RRRG Litigation?

A discussion restricted to the topic of hang gliding.
Previous topicNext topic
User avatar
Martin
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue, Nov 04 2003, 07:39:11 pm
Location: West Coast, Canada

RRRG Litigation?

Post by Martin »

Anybody have any sort of links to forum conversations or background regarding the present litigation mentioned here:

https://ozreport.com/26.34#2

What sort of numbers are being discussed regarding the costs and liabilities the case is potentially creating?

Martin
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Davis »

User avatar
Martin
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue, Nov 04 2003, 07:39:11 pm
Location: West Coast, Canada

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Martin »

Davis, the link was entertaining. The usual well balanced American left an right... guns and health care mentality.

I was just curious as to the size of the claim (court awarded) and story behind the the accident that ended in the courts.

I admit, I don't fully understand the RRRG relationship to the USHPA other than the perhaps my misunderstood belief that the RRRG is a self insurance (funded) policy that is the backbone of the USHPA's 3rd party liability program?

When I was interviewed by Gavin for his Cloudbase Mayhem podcast, Gavin asked me if I hang gliding could ever have been born in todays environment? I believed for the uber rich, sure... but for the poor unwashed hippies of the day? No way. What lawyer would have ever allowed some nut job onto his property to crash down a hill with some bamboo and plastic tarp? (I think the back story involved ski resorts demanding more insurance for the PG crowd).

Cheers

Martin
User avatar
Mgforbes
Posts: 563
Joined: Mon, Nov 24 2003, 05:55:19 pm
Location: [44.548,-123.27]

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Mgforbes »

Mark Forbes here. I serve as CFO of Recreation RRG. I can't answer most of the questions that you're all about to clamor for answers to, so don't bother asking.

What you saw in the announcement from the RRG is what can be released at present. What you read from people like Hanning and Mcaleer is misinformed ranting. This litigation is a long way from being over, and meanwhile Recreation RRG continues to operate, insuring pilots, schools, chapters, landowners and USHPA.

The fundamental understanding within our sport must be the belief that we're all responsible for our own safety, and on ourselves alone falls the duty of care to stay safe. We all agree as a condition of USHPA membership that we will not sue or make a claim against landowners, pilots or anybody else if we get hurt. The plaintiff in this case broke his promise and sued. He found a judge and jury sympathetic to his argument that his promise should not be binding. If pilots feel that they can break their promise not to sue others, then it's difficult to see how insurance could remain viable even with a massive increase in premiums. That's just not sustainable. When members of our flying community actively encourage one pilot to sue another, or make public statements casting blame and calling for retribution, it damages us all.

The insurance policy now excludes claims between pilots, so a future mid-air collision would not be an insurable event. It also excludes claims for gross negligence, in addition to criminal negligence previously excluded. As we continue to gain experience, the insurance policies continue to be refined, expanding coverage where it's feasible, restricting it where unacceptable risk becomes evident.

Recreation RRG continues to operate normally, and I expect that a final resolution of this case is many months in the future. Claims are something that happens in the insurance business, and they don't generally rise to a level of concern within the pilot community. Perhaps once this is finally settled out and fully 'done', we can have an in-depth discussion about what happened and how it was handled. For right now, "I can't comment on pending litigation."

MGF
FFS
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri, Mar 11 2022, 05:35:23 pm

$9M judgment AF v. Peter Pivka (Pivkova)

Post by FFS »

”The judgment will exceed $9 million after CCP §998 costs and interest.”
See paragraph 4, last line - https://tluvirtual.com/event/firtat-v-p ... russ-gold/

Peter Pivka (aka Peter Pivkova) and AF were strangers to each other. Pivka had been tailgating/pimping off AF at Andy Jackson Flight Park.

AF flew away towards Cloud peak. Pivka followed.

Then without prior agreement or communication in the air, Pivka attempted to walk on AF’s wing from behind. Pivka misjudged his approach and essentially collapsed AF’s wing. AF was already too close to terrain (100’ AGL) for any possibility of wing recovery or reserve throw.

USHPA-selected expert testified flying reverse (HG equivalent would be twisting 180 degrees on the hang point to face towards the keel) is a basic maneuver taught to P-1s on their 4th or 5th flight and that AF had the responsibility of checking for traffic behind him by flying reverse. 100’ above the ground.

The fact that “expert” testimony was sanctioned by USHPA is incredibly disappointing and shows USHPA prioritized protecting RRRG assets over the truth and welfare of one of its own.

Mark Forbes’ continued obfuscation of the truth does not surprise. Forbes dropped the ball at a crucial moment during the initial insurance crisis. He is not a credible source of information nor can he be relied upon during times of crisis.
User avatar
Davis
Site Admin
Posts: 15438
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm
Location: On the road, USA

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Davis »

Was there a provision in the USHPA waiver that required pilots not to sue each other ("the promise") at the time of the incident?
User avatar
Pat Halfhill
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu, May 24 2007, 02:29:46 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Pat Halfhill »

I'm not sure a "promise" is an intelligent legal defense. and I certainly don't understand why the RRRG is responsible for one pilot trying to kill another
User avatar
Martin
Posts: 739
Joined: Tue, Nov 04 2003, 07:39:11 pm
Location: West Coast, Canada

Re: RRRG Litigation?

Post by Martin »

I'm not sure a "promise" is an intelligent legal defense
You will find its a term used in the world of finance.... along with "check is in the mail" ?

Sorry I ventured near this can of worms. The world of insurance is based on: "we sell you a policy, you make the payments, we love you. You make a claim, find another provider, we hate you"

Given what appears to impending liability to the policy, how has this effected the many ski hill operations across the US that have demanded a 5ml base limit for users? Or did clubs and sites effected by this increased demand find alternate providers?

Martin
Previous topicNext topic