Liability insurance

[Ian Cant]

David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
and sure enough they have a master policy covering
every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
a $1000 deductible.

Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
a magazine sub.

And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.

Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
all members ? What would it require, and how much
might it cost ? And how many more members might join
SSA just for that ?

Ian

[Mike Borgelt]

On 8 Jun 2004 23:30:15 GMT, Ian Cant
> wrote:

>David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
>mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
>coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
>and sure enough they have a master policy covering
>every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
>a $1000 deductible.
>
>Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
>a magazine sub.
>
>And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
>less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
>are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
>conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.
>
>Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
>all members ? What would it require, and how much
>might it cost ? And how many more members might join
>SSA just for that ?
>
>Ian
>
>
>
>


Don't even think about it.
You and the SSA will be in an immediate conflict of interest in the
event you make a claim. The SSA will want to keep the premium low by
a low successful claims history, you will want the insurer to pay out.
The SSA will only annoy you by not paying out, annoy all the members
if premiums increase- and they will anyway as this will be a
relatively captive market for the insurer.

Don't believe me? Then find out what happened to the Brits who got hit
by the parachutist in France and if the BGA insurance paid out.
The one case I know of in Australia under a similar scheme had the
insurer knocking back the claim and the GFA (Gliding Federation of
Australia) deciding not to get involved in backing the claimant.

The Hang Gliding Federation of Australia has a similar scheme which
has now caused a huge problem as the insurer has decided not to cover
the training operations unless the premium goes up by a factor of 3.

Mike Borgelt

[Ian Cant]

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



At 04:12 09 June 2004, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>On 8 Jun 2004 23:30:15 GMT, Ian Cant
> wrote:
>
>>David Bingham, writing about Sparrowhawk operations,
>>mentioned that the USHGA provides liability insurance
>>coverage for all its members. I checked their website,
>>and sure enough they have a master policy covering
>>every member [and every club] up to $1 million, with
>>a $1000 deductible.
>>
>>Now, the membership of USHGA is $59 per year, including
>>a magazine sub.
>>
>>And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
>>less liability damage potential than a Nimbus, they
>>are flown by unlicensed pilots under loosely controlled
>>conditions. It seems that the two risks might be comparable.
>>
>>Why can the SSA not offer some similar coverage to
>>all members ? What would it require, and how much
>>might it cost ? And how many more members might join
>>SSA just for that ?
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Don't even think about it.
>You and the SSA will be in an immediate conflict of
>interest in the
>event you make a claim. The SSA will want to keep the
>premium low by
>a low successful claims history, you will want the
>insurer to pay out.
>The SSA will only annoy you by not paying out, annoy
>all the members
>if premiums increase- and they will anyway as this
>will be a
>relatively captive market for the insurer.
>
>Don't believe me? Then find out what happened to the
>Brits who got hit
>by the parachutist in France and if the BGA insurance
>paid out.
>The one case I know of in Australia under a similar
>scheme had the
>insurer knocking back the claim and the GFA (Gliding
>Federation of
>Australia) deciding not to get involved in backing
>the claimant.
>
>The Hang Gliding Federation of Australia has a similar
>scheme which
>has now caused a huge problem as the insurer has decided
>not to cover
>the training operations unless the premium goes up
>by a factor of 3.
>
>Mike Borgelt
>

[Eric Greenwell]

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 SSA via the SSF (Soaring Safety Foundation) is already very
interested in the soaring safety statistics, and has been for a couple
decades. The SSF works closely with Costello Associates (the agent) to
get these statistics (a lot more accidents are reported to the insurers
than to the FAA!) to aid in the development of safety programs.
>
> 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.

The SSA insurance program does represent such a pool, and it is used to
obtain decent group rates. I don't think these could ever be as low as
hang glider rates, given the aircraft flown, so adding the cost to the
membership fee would not be practical. In any case, _liability_ costs
are quite low, at only $143 for 2004 for me. It's hull insurance costs
that cause most people to wince, as they are many times the liability costs.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Michael]

Ian Cant > wrote
> And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
> less liability damage potential than a Nimbus

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.

> they are flown by unlicensed pilots

Not true. Those pilots are licensed by USHGA. Sure, the
instructional program is not under FAA control. However, my
experience as an instructor both in an FAA-controlled environment
(gliders and airplanes) and in a non-FAA-controlled environment where
a sport association issues licenses and has a liability insurance
program (parachutes) leads me to believe that FAA involvement in the
training program does not add any safety or proficiency value - only
increased cost and bureaucracy.

> under loosely controlled conditions.

Are they any less controlled than the conditions at a privately owned
grass gliderport? My (admittedly few) lessons with a USHGA instructor
suggest otherwise.

> It seems that the two risks might be comparable.

It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Clearly the gliders involved
are not capable of causing near as much damage, and the proficiency of
the pilots is probably about the same.

Michael

[Ian Cant]

I stand corrected.

Ian


At 14:36 10 June 2004, Michael wrote:
>Ian Cant wrote
>> And while ultralight hang-gliders may have a little
>> less liability damage potential than a Nimbus
>
>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.
>
>> they are flown by unlicensed pilots
>
>Not true. Those pilots are licensed by USHGA. Sure,
>the
>instructional program is not under FAA control. However,
>my
>experience as an instructor both in an FAA-controlled
>environment
>(gliders and airplanes) and in a non-FAA-controlled
>environment where
>a sport association issues licenses and has a liability
>insurance
>program (parachutes) leads me to believe that FAA involvement
>in the
>training program does not add any safety or proficiency
>value - only
>increased cost and bureaucracy.
>
>> under loosely controlled conditions.
>
>Are they any less controlled than the conditions at
>a privately owned
>grass gliderport? My (admittedly few) lessons with
>a USHGA instructor
>suggest otherwise.
>
>> It seems that the two risks might be comparable.
>
>It doesn't seem that way to me at all. Clearly the
>gliders involved
>are not capable of causing near as much damage, and
>the proficiency of
>the pilots is probably about the same.
>
>Michael
>

[ken ward]

One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
*because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
pilots.

The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.

The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.

If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.

None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.

Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
Gliding?

Ken

[tango4]

Not that I know of but I think its stupid to run the two sports seperately.
Trouble is the 'governing organisations' of the two are probably so totally
incompatible it would never get off the ground.

Ian


"ken ward" > wrote in message
...
> One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
> *because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
> the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
> pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
> commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
> claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
> pilots.
>
> The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
> sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
> types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
> etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
> Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
> cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.
>
> The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
> locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.
>
> If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
> your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
> you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.
>
> None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
> SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
> from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
> upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
> pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
> HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.
>
> Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
> Gliding?
>
> Ken

[Steve]

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?
S Gibson


"ken ward" > wrote in message
...
> One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
> *because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
> the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
> pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
> commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
> claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
> pilots.
>
> The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
> sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
> types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
> etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
> Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
> cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.
>
> The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
> locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.
>
> If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
> your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
> you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.
>
> None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
> SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
> from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
> upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
> pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
> HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.
>
> Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
> Gliding?
>
> Ken

[ken ward]

It says: "Pilot and the parent or legal guardian of Pilot if Pilot is a
minor, for themselves, their personal representatives, heirs, executors,
next of kin, spouses, minor children and assigns, do agree as follows:"

Only the pilot signs.

I don't know of any test cases.

Ken

In article >,
"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?
> S Gibson
>
>
> "ken ward" > wrote in message
> ...
> > One of the driving forces behind USHGA liability insurance is exactly
> > *because* USHGA rates their instructors. I know of a fatality in which
> > the heirs went (successfully) after USHGA because they had failed to
> > pull a dangerous instructor's rating. Another large payout was due to a
> > commercial ride that went badly wrong. SSA escapes those types of
> > claims as the FAA stands behind all the instructors and commercial
> > pilots.
> >
> > The second thing to note is the USHGA waiver that all new members must
> > sign. You and your heirs are promising to not sue in the event of many
> > types of accident, whether your fault or not, equipment failure or not,
> > etc. If you sue anyway, you agree to pick up the defendants legal fees.
> > Which drives down the incentive to sue. I haven't heard of any test
> > cases yet. I can supply a copy of the waiver to anyone interested.
> >
> > The third thing is that the liability insurance only covers listed
> > locations and sanctioned events in the U.S.
> >
> > If you refuse to sign the waiver, you are denied USHGA membership, and
> > your pilot rating vanishes, as USHGA is the rating body. At least if
> > you leave SSA the FAA still considers you a pilot.
> >
> > None the less, I think we're way overdue to look at combining USHGA and
> > SSA into a single National soaring organization, covering everything
> > from paragliders to hang gliders to Stemme's. Just think about the
> > upward migration path. If you're looking for a pool of new glider
> > pilots, you could look in less attractive places than the ~10,000 U.S.
> > HG/PG pilots who already love soaring.
> >
> > Are there any other National organizations that have combined HG/PG with
> > Gliding?
> >
> > Ken
>
>

[Ian Johnston]

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

--

[Ian Johnston]

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

--

[Ian Cant]

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
>
>--
>
>

[ken ward]

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

[Mike Borgelt]

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