Would you quit USPA if there was an alternative to liability insurance?

[chuckbrown 0]

This poll may not be well designed, and will certainly make me some enemies at USPA, but .... it seems to me that USPA has gotten on the wrong side of the skydiving community in general, and small drop zones in particular. And what's worse is that except for some of the board members, management at USPA doesn't seem to really care. But, USPA continues to survive without much accountability largely because they provide a third party liability policy that every drop zone will accept. It seems to me that if USPA had some competition for your dues money they might be more responsive to the concerns of skydivers and small drop zones.

So here are the questions: if there was a third party liability insurance policy available to cover up to $50,000 in property/physical damage for say $50 per year, and this policy was accepted by your favorite drop zone(s) would you be willing to purchase this policy?

If you would choose to purchase this insurance policy would you renew your USPA membership?

Edited to make the comparison meaningful. I think. Thanks.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

So here are the questions: if there was a third party liability insurance policy available to cover up to $10,000 in property/physical damage for say $50 per year, and this policy was accepted by your favorite drop zone(s) would you be willing to purchase this policy?

FYI: just so people know what they are comparing:
USPA 3rd party liability insurance covers up to $50,000 and is about $12.00 of your USPA membership dues.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[brettski74 0]

Quote

FYI: just so people know what they are comparing:
USPA 3rd party liability insurance covers up to $50,000 and is about $12.00 of your USPA membership dues.

Why such low coverage? CSPA insurance covers you for $2 million, worldwide.

$50,000 may not go far if you impact a Rolls Royce or a person. I've no idea how much of my membership fee goes toward providing this.

[Ms.sofaking 0]

$50,000 in property/physical damage ***

By "physical" are you referring to medical?
And would this also cover yourself?

"I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, except I'll die in the end, she said. So what could really go wrong? -----Brian Andreas

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

USPA third-party liability insurance
Third-party liability insurance comes with membership. All USPA individual members, regular or temporary, have coverage for property damage and bodily injury liability insurance in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the policy. The third-party liability insurance does not cover medical benefits to the member. This insurance is valid for skydives made in accordance with USPA's Basic Safety Requirements and the Federal Aviation Regulations. Most drop zones assure that jumpers have this type of insurance by requiring current USPA membership to jump there. All claims must be brought in the U.S. or Canada. To report a claim, call (866) 585-4590.

Third-party liability insurance that comes with USPA membership does not cover members performing exhibition or demonstration jumps, as defined by the Skydiver's Information Manual. Special insurance is available for qualified jumpers (see below).

From the USPA website.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[kkeenan 14]

Quote

By "physical" are you referring to medical?
And would this also cover yourself?

No. USPA insurance only covers damage/injury that the jumper causes, not any coverage to the jumper.

Kevin K.

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[Ms.sofaking 0]

Thanks, but my question was would this other insurance cover these?

"I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, except I'll die in the end, she said. So what could really go wrong? -----Brian Andreas

[chuckbrown 0]

The purpose of the poll is present an similar insurance policy to that offered by USPA.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of an unhappiness with USPA. Yet, USPA continues to receive financial support from active US skydivers. I'm curious to what extent that is a product of the liability policy.

[Ms.sofaking 0]

Quote

The purpose of the poll is present an similar insurance policy to that offered by USPA.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of an unhappiness with USPA.

If we are comparing apples to apples, I think any problems people have with USPA will be found elsewhere too.I think we, as a skydiving community, are better off to address the issues we may have with USPA.And work with USPA to create something we are happier with.I don't think if there is a problem we should abandon USPA as a whole.USPA is or should be capable of evolving with the changing needs of it's members.

I, however, am new to the sport.My vote may be an ignorant one.

"I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, except I'll die in the end, she said. So what could really go wrong? -----Brian Andreas

[NickDG 23]

Jumpers of yore used to land on each other's cars for new paint jobs hence the "3rd" party thing, so anyone remotely connected to the sport were classed 1st or 2nd party.

Except for demos, I've never felt this day in day out type of insurance is all that necessary anyway. It could be we just don’t hear about these cases, but even if a jumper goes through a barn roof off the DZ why do we all pay for it? Let 'em flap in the breeze by themselves.

Okay, maybe that's too cold. But how about such insurance just covering students and cases of uncontrollable malfunctions for experienced jumpers?

Or why not the "we have no insurance" protection which is a proven lawsuit defense in gear manufacturing. Does your average gone through the barn roof skydiver have enough loot for a lawyer to bother with anyway?

Now if USPA would just cover my butt after sailing through a $20,000 plate glass window on a BASE jump I'd be more willing to pony up . . .

NickD BASE 194

[Ms.sofaking 0]

Now if USPA would just cover my butt after sailing through a $20,000 plate glass window on a BASE jump I'd be more willing to pony up . . .***

Now that's the type of insurance I'd like to see.Although if you find a building with a $20,000 plate glass window to sail through, you'll need a hell of a lot of insurance just to put you back together.

I don't really think of insurance when it comes to my USPA membership.I think of the roll they play as liaison between us and the FAA.Hopefully keeping them from regulating us to much.

Oh, and my subscription to parachutist!

"I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, except I'll die in the end, she said. So what could really go wrong? -----Brian Andreas

[pkasdorf 0]

I didn't vote because I'm from overseas so liability insurance is not my point and I don't feel I know enough to give an opinion on how well USPA is working.

My point is Parachutist magazine, USPA membership allows me to have it, otherwise it would be impossible.

HISPA # 18 POPS # 8757

[darkwing 5]

I would stick with USPA. They do much more than provide the insurance. I think people that hate USPA are errant and misguided on several counts. Run for office if you don't like it.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Run for office if you don't like it.

Where's the fun in that? It's much more fun to whine.

Seriously, and with all due respect, I don't think dismissing critics as "errant and misguided" will win any arguments. There are some very prominent members of the skydiving community who have some very substantial disagreements with USPA.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

It could be we just don’t hear about these cases, but even if a jumper goes through a barn roof off the DZ why do we all pay for it? Let 'em flap in the breeze by themselves.

Okay, maybe that's too cold. But how about such insurance just covering students and cases of uncontrollable malfunctions for experienced jumpers?

Accidents do happen, and we all need to be covered. When I was S&TA at The Ranch we had a visiting jumper smash into a privately owned parked airplane. As I recall, the damage was about $30,000. The jumper was a college student, and without the USPA insurance would have had no way to pay for the damage. The aircraft owner needed to recover somehow, and if not from the jumpers insurance, he might very well have taken it out on the DZ.

In many cases, DZ's are located on public airports and must have insurance to operate. In other cases, jumpers crash into corn fields, smash into rooftops, or take out powerlines. All are unpredictable, and in most every case, an uninsured jumper would create liability for the drop zone. USPA insurance helps us get access to airports, and to pacify angry neighbors.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Andy9o8 2]

The only reason I join USPA is because it's required at most drop zones. No card, no jump, so I join. If it wasn't required just about everywhere, I'd probably let my membership lapse, since I don't teach or do demos, so I don't really give a rat's ass about it. That being said, I don't begrudge DZs wanting to assure 3rd-party liability coverage. Keeps 'em in business, and that's good for all of us.

[Zing 2]

Does anyone have access to USPA's information regarding the number of claims made against that insurance ... and the number of claims that were actually paid?

Zing Lurks

[EDYDO 0]

Quote

Does anyone have access to USPA's information regarding the number of claims made against that insurance ... and the number of claims that were actually paid?

(2006) 12 claims/ 11 paid/ 1 pending payment

Ed

[tbrown 26]

Quote

This poll may not be well designed

Well yeah, like there isn't a "Fuck no !" option for those of us who'd like to express that feeling.

Back when I was a young radical hothead, I used to think we needed a "Confederate States Parachute Association" (my name for it) to compete with USPA.

It gripes me to hear people complain all the time about USPA and say they think they can insure themselves some other way. These are usually the same people who would do away with the Post Office because THEY have email.....and so forth.

One interesting tidbit I encountered was during my (few) years as a life insurance agent with one of the big companies. This company would write life policies for skydivers who were USPA members "in good standing", whatever that means aside from dues paid up and not kicked out of the organization I suppose. The point being that their actuaries believed they could see a difference in the Safety and Training practices of USPA and their apparent belief that they could reasonably insure the life of a USPA skydiver and not just any outlaw Joe or Jane.

I'll shut up now.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Zing 2]

Are the same type of statistics for claims/payouts available from USPA from the inception of the insurance program to the year 2006?

Zing Lurks

[white_falcon 0]

As far as the liability is concerned, if you have a homeowners insurance policy that includes LIABILITY coverage, it WILL cover you for liabilty at the dz as well. (at least I can find no exclusion that pertains to this in florida). So if you are a home owner, or a renter with the appropriate policy, you probably already have sufficent (and more) liability coverage than is provided by USPA.

At the same time, I would still be a member. Membership is needed in order for US to have an organized and "countable" voice when it comes to dealing with "city hall".

edited cause i can't spell

Scott

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

As far as the liability is concerned, if you have a homeowners insurance policy that includes LIABILITY coverage, it WILL cover you for liabilty at the dz as well. (at least I can find no exclusion that pertains to this in florida).

When we were considering having me jump into our wedding, I asked my Farmer's agent in Colorado about this and he passed the question to the underwriters. While there are some exclusions for aviation, skydiving is covered by both my home owner's ($250 or $500K?) and umbrella policies ($1M).

[scdrnr 0]

Quote

USPA insurance helps us get access to airports, and to pacify angry neighbors.

This is the part that disturbs me. Why should we have to provide insurance to gain access to public airports? I don't know of any other GA user that is required to purchase a "one-size-fits-all" third party liability policy. The USPA should be fighting for equal access.

Of course they never will, because it is the USPA who directly benefits from any rules requiring insurance.

Home owners, car onwners, aircraft owners, etc. are the ones who should be responsible for ensuring their assets are adequately insured. If Mr. Bonanza owner feels it isn't necessary to insure his plane against hail damage, vandalism, etc, then why should we be responsible for insuring him for skydiving mishaps?

It is ridiculous to think that two jumpers, one a poor trailer living instructor who jumps at a remote DZ surrounded by nothing but empty fields, and another, a high-dollar yuppie student who jumps at a DZ surrounded by multi-million dollar homes and an outdoor day-care facility, are well served by the same policy.

Insurance should be available for jumpers from a number of competing sources, in various amounts and forms of coverage. Your premium should be determined by your age, experience level, license/ratings, home dz location, amount of coverage etc.

Or, perhaps a jumper may find they are already adequately insured through their other policies, as it has been previously mentioned. It is very wasteful to require people to buy redundant insurance, or require them to buy policies that leave them over/under insured.

Jumpers who cause damage should be individually responsible, not the DZ they jump at, or the skydiving community at large. Whether or not they are insured adequately is their own individual problem.

If jumpers are concerned with access and FAA lobbying efforts they would be far better off joining AOPA. Our voice is much stronger if we consider ourselves as part of the larger GA community (which we are).

[airtwardo 7]

At the same time, I would still be a member. Membership is needed in order for US to have an organized and "countable" voice when it comes to dealing with "city hall".

Quote

Exactly...and maybe it's the USPA's fault for not more clearly explaining how much of that they do.

The USPA has come a long way since the days of record keeping in shoe-boxes, older jumpers may remember those days.

I think they are doing quite a bit, considering the resources they have.

Figure that 1/2 your annual membership goes for things like the insurance and the magazine, the other 1/2 is administration fees...I don't know how many similar type organizations people in the general membership belong to, but 30-40 bucks a year is nothing to have a voice looking out for our interests....it's 'tip money' in the overall scheme.

As far as the insurance is concerned, for me it's a added bonus not a primary reason for my membership.
I also have a 1M umbrella policy because I have too much to lose and know that 50,000 goes pretty fast in most litigation.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Home owners, car onwners, aircraft owners, etc. are the ones who should be responsible for ensuring their assets are adequately insured. If Mr. Bonanza owner feels it isn't necessary to insure his plane against hail damage, vandalism, etc, then why should we be responsible for insuring him for skydiving mishaps?

We're not insuring Mr. B for skydiving mishaps; we're insuring the DZ against a claim against it by Mr. B for the damage to his plane caused by the skydiving mishap. (We're also insuring ourselves up to $50k, but that's a separate point.) If Mr. B fails to insure his plane, and somebody damages or destroys it, he can still sue the cuplable party.

"But the DZ isn't the culpable party", you might say. Well, it might take a trial to determine that, and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. If the DZ loses, it's on the hook for the judgment. And win or lose, the DZ still has to pay its legal fees to defend itself. (No, in the US, those fees cannot be shifted to a losing plaintiff.) That can easily add up to tens, possibly scores of thousands of dollars. An insurance policy usually pays those fees.

Quote

Jumpers who cause damage should be individually responsible, not the DZ they jump at, or the skydiving community at large. Whether or not they are insured adequately is their own individual problem.

In a perfect world, that might be the case. But in the US, at least, a DZ can get sued for third-party property damage by the owner of property that is damaged by a skydiver jumping out of that DZ. Now, if we don't like that, we should lobby our state legislators to pass legislation to prevent third-party property damage claims against DZ's. It is technically doable. In any event, the insurance policy not only covers the DZ for the limits of liability of the policy, it pays the DZ's legal fees. That may mean the difference between the some DZ's staying in business or not.