gremlin 0 #1 March 23, 2005 The BPA have decided to reduce overseas 3rd party insuarnce from £2 million to £100,000. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.skydiving/browse_thread/thread/0a154c9875a94cf2/56e056c66c8869a9#56e056c66c8869a9 Will this 80% reduction in cover reduce the cost of the insurance? NO. Edited to add: Have just checked the BPA web page and there is nothing on it. They haven't even got the decency to tell us! Will this help the European skydiving league to develop? NO. Will the instuctors insurance still be subsidised by the experienced skydivers? Of course! I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jjiimmyyt 0 #2 March 23, 2005 Will more BPA members jump in Spain, France, Germany and the US? International flights / ferry / train are cheap now... "This isn't an iron lung, people. You can actually disconnect and not die." -Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #3 March 23, 2005 Quote Edited to add: Have just checked the BPA web page and there is nothing on it. They haven't even got the decency to tell us! This post a couple of hours before your post said he read it on their site. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1548180#1548180 I looked and its there, right in the middle, about an inch down from Renewal notice at the top. Just not in the biggest, boldest font."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeepThought 0 #4 March 23, 2005 I have my own insurance whenever I go abroad the covers me for £2m personal liability amongst other things. It's a pity that you can't get a discount on BPA membership if you opt out of international cover. I know several skydivers that are not planning to jump outside the UK. And many like myself that have their own insurance. -------------------------------------------------- You only have one life, make the most of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UKFSChick 0 #5 March 23, 2005 Insurance costs are high because skydivers keep suing each other. It's published in the AGM minutes if you're interested. No insurance, no skydiving - the BPA is not trying to do us over - in fact we are lucky that one underwriter will still insure us (and it's only one) despite the fact that the massive payouts have kept underwriters operating at a loss for some time now. We are not a good bet for an underwriter and the BPA have secured us the best deal 'they' can. However anyone can stand for council if they really feel they are somehow being screwed over. Perhaps you have a better way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gremlin 0 #6 March 24, 2005 Amazing how the Europeans have 6 companies which will insure them - at significantly reduced cost. The decision to reduce the overseas cover was - apparently - taken by council - not the insurance company. If we require £2 million cover in the UK - which we pay a lot for - why do we only need £100,000 abroad. If you hit a plane and your insurance does not cover the cost you could get sued. For a LOT. A new member could now go jumping abroad thinking that the BPA fully covered him. He hits a building or a plane on landing and the £100,000 is no where near enough to cover the costs. He faces being sued and losing his house to pay the bill. The BPA is supposed to be there to look after its members interests. If we only need £100,000 then lets get that in the UK and cut the premiums - if we need £2 million to be safe then keep it world wide.I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #7 March 24, 2005 Quote If we require £2 million cover in the UK - which we pay a lot for - why do we only need £100,000 abroad. Agreed. It'd be interesting to hear the rationalisation behind this. There is nothing mentioned on the website. If we don't get a reduction in costs, then why reduce the cover? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pincheck 0 #8 March 24, 2005 me i am off to spain next week for 10 days off jumping mostly for the weather as well as jump prices. below is a interesting mail that was sent to my yahoo group. The DeutcheFallschirmsportVerband (DFV) have issued German skydivers who may wish to jump at Bad Lippspringe, the only BPA DZ in Germany, with 3rd Party insurance cover of 2.9 million Euros to bring their basic level of insurance cover up to and in line with the £2 million (Britischer Pfund) as afforded by BPA Insurance. The extra cover was issued by the German insurer Allegemeine Gerling, completely free of charge to the German skydivers and follows similar action taken by the DFV to bring German insurance in line with other EU member states skydiver insurance such as France, Austria and Switzerland. German skydivers routinely jump at drop zones all over Europe without paying extra premiums or having to join host nation associations. Examples of this are: ESL competitions, Swedish Herc Boogie and large international winter venues such as Empuria and Portugal, where British and German DZ operators work together in a truly International / European skydiving environment. It is hoped that this action may be followed by the insurers of other European skydiving associations in order to ensure that skydivers of all EU member states (including the UK) have similar levels of cover and are able to jump at drop zones all over Europe under their own national insurance cover. This is seen in Europe as an essential component of the ethos of the European Skydiving League in which international competition grows ever stronger and participants are taken from all the European Union member states. Bad Lippspringe DZ welcome this news and applaud the DFV for taking the lead on an issue that affects skydivers all over Europe. i just don't understand how the rest off europe is so much cheaper than we are for insurance??. any comments people. Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
britboynz 0 #9 March 24, 2005 i just don't understand how the rest off europe is so much cheaper than we are for insurance??. any comments people. Another Fine example of Rip-Off Britain. Someone mentioned high insurance premiums are the result of skydivers sueing skydivers. Well I'd want to see proof of this - how many claims, categorised (eg mid air collisions resulting in permanent injuries, students smacking into houses/parked cars etc). Come on - we all know skydivers dont generally sue skydivers. How many wealthy skydivers do you know that could afford the cost of litigation? The vast majority spend all their money on booze/cigs/jump tickets. Not much left to pay mr hotshot solicitor/lawyer to pursue a case for loss of earnings caused by an unintentional collision at 6,000ft. I suspect the BPA is just going on the information from the insurer - who of course will state that 'premiums must rise up due to ever increasing number of claims' regardless of the true situation. Bollocks. They're ripping you off. The more money an insurance company can squeeze out of its policy holders, the better its bottom line. When has ANY insurer said 'we're reducing your premium!' ?!? Something stinks about this whole saga - the insurance company used by the BPA KNOWS it's got you (ha ha) by the balls so it will continue to raise premiums until the pips squeak. Next question is - who's going to do anything about it? Or is sport skydiving in the UK just going to run into the ground and see the vast majority of UK jumpers getting on cheap easyjet flights to Empuria and other European DZs. As far as I'm concerned, stuff the UK and it's crap weather, crap DZ's, high cost of jumping and high taxes. Russ. In NZ where petrol costs NZ$1.23 (47p) per litre, my annual fully comp car insurance is NZ$600 (229quid) and my annual NZPF membership, that is the NZ equivalent of the BPA, costs me the princely sum of NZ$75 (28.6quid) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #10 March 24, 2005 Quote we all know skydivers dont generally sue skydivers... You'd be surprised how often it happens. Also, it only needs a few hugely expensive claims to push the premiums up and I can think of 2 off the top of my head. Both by very experienced skydivers.... The insurance premium in the UK is a different matter to the one raised above I think. The BPA has at least given its reasons for rising premiums (whether we agree is another matter), but haven't mentioned why they're going to decrease cover in Europe without giving the skydiving community something back. That's what I want addressed. What do we get out of it? or maybe only the BPA get something out of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
britboynz 0 #11 March 24, 2005 >You'd be surprised how often it happens. Also, it only needs a few hugely expensive claims to push the premiums up and I can think of 2 off the top of my head. Both by very experienced skydivers.... True, although I imagine that all other European countries experience this, yet their premiums remain lower. >The insurance premium in the UK is a different matter to the one raised above I think. The BPA has at least given its reasons for rising premiums (whether we agree is another matter), but haven't mentioned why they're going to decrease cover in Europe without giving the skydiving community something back. That's what I want addressed. I think the two are related in that the BPA has obviously been stung by criticism about its high membership fee (which as several have pointed out is mainly due to insurance premiums). You want cheaper BPA membership, something has to give. And the BPA believe they can deliver this by cutting out 'non essential insurance'. Which is fine, until someones PC gets loose in an aircraft, pulls the jumper through the side destroying the plane and possibly killing several jumpers/people on the ground. This doesnt address the core issue, that is UK insurance companies price gouging. If the BPA wants to reduce its membership fee, then they are going about it totally the wrong way. Russ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #12 March 24, 2005 QuoteIf the BPA wants to reduce its membership fee, then they are going about it totally the wrong way. Russ I agree, but at this time there is no indication that the BPA has that aim in mind by reducing the cover... "From 1 April 2005, the coverage of the BPA insurance policy will be reduced from 2m to 100,000 at overseas non-affiliated drop zones, excluding the USA where the policy, as previously, does not apply. The limit will remain at 2m for Affiliated Clubs. As before, the policy does not provide cover for instructor negligence at non-affiliated Clubs" That's all they say. Nothing about membership fees decreasing... Absolutely no reason given whatsoever. I'd be surprised to see fees decrease from the BPA as a result of this... At most, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "We are reducing the cover to enable us to maintain membership fees at reasonable levels".... and I'm not holding my breath about that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #13 March 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf we require £2 million cover in the UK - which we pay a lot for - why do we only need £100,000 abroad. Agreed. It'd be interesting to hear the rationalisation behind this. There is nothing mentioned on the website.If we require £2 million cover in the UK - which we pay a lot for - why do we only need £100,000 abroad. Whilst it doesn't say directly on the web page, the reasoning for this was given in 2005 Annual Report by the Chairman of the British Parachute Association This report was presented to the approximately 450 members (~10% of the membership) at the AGM as well as printed and distributed to 100% of the membership in the magazine, not to mention on the BPA website so that those foreign non-members who have nothing better to do than try and stir up bad feeling whilst not having a complete grasp of all of the details may better educate themselves. QuoteThe committee has considered the issue of insurance coverage abroad. Baring in mind the increase in member-to-member claims over the last few years, the committee considers it be to unreasonable to continue to provide £2 million worth of third party cover at foreign dropzones that do not adhere to the BPA Operations Manual and over which the BPA has absolutely no control. To this end, the committee intends to propose a reduction in coverage abroad to the Council at its first meeting in February this year. Ivan Peters made a post on uk.rec.skydiving, which echoes my own thoughts,as well as DeepThought's. Why have third-party cover abroad at all? No-one should be skydiving abroad without insurance and that insurance as well as covering medical fees and repatriation should aslo cover personal liability and 3rd party claims. In effect, this would take the straing off the BPA's insurers, reducing claims, and maybe premiums in the long run, although these no specific insurers may end of increasing (or even withdrawing) premiums over the years if the claims warrant. At least then the BPA couldn't be blamed and maybe some people would wake-up to the way in which insurance works! Take care. Don't take undue risks. Someone always pays in the end. I will ask DH, who is on the Insurance Sub-Committee when I ask him this weekend. QuoteAgreed. It'd be interesting to hear the rationalisation behind this. There is nothing mentioned on the website. Again, from the Chairman's report, QuoteIf we can lower the number and size of claims made against us...Once this happens and other underwriters start to take an interest in our business, we will be in a better position to negotiate our premium. In order to get ourselves into a position whereby we can negotiate a lower cost deal, we are going to have to actually reduce the number and size of claims that are made against us. Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #14 March 24, 2005 QuoteThe decision to reduce the overseas cover was - apparently - taken by council - not the insurance company. So? The brief of the insurance sub-committee is to Quotereview the scope and value of the policy to seek to contain future increases in premiums Ivan responded well to the rest of your message.Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #15 March 24, 2005 Quotei just don't understand how the rest off europe is so much cheaper than we are for insurance??. It may be to do with the "no win, no fee" style of litigation that is increasing in popularity in this country. I'm not sure how prevalent this is in mainland Europe. QuoteI suspect the BPA is just going on the information from the insurer - who of course will state that 'premiums must rise up due to ever increasing number of claims' regardless of the true situation. Bollocks. They're ripping you off. The more money an insurance company can squeeze out of its policy holders, the better its bottom line. When has ANY insurer said 'we're reducing your premium!' ?!? Where is your evidence? From the 2005 Annual Report of the Chairman of the British Parachute Association QuoteIn monetary terms, over the last ten years, the total gross income of our insurers has been £2,706,500. However, the total claims incurred figure is £3,867,485 Do you think it unreasonable that an insurance company should make a profit? How about a loss? QuoteSomething stinks about this whole saga Yes, it's your attitude. QuoteAs far as I'm concerned, stuff the UK and it's crap weather, crap DZ's, high cost of jumping and high taxes. If so, what interest do you have in this whole "saga"? QuoteIn NZ where petrol costs NZ$1.23 (47p) per litre, my annual fully comp car insurance is NZ$600 (229quid) and my annual NZPF membership, that is the NZ equivalent of the BPA, costs me the princely sum of NZ$75 (28.6quid) Are the two countries directly comparable when it comes to taxation, insurance liabilities and the nature of skydiving? There are probably countries cheaper than New Zealand and more expensive than the UK. What is your point?Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #16 March 24, 2005 Cheers Craig, my issue of the Mag with chairmans speech in it never arrived... I'd still like to see a breakdown of where and between who these cases are occuring though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #17 March 24, 2005 Quotemy issue of the Mag with chairmans speech in it never arrived... Did you contact the Office? They'll send you another copy as soon as you ask... QuoteI'd still like to see a breakdown of where and between who these cases are occuring though. Why? I don't know how we stand with regards to confidentiality when claims are settled out of court. Also, the two major ones (which as far as I am aware are very big and make a significant impact) aren't yet concluded. I'm a bit torn on this; I agree that it is "our money" so maybe we have a right to know but I'd be interested in what you think you might gain by knowing the information. Another question for DH this weekend I think...Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #18 March 24, 2005 Quote Did you contact the Office? They'll send you another copy as soon as you ask... cool. will do. As to knowing specifics of cases I wasn't looking for exactly between who and what happened, but more of a breakdown of where accidents happen and at what level cases occur and in what numbers. 'Student vs Instructor' or 'Family vs Experienced' for example... Part of it is personal curiosity, but it can also be useful to have a 'sanity check' in these processes. Are more cases occuring at non-BPA affiliated DZs? If so, fair enough reducing the cover, but I'd like to see the numbers to confirm it otherwise there's really very little point to the exercise. Perhaps more useful would be a breakdown of where more incidents are occuring - Europe vs the UK or even specific DZs and see if a pattern can be found. This might allow us to address the problem at source rather than fighting it with insurance.... I understand that doing detailed analysis can put the BPA at risk though, but there needs to be a less arbitrary way of communicating these decisions. Either that, or the BPA needs a PR manager to sort out information release! I have more faith than some in the BPA, but not enough to let them do things without questioning the reasoning behind it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UKFSChick 0 #19 April 4, 2005 QuoteI have more faith than some in the BPA, but not enough to let them do things without questioning the reasoning behind it. Why don't you stand for council then? 'The BPA' is not some dismebodied entity of oppressors who want to destroy British skydiving while lining their own pockets - 'they' are nothing more sinister than a bunch of British skydivers trying to make things work better for all of us. As Craig said, ~10% of BPA members actually attended the AGM. I think fewer than that actually voted? So I guess it must be the other 90% who feel justified in sitting on their arses and bitching about how evil, devious and generally shit 'the BPA' are. Strange logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skykittykat 0 #20 April 5, 2005 I don't have many problems with the BPA and it's rules (am a fully paid up member). Some rules that the BPA have could be beneficial for other countries to adopt and some other rules are a bit over the top. I can see where many of the rules come from and that is that in the UK, weather, dropzones and money does not make skydiving easy and that the average number of jumps a person makes in the UK per year is about half of that to US skydivers. My only beef with the BPA is that they allow people with a vested financial interest to be on the council. This may make decisions/rules biased (which has been done in the past 4 years). Apart from the financial aspect, are council members in touch with current skydiving trends? Anyone, please answer this question: Why is there going to be a Grand Prix in Style and Accuracy and not in Freeflying this year? The council voted that there was not enough interest in freeflying to hold a Grand Prix. If you look around most dzs in the UK it would show that there are more freeflyers than style and accuracy jumpers.... If this has been changed recently, then I apologise as I am a bit out of touch! Liz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gremlin 0 #21 April 5, 2005 Quote*** 'The BPA' is not some dismebodied entity of oppressors who want to destroy British skydiving while lining their own pockets The problem is that this is how the skydiving population regard the BPA. The BPA is at best regarded as an insurance broker and at worst a tax on skydiving. Last year 7% of BPA members quit - (BPA chairman's report) If any other business lost 7% of its core business the board would be replaced instantly. The lack of elections this year and low voter numbers last year is indicative of a membership who do not relate to the BPA. They see the same old faces taking decisions they cannot understand - but seem to benefit from. (Why did the questionaire have no questions about insurance?) The recent rises in insurance have brought this to the fore and the membership now wants to know why they are paying so much while other Europeans are getting so much more for less. If the BPA isn't "evil and devious" it needs to convince its own membership that it isn't otherwise members will continue to leave.I'm drunk, you're drunk, lets go back to mine.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
