pullhigh 0
As I understand this thread, it calims that you would not be insured for ANY skydive through the USPA. Is that correct?
If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?
Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez
If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?
Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez
philly51 0
Wouldn't it be easier to just kill all the lawyers?
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, Shouting "...holy shit...what a ride!"
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, Shouting "...holy shit...what a ride!"
Jib 0
QuoteWouldn't it be easier to just kill all the lawyers?
Shakespeare's been trying to get people to kill them for years.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
***As I understand this thread, it calims that you would not be insured for ANY skydive through the USPA. Is that correct?
If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?
Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez
If so, there were some cliams that homeowners insurance may cover your liability on a jump that you were not being paid to do. It specifically mentione demos, but where is the line, If I land a tandem passenger on someones car, am I not covered because I was being paid to make the jump?
Ganja "WCS" Rodriguez
Okay, I see your point...
This thread has been going on for a while,
and certain things have changed and been
revised...
there was a possibility that the USPA
would end it's involvement altogether with insurance..
If that were in fact the decision, you would have to
seek a form of liability coverage on your own...
or jump without it.
The brokers I've spoken with seemed unwilling to
commit to confirming a jumper actually being covered
for liability of injury & damage caused while jumping...
anywhere and anytime...
through their homeowners policy...
So that, I can't answer.
We are in hope the USPA will continue to offer
their assistance in this important matter!
Which it looks like will be their intent.
And as of yet the insurance hasn't actually changed at all
from what it's been for years now.
The current policy does run out soon,
and that is the issue being address in the upcoming
BOD meeting.
To answer your question...as things currently stand
...and I'm not an expert here.
It's my understand that you would be covered under the General Membership
policy as doing AFF and Tandems 'at a dropzone' would be considered
'normal parachute operations' .
Even though you are getting paid.
And I agree...
First, we kill ALL the lawyers!!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
If you are doing a tandem you are working. If you are a carpenter and you damage someone's property while carpenting, your homeowners insurance wouldn't cover you either. If you are being paid as an employee (ie using the dz's rig) this becomes the dz's problem, just like any other workplace.
BTW I am not a lawyer; I'm just guessing.
Peyode Rodriguez
BTW I am not a lawyer; I'm just guessing.
Peyode Rodriguez
QuoteI am not a lawyer; I'm just guessing
***
That's okay...
Most lawyer just guess too!!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
skypuppy 1
Actually, the way I understand it, even if you're using the dz's rigs, you're probably an independent subcontractor - you would have to purchase your own medical insurance. You would only be an employee if the dz issues you a T4 slip at the end of the year. I doubt most tandem masters - in Canada anyways - are viewed as employees or would be covered for things like employee's comp...
In Canada however if you are at an approved school with insurance, all passengers are covered under the school's insurance for 3rd party liability, instructors have access to the defence fund and are covered for their own 3rd party liability through their individual memberships, I believe. That's the only way I could see it work, considering how cheap it is for a school to affiliate and become insured (compared to an individual membership which only covers one person).
Without insurance, in the case of 3rd party liability, yes the dz would probably get sued, but so would you personally, and you would probably have to cover your own legal expenses... It would be possible for the dz to get off and you to be found liable in the case of neglect for instance, or for both of you to be found liable, but very unlikely for you to be exonerated and the dz found liable... Anyway, because of that you'd want to have your own lawyer separate from the dz's. In Canada instructors have access to a defence fund to pay for that through their individual memberships.
In the event that the instructor is not qualified, presumably the insurance for both the school and the instructor would be nullified.
In Canada however if you are at an approved school with insurance, all passengers are covered under the school's insurance for 3rd party liability, instructors have access to the defence fund and are covered for their own 3rd party liability through their individual memberships, I believe. That's the only way I could see it work, considering how cheap it is for a school to affiliate and become insured (compared to an individual membership which only covers one person).
Without insurance, in the case of 3rd party liability, yes the dz would probably get sued, but so would you personally, and you would probably have to cover your own legal expenses... It would be possible for the dz to get off and you to be found liable in the case of neglect for instance, or for both of you to be found liable, but very unlikely for you to be exonerated and the dz found liable... Anyway, because of that you'd want to have your own lawyer separate from the dz's. In Canada instructors have access to a defence fund to pay for that through their individual memberships.
In the event that the instructor is not qualified, presumably the insurance for both the school and the instructor would be nullified.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
firstime 0
that was a good guess because it was right on as per
NY state insurance law. I am sure most States abide by the same. There is no "bottom line" with insurance in regards to home owners Ins or personal
liability umbrella because all insurance companies
dictate their policies with such ambiguity to go in their favor when the gray area is involved. Here is the deal with homeowners liability and umbrella.
There is an added endorsement called incidental business that would cover you in the event that you damage someone ( punitive or property) it would be covered provided it was incidental & accidental. Incidental would mean that you are compensated and not your main source of income. And accidental
is usually always covered. Now comes the lawyers to
prove without your weekend paycheck you cant pay your bills...UT OH "no longer incidental" Start digging in your own pocket brother.This is just for the part timer. Lets go to the weekend fun jumper,
...if you damage anything or anyone(punitive or property) assuming it was a mistake DUH.. your home owners ins and or umbrella policy have to step up to the plate (as per NY State) and I challenge anyone out there to dispute this. NO I AM NOT A LAWYER!!! just an informed person.
NY state insurance law. I am sure most States abide by the same. There is no "bottom line" with insurance in regards to home owners Ins or personal
liability umbrella because all insurance companies
dictate their policies with such ambiguity to go in their favor when the gray area is involved. Here is the deal with homeowners liability and umbrella.
There is an added endorsement called incidental business that would cover you in the event that you damage someone ( punitive or property) it would be covered provided it was incidental & accidental. Incidental would mean that you are compensated and not your main source of income. And accidental
is usually always covered. Now comes the lawyers to
prove without your weekend paycheck you cant pay your bills...UT OH "no longer incidental" Start digging in your own pocket brother.This is just for the part timer. Lets go to the weekend fun jumper,
...if you damage anything or anyone(punitive or property) assuming it was a mistake DUH.. your home owners ins and or umbrella policy have to step up to the plate (as per NY State) and I challenge anyone out there to dispute this. NO I AM NOT A LAWYER!!! just an informed person.
QuoteActually, the way I understand it, even if you're using the dz's rigs, you're probably an independent subcontractor - you would have to purchase your own medical insurance. You would only be an employee if the dz issues you a T4 slip at the end of the year. I doubt most tandem masters - in Canada anyways - are viewed as employees or would be covered for things like employee's comp...
In Canada however if you are at an approved school with insurance, all passengers are covered under the school's insurance for 3rd party liability, instructors have access to the defence fund and are covered for their own 3rd party liability through their individual memberships, I believe. That's the only way I could see it work, considering how cheap it is for a school to affiliate and become insured (compared to an individual membership which only covers one person).
Without insurance, in the case of 3rd party liability, yes the dz would probably get sued, but so would you personally, and you would probably have to cover your own legal expenses... It would be possible for the dz to get off and you to be found liable in the case of neglect for instance, or for both of you to be found liable, but very unlikely for you to be exonerated and the dz found liable... Anyway, because of that you'd want to have your own lawyer separate from the dz's. In Canada instructors have access to a defence fund to pay for that through their individual memberships.
In the event that the instructor is not qualified, presumably the insurance for both the school and the instructor would be nullified.
My tax man says that if they tell you when to come to work and what to do while there you are an employee, not a contractor. This is for California not Canada.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
skypuppy 1
My tax man says that if they tell you when to come to work and what to do while there you are an employee, not a contractor. This is for California not Canada.
__________________________________________________
But how much do you work? Do you work on a regular basis? Can you turn down work if you don't want it? Does your employer deduct pension/employment insurance/workman's comp/taxes etc. from your paycheque? I've no doubt that in your case you're correct - but it can get sort of dicey up here. Of course up here if you're a contractor (self employed) you can deduct the costs of doing business (ie. equipment, courses, training), whereas if you're an employee I don't know if you could.
__________________________________________________
But how much do you work? Do you work on a regular basis? Can you turn down work if you don't want it? Does your employer deduct pension/employment insurance/workman's comp/taxes etc. from your paycheque? I've no doubt that in your case you're correct - but it can get sort of dicey up here. Of course up here if you're a contractor (self employed) you can deduct the costs of doing business (ie. equipment, courses, training), whereas if you're an employee I don't know if you could.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
QuoteBut how much do you work? Do you work on a regular basis? Can you turn down work if you don't want it?
I work when I want to and only the jobs I want to. Like I said, If they tell you when to come to work and what to do when you get there, you are an employee no matter what the deduct from your check. And as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
QuoteAnd as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky
***Bragging again!
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
QuoteQuoteAnd as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky
***Bragging again!My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
Every state and every provence have there own regs on this, but the essence is usually the same. It is not correct, however to find one definition and transpose it onto other aspects of the law. You are correct in your assumption that our part time tandem masters are independent contractors for income tax purposes (federal jurisdiction). For Workers' Compensation Board purposes (Provincial jurisdiction) you are wrong. They are employees and are covered by WCB premiums which the DZ is obliged to pay. The deciding factor is whether or not the subcontractor/employee provides materials (I am not guessing this time).
While I'm sure I have the rivetted attention of everyone in other jurisdictions, my point is that neither Revenue Canada's nor WCB's definition can be seen as definitive in a liability suit.
While I'm sure I have the rivetted attention of everyone in other jurisdictions, my point is that neither Revenue Canada's nor WCB's definition can be seen as definitive in a liability suit.
Reginald 0
[replyI work when I want to and only the jobs I want to. Like I said, If they tell you when to come to work and what to do when you get there, you are an employee no matter what the deduct from your check. And as I said in my last post, "This is for California not Canada".
Sparky
Sparky
Um, it a bit more complex than that. There are a series of legal tests dealing with the topic. Your “tax man” gave you an incredibly dumbed down version. The basic issue revolves around “control”. This is a complex legal issue that is challenged in both civil courts and by the IRS on any number of fronts. Trust me if you had any idea how complex the issue is and how many court cases it had been tested in you would not be addressing it so flatly. Currently, every instructor I know of is being treated as an independent contractor for tax purposes. Does this translate directly for liability purposes, no but it’s a good start. Again this is a widely complex issue that I guarantee won’t be resolved here.
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP
I don't understand the question...
Are you speaking in terms of 'normal skydiving ops.'
or Demos?
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~