abel_pranger

Not sure what you read, but that would be correct.

He can of course sue you (one's constitutional right to employ lawyers is likely to be the last one left standing) for liability for his injuries. He probably won't win, and AMA will probably pay to defend you in the suit, if you were in compliance with conditions that include: not engaged in any activity excluded by the insurance contract, compliance with the AMA Safety Code and with all club safety rules that are incorporated in it by reference (Gen Rule 3). AMA's legal representation of you will undoubtedly employ the "assumption of risk" defense, which is a complete defense in itself, and is the reason he probably won't prevail in the case and win any compensation from you for his injuries.
BTW, the insurance contract posted on the AMA web site is not correct according to the AMA insurance guru (see minutes of the last EC meeting for discussion, which includes requests by AMA to the insurance company for additional exclusions from coverage). If you want to check the terms of the coverage provided to you, I wish you the best of luck in finding anywhere on the planet a copy that is authentic and binding, as apparently even the insurance company doesn't have it.

Abel

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Yeah, I guess a couple of years ago a couple of AMA members got together and agreed to sue each other - so they both won! So we all have to suffer from the deeds of a few.

Jerry

Silent-AV8R

Not sure what you mean, but you can review the policy here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/500-l.pdf

And I happen to have personal knowledge of one AMA member who is suing another. But the defendant's insurance company is handling the suit. However, the AMA is not helping to pay either of their legal expenses, and I believe this is what the subject exclusion really is for.

abel_pranger

Perhaps you don't know what I mean because you didn't check the reference I cited in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted.

Abel

Correction: you did find one of the references I cited

Silent-AV8R

I guess you mean this part of the minutes:

" Language changes to the policy were submitted to Westchester and the committee is awaiting acceptance of these changes. "

What is on the website is the most current, approved, verrsion of the policy. I would have to say that I sincerely doubt that any substantial changes will be made based on the above noted language revisions.

I hardly read the minutes as saying that the posted policy is incorrect in any way or not valid.

But hey, read into it what you will. The AMA Boogey-Man is everywhere.

abel_pranger

Yeah, just language changes, prolly from English to borderline Swahili.

BTW, re the waiver that requires you to agree not to sue AMA: any possibility in your mind there may be a nexus to the fact that the largest claim ever paid by AMA resulted from a suit in which AMA was respondent, rather than an AMA insured?

Abel

Oops, forgot to mention that claimant was an AMA member

EASYTIGER

My Feedback: (119)

Tell us about that case?

abel_pranger

Sure, ET-

From the perspective of plaintiff's lawyer (AMA never releases such information):

"$1,350,000 recovery in a defective product case where a model airplane caused a leg fracture. Plaintiff, a 48 year old United Airlines pilot when he was struck by a high speed model airplane being clocked for speed at a sanctioned competition of the Academy of Model Aeronautics at Whittier Narrows. The crash of the model airplane and the injuries to plaintiff were caused by faulty construction, faulty pre-flight inspection, and the failure to conduct such races in protected fenced arenas. In addition, the standard AMA pre-flight pull test is believed to have caused the failure of fuselage bolts which caused the plane to fly out of control at a speed of 184 m.p.h. Because he was a co-participant in the racing competition and had started the doomed aircraft, the Academy claimed the plaintiff assumed the risk of this injury, although this was the first known case of such an injury occurring. Assumption of risk is a complete defense in recreational activities under recent decisions of California courts. Because of a non-union of the tibia and fibula, eleven medical procedures were required at a cost of $220,000. Fortunately plaintiff returned to return to work as a pilot. Armstead v. Academy of Model Aeronautics, Alameda County Superior Court No. H-150430-1 settled before Hon. Daniel Weinstein, retired judge of the Superior Court, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service."

Abel

Silent-AV8R

A simple web search turns this up- at the website of the personal injury lawyer in the case. It is now used as anecdotal evidence of his ability to sue for you.

http://www.alexanderlaw.com/personal-injury.html

As usual, there is way more to a complex court case than meets the eye, or is advertised for a self serving purpose by the Plaintiff's attorney. But since it supports a particular viewpoint it is used without attribution or disclosure.

But you said it yourself back in 2003:

"As several others have, you are looking for some rational reasons for this action/award. I'm not being facetious here, really....but no logic, nor rational purpose, nor doctrine of fairness, nor any other thought process of normal, sane adults applies to such situations. When lawyers and judges get involved, it is naive to expect an outcome that is in accord with common sense. The rule that prevails in the American tort system is much simpler than that: the party with the deepest pockets is most at fault.
Why AMA would want to bankroll that crap shoot is beyond me. "

However, I don't consider it a crapshoot. Has anyone considered that in fact the way it works is that the plaintiff was suing the AMA, who was standing up for the other AMA member?? No mention of the member being sued or out of any money. Works for me. Isn't that the whole point?? Since AMA paid the claim it is likely that the original defendant had no other insurance or assets that the liability lawyer could go after. So they sued the deeper pockets.

And I do suspect that this case may have had something to do with the waiver against suing each other and expecting the AMA to assume the cost. The very cost that you earlier thought was unreasonable.

abel_pranger

I said it came from plaintiff's lawyer. If you want AMA's side of the story, ask AMA.

You are attributing to me something I do not recall writing. Identify the source where you allege I did.

Interesting theory. Explain how original defendant happened to be participating in an AMA sanctioned event without having AMA insurance.

Another attribution to me that I have no recollection of writing. Or, are you really trying to tell me what I thought? Provide source.

There isn't any AMA Boogey-Man. AMA is Santa Claus, but then you knew that.

Abel

Silent-AV8R

OK, I will next week when I get a chance to chat with Carl Maroney. But recall that this incident is perhaps as old as 15 or more years now and has little bearing on the situation today.



Here is the link:

http://utopia.rcuniverse.com/showthr...86#post1256886

It was written on the Old RCU on 08-06-2003 at 5:49 PM by abel_pranger. Now it may be a different guy with the same web ID, but I doubt it.

abel_pranger

The link as you provided it doesn't work.

Not saying I didn't say what you "quoted," as I am in agreement with it as to my general attitude towards the great American tort enterprise, which tend to be more than moderately cynical, and the style it is written in is not foreign to some I have adopted. Let that pass.

Now what is your reply to the rest of my post in reply to you? You do seem to have rather short attention span, and apparently tend to read one sentence before getting back on the keyboard. As an example, I referred you twice to the minutes of the last EC meeting, and you did after the second time, but didn't get past the first sentence re changes to insurance provisions, which you quoted. If you had, you might have learned something of the substance of some of the changes AMA has requested.

Abel

Silent-AV8R

RCU is doing somehting weird with the link when I insert it. It shows fine in my window but when the post shows up the link has extra http and www added. Let me try to figure it out here.

Actually, forget about it. I am not going to engage in a discussion with a person of any age who resorts to adolescent taunts and childish tactics.

Later. Have fun here with this.

Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

I was hoping some lawyer would jump in here but apparently not. The general principle in law is that you can't waive your right to sue for damages before you know your loss.

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

If:

A) You have not heard of someone being seriously injured, even killed by an R/C airplane, or seen it happen in front of your eyes,

OR

B) Your natural survival instinct doesn't tell you that these things could really HURT if they hit you...

I mean, COME ON! But, the ignorance and stupidity defense has won many a lawsuit... "I didn't know a 3lb plane moving at 185MPH would break my leg if it hit me." BULL PUCKEY!

abel_pranger

Matt-

I take it from that you feel the injured party should not have been compensated by the award of the court? Not being argumentative, just want to hear your thoughts on this - they appear in concert with AMA's long standing desire to eliminate member-to-member coverage. I recall this was done as AMA policy several years ago (along with member-to-family exclusion), and then the exclusion was rescinded after much protest from the membership.

Abel

Hossfly

Abel, when that item, member-to-member, was passed (95-96-97???) it was a very short time before the EC regained their senses, what few they have.
AMA exists only because of the insurance and that is a known -- no matter how much many of us would like it to be different -- fact of life. Even the EC should have known that such an exclusion would be the guillotine for AMA.
Charter Clubs exist because of the insurance which gives a member some assurance of being somewhat compensated if another member injures him/her. That is what it's all about. If I only wanted AMA because of my insurance, then I would not need AMA. It's only that other Ya-Who that I want insured.
Just another of the EC's maneuvers that I could never understand what they had in mind.

abel_pranger

Hoss-

That's quite at odds with my understanding of the reason AMA provides insurance to chartered clubs. That purpose has been stated many times: To give the landowner assurance that liability risk associated with the club's use of his property is transferred to AMA, and so does not expose him to potential financial ruin.

Abel

Lowlevlflyer

My Feedback: (3)

Geez I wish I had a dollar for every time this gets brought up in a month's time. It would be a good supplemental income!

abel_pranger

Lowlevlflyer-

Point taken.

Back to the topic of the thread............

What if the waiver actually has teeth, and AMA with its phalanx of legal weasels isn't just blowing smoke up your trouser leg. If you go to the National Flying Site and suffer one of those trip-and-fall injuries alleged to comprise most claims paid by AMA insurance, and it results in medical costs, lost employment compensation and other expense totaling $ 1 megabuck.
Who ya gonna sue for compensation?
Try two premises: 1) you are an AMA member, 2) you are not an AMA member

Abel

abel_pranger

Stripes-
I guess if it matters enough to you that you can't sue AMA (if the waiver holds up), then getting a lawyer's input is the only sensible option you have. Laws vary from state to state, so I don't think blind faith in such general principles as you stated is wise. People involved in activities involving risk sign waivers all the time, and they do hold up in many instances where they have been challenged in court. I've signed long and detailed waiver forms to obtain a pit pass so I could crew for a bud in dirt track racing. Tickets for ski lifts and parachute jumping to skate parks have the waiver acceptance terms in the fine print on the back. Your kid probably won't be allowed to play football in school, or even take a class trip unless both you and he sign a waiver.

Fair use excerpt from a web page on the topic: "Under certain circumstances, waivers are very similar to advertising . . .they're sometimes only effective when you believe in them." That's been said here in this thread, but if that's not enough, for further discussion of some of the things that enter into enforceability of waivers see the whole page at http://www.haylor.com/accessfx/199f006.htm for a starter.

Abel

added:
Oops, I pushed the submit button before including this thought as I intended: I have put in lease terms of property I let a condition that tenant waives his right to sue me and agrees to submit disputes to binding arbitration. I'm fairly confident it will hold up in the jurisdiction where the property is located. Not guaranteed as nothing in the tort soup industry is, but a backup is this: if a tenant does want to sue me, he is first going to have to prove that the waiver is invalid. That will be costly, probably involving rulings bumped to higher courts, and so in itself presents a significant deterrent to his suing me.
Perhaps AMA's strategy re waivers is similarly motivated.

festajg

My Feedback: (7)

Hey guys, great thread.

First off, this is not legal advice or any type of solicitation for representation.

Whether or not this clause is enforceable depends upon the given nature of the claim or suit that may be brought. For our answer, we look to each individual state's law (not the feds). In a majority of state jurisdictions you CAN waive your right to sue for plain negligence. Alot of the case law out there regards race track owners exculpating themselves of liability for accidents in races. So if you signed the AMA terms, in most states, you cannot bring a claim if they act merely negligently.

However, you could still arguably bring an arbitration claim (different than a lawsuit through the courts) because the precise language of the word "sue" and not "any claim or complaint." Cost of filing an arbitration claim is about $1500 as opposed to the court system, appx. $150.

But, the AMA doesn't have the control you might be thinking of. In nearly all states as well, you can't waive your right to sue someone for gross or wanton (willful) negligence or criminal activities. So if the AMA starts loan sharking, and they bash your knees in for not paying up the weighty renewal fees (or maybe from stealing a gross of those nifty yet controversial p-51 coins they distributed last year), they are out of luck trying to enforce that provision to get them out of the subsequent personal injury suit you bring against them.

Now, practically, if you don't like the language and don't want to sign to it, you can always- request a paper copy of the policy, and simply blacken out the language you don't like, sign it, and send it off. (always photocopy one for yourself before sending it off also). They might accept it, they might not. We do this all the time when signing credit card applications that request you to "waive your trial by a jury." (effectively requring a bench trial with a judge to decide the merits of the case, not the jury). 9/10 have gotten accepted even when we black out this language.

weesh. hope this (lengthy) helps.

Jonathan Festa

Hossfly

Abel, you can have it your way. Makes no diff. to me, really. That is the old which came first, the chicken or the egg? If there was no member to member liability, few would care about whether club members were AMA or not. I don't have a clue about how many clubs use the land-owner thing. AMA probably does because they collect the additional money. All I know is that as the mortgage holder for my club, my trust account is a recipient for additional insured. IMO it certainly can't hurt anything.

When Johnny Clemens set up the land-owner liability insurance portion for the Charter Clubs, there were "many reports" [:-] that such assisted "many" clubs to get flying sites. It was good PR and I suppose it still is. If people hear something often enough, they will believe it. Haven't you noticed how the liberal media controls the economy while the President gets the BLAME?

So take your choice. No maka' da' shoot here!

abel_pranger

Hoss, no problem for me howsomever you want to view it. If if works for you, you got your nickel's worth on the ride and you're a happy consumer. That's what value is all about, isn't it? You put more in, and it sure seems you got more out than I did. I'm not in any position to knock that.

Abel

Edit: mainly fix format error

SoCal GliderGuider

More attention should be paid to the means the plaintiffs lawyer used to aquire a settlement. Notice that; "the Academy claimed the plaintiff assumed the risk of this injury, although this was the first known case of such an injury occurring. Assumption of risk is a complete defense in recreational activities under recent decisions of California courts." The AMA was NOT going to pay anything on this claim.

However the plaintiff's lawyer found a loophole; "a defective product case...the standard AMA pre-flight pull test is believed to have caused the failure of fuselage bolts".

Page 24 of the http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/500-l.pdf