on insurance claims paid (out of our membership dues, of course). My point was to show (or discover) that the R/C people are generating most of the litigation against OUR organization.

I finally received a reply from their attorney saying, in essence, that this information could not be made available because it would provide lawyers suing AMA a baseline to argue their client's case: such as, what is the going rate for a damaged car, a cut on the body, or some other nonspecific injury?

I guess they are correct in this argument, but I sure object to seeing my AMA dues going for claims that are likely caused by pilot negligence or inadequate training bnefore flying a 40 lb model plane.

>I have repeatedly written to AMA Hq. requesting data on
>insurance claims paid (out of our membership dues, of
>course). My point was to show (or discover) that the R/C
>people are generating most of the litigation against OUR
>organization.
>
>I finally received a reply from their attorney saying, in
>essence, that this information could not be made available
>because it would provide lawyers suing AMA a baseline to
>argue their client's case: such as, what is the going rate
>for a damaged car, a cut on the body, or some other
>nonspecific injury?

One would think this to be a predictable and commonsense sort of response, one which could have been readily anticipated, thus saving you a lot of effort.

>
>I guess they are correct in this argument, but I sure object
>to seeing my AMA dues going for claims that are likely
>caused by pilot negligence or inadequate training bnefore
>flying a 40 lb model plane.
>
>Floyd

I have heard much the same sort of argument from the RC guys, only they cite CL Combat and/or Speed and Racing models.

At some point we might consider having dedicated insurance coverage for CL fliers only. Does anyone think our numbers are so large as to justify a rate reduction? Might go higher.

Sometimes it is helpful to be real careful what you wish for.

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-04 AT 06:03 PM (CDT)
 
This is just a guess / opinion based on my own experience but I would bet that the majority of insurance claims paid by AMA are related to medical bills for emergency surgerey for cuts / lacerations / burns from model airplane engines. I have been to the hospital after sticking my fingers in a spinning prop, and I bet most of you have either witnessed, participated, or know someone who has. C/L and R/C are pretty much the same here, just a lot more R/C flyers out there.

I have never seen someone hit by a model, never seen major damage done to a car from a model impact, or other notable instance. Of course my exposure is limited, I don't get to a lot of contests, flew R/C at a small club field, and fly C/L with only a couple people present.

I know that accidents have occurred, and the settlements have been large in some cases, but my guess is that we get sewed up at about the same rate per capita that the R/C crowd does - the situations are too similar to think otherwise. We both have to start and adjust our engines while the plane is held stationary, then release it for flight.

My 2Cents

You might be right but the problem isn't the $100 charges it is the multi-million charges. This is the reason that when Sportflyers was formed to provide insurance they excluded C/L there had just been a large claim paid, and we are relatively few.

In the last 4 months I've heard of two people who have been killed flying RC Helicopters. At one contest I saw a fast combat model tear up the fiberglass/plastic top of a car when it hit at full speed.

The freeflight,especially indoor, community has been complaining about this for over 20 years saying they should get a lower membership fee due to their low accident history. So far their rates haven't been reduced.

Doubt if AMA would be upset if all freeflight and control line fliers quit, wouldn't effect the 30,000 or so new people who join and quit every year and they could simplify the rules, Nats, and World Championships. Can't think of anything they have done that has been directed at advancing our part of the hobby in the last 68 years similar to their work with manufacturers and the FCC to improve radio control.

Bill Heher: I don't think an AMA member can file an accident claim against AMA. Once my free flight model punched a hole in the hood of another modeler's car at the flying field. Since he was an AMA member, he couldn't file a claim. So I had to pay for the repair.

So I would suppose that if an AMA member stuck his/her fingers in a prop, the AMA would not listen to a claim.

Is this still the AMA policy?

LAST EDITED ON Apr-23-04 AT 06:05 PM (CDT)
 
>I have repeatedly written to AMA Hq. requesting data on
>insurance claims paid (out of our membership dues, of
>course). My point was to show (or discover) that the R/C
>people are generating most of the litigation against OUR
>organization.
>
>I finally received a reply from their attorney saying, in
>essence, that this information could not be made available
>because it would provide lawyers suing AMA a baseline to
>argue their client's case: such as, what is the going rate
>for a damaged car, a cut on the body, or some other
>nonspecific injury?
>
>I guess they are correct in this argument, but I sure object
>to seeing my AMA dues going for claims that are likely
>caused by pilot negligence or inadequate training bnefore
>flying a 40 lb model plane.
>
>Floyd

That's BS. ALL this is because the court systems deal in equity or commercial law rather than common law. This is also known as "law merchants" and is a part of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). If you guys haven't been run thru the wringer with this stuff- be thankful, I have experienced it first hand and you don't even want to think about going there if you can find a way around it. You CAN learn to deal with it and navigate it and fight the BLEEPS on their own ground- but it is expensive in terms of both time and emotional and mental hardship.
You'll spend HOURS in the downtown law library going over some of this stuff.

Jake

There is still plenty of common law in courts, much more than equity. And if you're in Louisiana, you can throw out the UCC. It is what it is, good sometimes, bad others. Depends on what side of it you're on. As to the earlier statements about insurance rates on our own, I don't think the C/L numbers would support an insurance rate even close to what we can get now. Really, I hate to pay it, but $58 a year isn't bad.

We are all in this together, how many of us flew RC in the past? I know Dan did. Recently I read an article by Dr. Spark about an RC Fireball. I loved RC but it finally got boring, then all my gear became obsolete. In control line it will never become obsolete and never needs charging. As far as litigators knowing the value of a claim each one is different as the individual and insurance companies will minimize their bottom line if they can. Ten years ago I had to go thourgh a three day trial because the insurance company (State Farm) wanted to roll the dice, against the advice of their own lawyer. They lost. Jim Johnson

Jim Johnson. That FIREBALL R/C article was a LONG TIME AGO. I believe it was published in MODEL BUILDER magazine around 1975 or so. Was actually a 2-channel 1/2-A model, (rudder, elevator) and a reduction in size of the standard Walker FIREBALL. Powered with a Cox TD 049.

One reason not to have different rates for different types of model flying is that it allows everyone to fly everything. If you bought just Free Flight insurance then you couldn't fly any CL. If you had only CL insurance, then you couldn't fly any RC. A lot of people don't restrict themselves to one type of model airplane over their entire modelling career, after all. One problem with the SFA was that a lot of RC fliers have CL planes hanging on the wall, which they fly occasionally. I think the same is true for many CL fliers - they have one or two RC planes lying around that get flown occasionally.

Another reason is that it would involve a lot of extra paperwork and record keeping. I've seen people suggest glider-only insurance, indoor rubber-only insurance, etc. etc. How many categories can we come up with? Special insurance for turbines and large models? Special Combat/Speed/Racing insurance? I hope not.