Private airport insurance?

[Ken Finney]

Anyone know home much it would cost to insure a private airport? I know
some people with private fields on the sectional "No landings without prior
permission of owner" and they will tell you that it's open to all their
friends, but they don't have any insurance. I'm thinking that they are
really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if someone gets hurt due to a
rough landing (or worse). I also notice that more than a few private fields
are for sale, and I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons why.

[Jeff[_1_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone know home much it would cost to insure a private airport? I know
> some people with private fields on the sectional "No landings without
> prior permission of owner" and they will tell you that it's open to all
> their friends, but they don't have any insurance. I'm thinking that they
> are really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if someone gets hurt due to
> a rough landing (or worse). I also notice that more than a few private
> fields are for sale, and I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons why.
>


What is sad is that having a private field SHOULDN'T leave you open to any
liability (short of advertising an airfield and digging a ditch down the
middle to intentionally cause accidents). Short of something that nuts, why
would you as a property owner be liable if I can't control my airplane?
Lawyers suck.

[Doug Semler]

"Jeff" <jfranks1971 minus > wrote in message
...
>

>
> What is sad is that having a private field SHOULDN'T leave you open to any
> liability (short of advertising an airfield and digging a ditch down the
> middle to intentionally cause accidents). Short of something that nuts,
> why would you as a property owner be liable if I can't control my
> airplane? Lawyers suck.


The same reason that my neighbor can sue my homeowners insurance because she
was clumsy and fell down my porch steps and broke her foot. And they
weren't even icy...

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[Brian[_1_]]

On Aug 27, 5:59 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
> Anyone know home much it would cost to insure a private airport? I know
> some people with private fields on the sectional "No landings without prior
> permission of owner" and they will tell you that it's open to all their
> friends, but they don't have any insurance. I'm thinking that they are
> really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if someone gets hurt due to a
> rough landing (or worse). I also notice that more than a few private fields
> are for sale, and I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons why.

I know of at least one state that has put a law on the books that
basically limits the owners liability if they open the airport to the
public. As I understand it this has really helped with insurance
premiums for public airports. Perhaps other states have simlar rules

Brian.

[Newps]

Jeff wrote:

>
> What is sad is that having a private field SHOULDN'T leave you open to any
> liability (short of advertising an airfield and digging a ditch down the
> middle to intentionally cause accidents). Short of something that nuts, why
> would you as a property owner be liable if I can't control my airplane?
> Lawyers suck.


Here in Montana the legislature this year ammended an existing law that
now says an owner of a private airport cannot be sued if a pilot crashes
on this private airport. As long as it is a non commercial aircraft
operation the airport owner is untouchable. Now the airport owner no
longer has to have you sign a release in advance to protect himself.

[El Maximo]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
> I'm thinking that they are really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if
> someone gets hurt due to a rough landing (or worse).

Someone I know owns a bar. She told me she doesn't carry liability
insurance.

They formed a corporation and lease the space and liquor license to the
corp, but the corp operates the bar. When someone decides to sue, they form
a new corp ready to take over as soon as the 'victim' acquires the assets of
the corp (which is nothing). The old corp goes bankrupt, and the owners
lease the bar to the new corp.

Notice: IANAL, and have only written my understanding of the process. I'm
sure there are many who will tell me I am wrong, and that it must be done
differently.

If you're thinking of opening an airfield, ask your lawyer if something like
this may work.

[Ken Finney]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> What is sad is that having a private field SHOULDN'T leave you open to
>> any liability (short of advertising an airfield and digging a ditch down
>> the middle to intentionally cause accidents). Short of something that
>> nuts, why would you as a property owner be liable if I can't control my
>> airplane? Lawyers suck.
>
>
> Here in Montana the legislature this year ammended an existing law that
> now says an owner of a private airport cannot be sued if a pilot crashes
> on this private airport. As long as it is a non commercial aircraft
> operation the airport owner is untouchable. Now the airport owner no
> longer has to have you sign a release in advance to protect himself.

Thanks, I was wondering if some State had done something like this. I'll
have to search the net and see if Washington State has done something
similar.

On a similar note: Washington State did pass a law several years ago that
says that horse-riding is an inherently dangerous activity, and the horse
owner can't be held liable if someone falls off the person's horse (or words
to that effect). I know this because a friend of mine had a horse for sale,
a woman came out to "test drive" it, fell off, was seriously hurt and sued
him (just after the law took effect). It turns out the woman had made a
career off of doing this, and didn't know about the new law. However, this
time (unlike the previous times) she was seriously hurt (partial paralysis,
IIRC) and couldn't collect. My friend's insurance company did pay her $10K
just to go away, but she suffered BIG TIME. There is a God! ;^)

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 28, 5:24 am, "El Maximo" > wrote:
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I'm thinking that they are really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if
> > someone gets hurt due to a rough landing (or worse).
>
> Someone I know owns a bar. She told me she doesn't carry liability
> insurance.
>
> They formed a corporation and lease the space and liquor license to the
> corp, but the corp operates the bar. When someone decides to sue, they form
> a new corp ready to take over as soon as the 'victim' acquires the assets of
> the corp (which is nothing). The old corp goes bankrupt, and the owners
> lease the bar to the new corp.

At least in California this does not work. This topic was brought up
in torts class. Someone tried the same thing with his explosives
company and the courts pierced the corporation and the person lost
their personal assets. Basically a corporation cannot be a shell. The
main test is that if a corporation does not have enough insurance and
or assets to cover expected liabilities, it will likely not be
honored.

-Robert

[Ken Finney]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>
>> What is sad is that having a private field SHOULDN'T leave you open to
>> any liability (short of advertising an airfield and digging a ditch down
>> the middle to intentionally cause accidents). Short of something that
>> nuts, why would you as a property owner be liable if I can't control my
>> airplane? Lawyers suck.
>
>
> Here in Montana the legislature this year ammended an existing law that
> now says an owner of a private airport cannot be sued if a pilot crashes
> on this private airport. As long as it is a non commercial aircraft
> operation the airport owner is untouchable. Now the airport owner no
> longer has to have you sign a release in advance to protect himself.

I tried Yahoo and Google and couldn't find the law you mention. Any change
you know the name or number of it?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Ken Finney wrote:
>
>
> On a similar note: Washington State did pass a law several years ago that
> says that horse-riding is an inherently dangerous activity, and the horse
> owner can't be held liable if someone falls off the person's horse (or words
> to that effect).

CT has a GREAT landowner liability law that protects landowners from
many lawsuits from hikers, mountain bikers, trail riding equestrians,
fisherman, or any other potentially dangerous activity that the
landowner allows by strangers. It is limited to non-motorized
activities, and the protection dissappears if the landowner charges a
fee for access.

You'd think something similar would be useful to privately owned airports.

[Newps]

Ken Finney wrote:

>>
>>
>>Here in Montana the legislature this year ammended an existing law that
>>now says an owner of a private airport cannot be sued if a pilot crashes
>>on this private airport. As long as it is a non commercial aircraft
>>operation the airport owner is untouchable. Now the airport owner no
>>longer has to have you sign a release in advance to protect himself.
>
>
> I tried Yahoo and Google and couldn't find the law you mention. Any change
> you know the name or number of it?

Yes, it was Senate Bill 318. Here's a blurb from the Montana Pilots
Assoc website. The Governor signed the bill inot law on April 30th.




The MPA Recreational Airstrip Committee and the Recreational Aviation
Foundation are working to amend Montana's recreational use statute to
include private airstrips

A year ago the Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) received a grant
from the Alfred Wolfe Foundation to hire a UM law student to research
the various states' recreational use statutes to see if aviation was
included. Only Idaho included aviation in their recreational use
statute. The law student, under the guidance of his professor, studied
the efficacy of Montana's recreational use statute and then drafted an
amendment to the Montana law. The amendment defines “airstrip” as either
improved or unimproved landing areas used by pilots and excludes
municipal airports.

The purpose of recreational use statutes is to limit landowner liability
when they allow their lands to be used for public recreation without
compensation. Montana’s current recreational statute lists activities
such as fishing, hunting, hiking, biking, winter sports, camping and
many others, but aviation is not mentioned. Incorporating aviation into
the statute could result in more recreational use airstrips and
encourage landowners to maintain their airstrips, thus providing more
landing sites for emergency or precautionary landings.

Following the drafting of the proposed legislation, the RAF took the
document to the Montana Pilots’ Association (MPA). The MPA is now in the
process of moving this legislation through the legislative process in
the 2007 session in Helena. The bill (SB 318) has been introduced into
the Senate by Senator Jim Peterson of Buffalo, Mont. (Senate District 15).

When this bill comes up for committee hearings it is imperative that as
many pilots as possible attend to show the House Judiciary Committee how
important this legislation is to the aviation community. You do not need
to testify, however oral or written testimony is very important. Any
landowner with an airstrip should be involved in passing this
legislation; they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. There is
usually a week's notice given for hearings which allows schedule
planning. If your schedule prevents you from attending the hearing then
please write or call both your legislators, personal contact on this
bill is very important. If you do not know who your legislators are, you
can find your districts on your voter registration card and then go to:
www.leg.mt.gov.

If you are not able to attend the hearing, a letter should be sent to
your legislators or as a last choice, a phone message can be left for
your legislators by calling the legislative message center at
406-444-4800. A good example of a letter to a legislator is the one sent
by Chuck Jarecki to Representative Janna Taylor, use this as a guide but
use your own words.

The MPA is maintaining a list of MPA members and RAF supporters who
would like to be notified of the hearing schedule. Please send your
name, e-mail address and phone number to MPA/RAF director Chuck Jarecki
at: . If you have questions or need additional
information Jarecki is the one to contact.

[Ken Finney]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ken Finney wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Here in Montana the legislature this year ammended an existing law that
>>>now says an owner of a private airport cannot be sued if a pilot crashes
>>>on this private airport. As long as it is a non commercial aircraft
>>>operation the airport owner is untouchable. Now the airport owner no
>>>longer has to have you sign a release in advance to protect himself.
>>
>>
>> I tried Yahoo and Google and couldn't find the law you mention. Any
>> change you know the name or number of it?
>
> Yes, it was Senate Bill 318. Here's a blurb from the Montana Pilots Assoc
> website. The Governor signed the bill inot law on April 30th.
>

<snip>

Thanks. I've going to bring this issue up to the Washington Pilots
Association.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:34:07 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>Yes, it was Senate Bill 318. Here's a blurb from the Montana Pilots
>Assoc website. The Governor signed the bill inot law on April 30th.

It appears that it was the Recreational Aviation Foundation that
conceived the idea:

http://www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org/
MONTANA PRIVATE AIRPORTS GET PROTECTION FROM NEW STATE LAW !

In April of 2007 Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer signed into law
Senate Bill 318. This new law provides a measure of protection for
private airstrip owners who don't charge the public to use their
airstrips for recreational purposes. They are now protected by a
limited liability law, created by Senate Bill 318. The law adds
landowners of airstrips for "private, noncommercial flying" to the
protections under the state's recreational use statute.

This bill was the brainchild of RAF Director Chuck Jarecki who
orchestrated a major effort with primary support from the Montana
Pilots Association to get the bill sponsored and introduced into
the legislature and then to rally the troops to campaign for its
approval. A big “Thank You” goes to Chuck and all the members of
the MPA who participated in pushing this bill through the Montana
legislature. A job well done!


I wonder if AOPA could get something similar implemented nationwide.

[Ron Natalie]

Ken Finney wrote:
> Anyone know home much it would cost to insure a private airport? I know
> some people with private fields on the sectional "No landings without prior
> permission of owner" and they will tell you that it's open to all their
> friends, but they don't have any insurance. I'm thinking that they are
> really leaving themselves open to lawsuits if someone gets hurt due to a
> rough landing (or worse). I also notice that more than a few private fields
> are for sale, and I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons why.
>
>
>
We have an airport community. The HOA gets liability insurance for the
runway. I don't know how much it costs.

[Dana M. Hague]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:42:31 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>CT has a GREAT landowner liability law that protects landowners from
>many lawsuits from hikers, mountain bikers, trail riding equestrians,
>fisherman, or any other potentially dangerous activity that the
>landowner allows by strangers. It is limited to non-motorized
>activities, and the protection dissappears if the landowner charges a
>fee for access.
>
>You'd think something similar would be useful to privately owned airports.

Every state in the U.S. has a similar law, though details vary.
Generally called "recreational liability statutes", they protect a
landowner who makes his land available (without charge) for
recreational purposes. Barry, the CT law is NOT limited to non
motorized activities.

No reason why it wouldn't apply to a private airport, as long as the
owner isn't charging a landing fee or hangar rent.

For a comprehensive list of these statutes for all states:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/123/

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But do you trust the _government_ with semi-automatic assault rifles?

[Ken Finney]

"Dana M. Hague" <d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:42:31 GMT, B A R R Y >
> wrote:
>
>>CT has a GREAT landowner liability law that protects landowners from
>>many lawsuits from hikers, mountain bikers, trail riding equestrians,
>>fisherman, or any other potentially dangerous activity that the
>>landowner allows by strangers. It is limited to non-motorized
>>activities, and the protection dissappears if the landowner charges a
>>fee for access.
>>
>>You'd think something similar would be useful to privately owned airports.
>
> Every state in the U.S. has a similar law, though details vary.
> Generally called "recreational liability statutes", they protect a
> landowner who makes his land available (without charge) for
> recreational purposes. Barry, the CT law is NOT limited to non
> motorized activities.
>
> No reason why it wouldn't apply to a private airport, as long as the
> owner isn't charging a landing fee or hangar rent.
>
> For a comprehensive list of these statutes for all states:
> http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/123/
>
> -Dana
>

You da man! Thanks, you saved me a lot of research, I'd already been
searching the Washington State laws, without being able to find the
applicable law. Sadly, as of now, GA isn't covered, at least "clearly and
unambiguously".

[B A R R Y]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:12:53 -0400, Dana M. Hague
<d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

> Barry, the CT law is NOT limited to non
>motorized activities.

Thanks for the correction!