Mark,
I hate to sound like I moved to the SW zone, but you have a bit of spin going on here.
Filing an insurance claim for injuries is not about a 'payday' at the end of the road, it is about recovering actual and projected REAL losses as well as compensation for a change in lifestyle subsequent to the injuries. Yes, the lawyer gets a payday at the end of the road, but the injured person rarely is properly compensated.

Expecting anyone to not file a claim for significant, non self inflicted injuries at the field is simply bizzare. Having them sign a personal injury waiver would be usless as the waivers are ultimately invalid on their face ... once negligence is proven, the waiver is void. From what I have seen in practice, negligence would be very easy to prove. (did you do a range check that day? did you confirm the battery strength and health? did you confirm the model was airworthy? Was the pilot/student/instructor properly qualified? Did you make sufficient effort to inform the injured of the severity of the risk he was taking and signing the waiver for?)

Suing the association because you think their rules are wrong ... that takes guts.
In Jim's example ... could it be that MAAC has weighed the options and feels that Risks vs. protection offered by a properly fitted glove outweighs the damage potential of a kicking back composite prop offers? We are really not talking about which is safer, really, we are talking about which is less dangerous. (I have seen a lot of 'bites' from a engine kicking back, but have never seen a glove get caught in the prop ... which presents the more common danger?)
In areas that are inconclusive, such as the above, the association should inform and allow people to use their INFORMED judgement.