RRRG Insurance for sites/clubs

A discussion restricted to the topic of hang gliding.
Previous topicNext topic
User avatar
The Oz Report
Posts: 145053
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm

RRRG Insurance for sites/clubs

Post by The Oz Report »

<div id="1617462596"><i>Checking for answers</i><br><p>Dan Shell replies</p><p class="BN">We've been dealing with this problem here for some time, through numerous conversations with the RRRG, and have had some other experience with coverage for litigation, so I may be able to answer this question:<br>  <br> Q: If a site has RRRG site insurance why would that site insurance designate who can or who can't land there? If a hang glider pilot flew from a flight park in Florida and landed at the TTT LZ, why would the TTT not be protected from any suit that the hang glider pilot brought against them?<br>  <br> A: According to my understanding of the RRRG's position, the TTT would not be covered for claims against the TTT by the pilot flying from an uninsured Florida flight park to a crash landing in a TTT LZ because that flight is defined as (associated with) "commercial operation" by the RRRG. However, claims for damage to the onlooker's car parked along Davis Loop Road, into which the Florida pilot crashed, or injuries to the onlooker when the noseplate went through his windshield, would be covered under the USHPA member's third-party liability insurance.  </p><p class="BN">This has confused a number of our members and seems to be a cultivated confusion, reappearing from the same source repeatedly after repeated clarification. It seems the best answer to "why would that site insurance designate who can or can't land there" may be the insurance company's desire to maximize predictability and minimize claims. The account of local failures and deceptions regarding "risk management" related by Mr. Bolosky do not air the "dirty laundry" which raises even more questions. These questions may even go so far as to undermine confidence in our pilot-proficiency program. Why would the USHPA continue to rate pilots from a school employing the same curriculum and risk-management practices for which the proprietor's instructor ratings and the school's insurance policy were revoked? Do they just not pay enough attention to detail? Can any USHPA chapter or commercial operation have any confidence in the skills claimed by the membership card under such circumstances?<br>  <br> Dan Shell<br>  <br> P.S. While I think it's an educated one, it's my opinion. While I am on the TTT Board of Directors, I am not speaking for them, but as openly and honestly as possible about our situation from my perspective.</p><p>I ask Dan:</p><p class="BN">Thanks for chiming in.<br>  <br> Unfortunately, I'm still confused.<br>  <br> My issue is with why there is a difference in the RRRG insurance for TTT between pilots who launch from any random site where "commercial" activity is taking place and pilots who launch from a site where there is no "commercial" activity?<br>  <br> I'm not addressing the RRRG 3rd party liability insurance that USHPA pilots carry.<br>  <br> Don't we want TTT to be covered no matter where the pilot came from?<br>  <br> Can't TTT just say that pilots launching from commercial sites may not land on their land? Do they need to reference a higher authority to make this a rule?<br>  <br> For sure, as you say, the RRRG can limit their exposure by disallowing a certain "class" of pilots, but that just increases TTT's exposure. It's hard to understand why this particular class represents any increase in risk (although as you reference in your email that could easily be the case in your circumstances).<br>  <br> Do we know the history of how the RRRG came up with this rule? Were they thinking specifically of TTT? I can't figure out where there would be another site where there would be an issue. Do you know of others who would want this kind of rule?<br>  <br> As I wrote to Bill I certainly understand where a site that wasn't designated as a training site would not want to have tandems and pilots under instruction landed at its LZ.<br>  <br> Can you help me (and my readers) out here?<br>  <br> One more confusing part. If the pilot was flying from a USHPA insured site that was a USHPA/RRRG/PASA insured instructional site, would this rule apply? That is does the word "commercial" refer only to non USHPA/RRRG/PASA instructional sites?<br>  <br> No dog in this fight.</p><p>Dan replies:</p><p class="BN">We definitely "want TTT to be covered no matter where the pilot came from." It's just that in this circumstance, we aren't. I'm not sure that the restriction is on "any random site where 'commercial' activity is taking place," but does apply to those sites which are run as commercial operations (without satisfactory TTT coverage). Thanks for clarifying that you are not conflating coverage of the USHPA third-party liability insurance for pilots, which is part of the confusion for every new batch of beginners or visiting pilots around here with the help of a little persistent misdirection.</p><p class="BN">Yes, TTT should "just say that pilots launching from commercial sites may not land on their land," and we have (See TTT FRP, Section A, Insurance Requirements).   Unfortunately, others feel entitled to undermine the rule-making authority of the annually elected board of directors, insisting that those rules are invalid and unenforceable, and encouraging their violation among students and other clientele. I think the closing statement in a recent proprietor's post says it all: "Please ignore the whole TTT BOD." Of course, this practice of continual defiance will place TTT assets in constant jeopardy. In the face of misleading information suggesting that those restrictions were of TTT creation and/or preference, we have sought clarification from the RRRG, from which those restrictions originate.</p><p class="BN">Unfortunately, the RRRG can see all too well "why this particular class represents any increase in risk," as Bill Bolosky outlined in his brief history of the relationship. They wish to avoid a situation where they are forced to cover commercial operations, especially questionable ones, where no premium has been paid or coverage extended. You are correct in that it increases our liability, but only if this restriction is disregarded and our members (et al) continue to end their commercially originated flights in our non-commercially insured LZ. Presently, the disregard extends to misdirection of beginner students and (TTT) non-members to land in our LZ, a clear violation of our "Flight Regulatory Program" (FRP) under any circumstances, regardless of insurance. The RRRG is aware of this climate.</p><p class="BN">I do not know how the RRRG came up with this rule or if they were "thinking specifically of TTT," but as Mr. Bolosky said, it's not a problem anywhere else. In Tennessee and many other states, property owners are already protected from litigation by the "uninvited visitor" in a law passed with the intent of encouraging more hospitable recreational use of private property. Of course, this doesn't apply to our operations or any commercial free-flight operations, so we carry the neighboring properties on which we're likely to land as "additional insureds."</p><p class="BN">I can't imagine anyone "who would want this kind of rule." We do not want to tell our members that they can't land in their LZ. Why would anyone? It is a condition entirely imposed on us by the circumstances Mr. Bolosky outlined.</p><p class="BN">As I understand it, this rule would not necessarily apply to a "site that was a USHPA/RRRG/PASA insured instructional site." Mr. Bolosky references this situation: Lookout Mountain Flight Park is a flight park that is insured by Recreation RRG.</p><p class="BN">Lookout Mountain Flight Park has obtained from Recreation RRG additional insured chapter and landowner coverage for the TTT and the other emergency and bail out landing zone landowners at Henson Gap. So if a student or patron of Lookout Mountain Flight Park wants to land on TTT or other landowner properties at Henson Gap, there is coverage under the Lookout Mountain Flight Park policy for the TTT and the other landowners.</p><p class="BN">So, this is a unique situation not of our making and over which we have little control except the enforcement of our FRP for fulfillment of fiduciary responsibilities and protection of assets.</p><p class="BN">I hope this helps. We appreciate your interest. Of course, we would welcome the change in RRRG policy or the particular commercial operation insurance coverage that would just make this problem go away, but it really shouldn't be a fight at all, it isn't anywhere else, and is only so here at the insistence of others.</p><p>Davis thinks out loud:</p><p>It is very interesting to me that Lookout Mountain Flight Park's insurance specifically covers various land owners, not just TTT. While I believe that it is the case that none of the Florida flight parks carry liability insurance it would be hard for me to imagine what land owners would be covered even if they did. We've got a few tens of thousands out there.</p></div>
User avatar
Blue_Seleneth
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun, Dec 01 2013, 10:26:03 pm
Location: Glassy Weyr

Post by Blue_Seleneth »

Indeed there is no logical limit, to the pernicious mind of a personal injury lawyer or a medical insurance company subrogation lawyer. But I think the list of properties that could be called an attractive nuisance by such would feature all the nearby airstrips. I think state laws give livestock-grazing pastures some special protections against claims by trespassers(?), so they are less likely to need additional-insured protection.
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Post by Davis »

The RRRG event insurance covers all the indicated goal LZ's, of which we have about twenty.
Previous topicNext topic