ORIGINAL: J_R
ORIGINAL: abel_pranger
ORIGINAL: J_R
Loubud
Interestingly, what you thought you read is what it says. The posted policy has errors and changes have been/are being made, including an elimination of the requirment for a written agreement with the landlord. Permission is enough, it does not have to be evidenced in writing, or so I have been led to believe. BTW, this stuff is in the current appendicies of the EC Minutes for the 10/05 meeting.
Why the AMA does not post this stuff for their membership is beyond me. I guess they enjoy RCU too.
Most interestingly, it appears that when AMA differs with what the written insurance contract says, the written contract has errors..........
That appears to have been the case regarding not being covered by AMA insurance in the case of a shoot-down due to switching on a transmitter on a frequency already in use. Hoss reported on this, citing what Maroney had said at a conference gathering (SWAC, IIRC). Hoss got shouted down and Maroney provided 'clarification,' but it appears what Hoss recorded was right all along, at least according to the written contract for insurance which states under Exclusions, Para T., page 13:
""Property damage" arising from from frequency interference of of any model airplane.
However the exclusion does not apply to AMA Inc. sanctioned events where there is a control transmitter impound area and the interference is the result of event organizer error."
My recollection is that Maroney's 'clarification' was that he was only talking about the situation where there was a transmitter impound, yet the contract clearly says that's the only situation where the exclusion does
not apply.
Tell people to call Maroney about insurance issues if you will, but I'm conditioned to relying on what it says in the contract. AMA apparently has a rather unconventional way of doing business in their relationship with Westchester, but I'm more comfortable with the old-fashioned pro forma business relationship I have with GEICO for my PUP.
Abel
Different time, different contract, different insurance company, but... it is a good idea to keep your umbrella policy. I am glad you are conditioned to relying on the wording of a contract. I tend to do that myself, but... when the changes are noted in the appendicies of the offical minutes of the organization, I figure lawyers can rely on that. You have been requesting the appendices, haven't you?
JR-
FWIW, it was during SWAC 2003. Hoss's report included: "see One BIG Point: If A turns-on on B, and B causes injury/damage to C, then B is protected, however if A gets sued by C and/or B, A is all on his own – SO USE GOOD PROTECTION – USE SAFE FREQUENCY!!! (Note: This point was presented by CM in the Briefing,and in the Question/Answer session, I asked several questions to be certain I for certain understood the point.)"
I thought it was the same insurance company, could be wrong. Regardless, it appears that for as long as Westchester has held the contract, you have not been covered if you got into a liability situation due to interference from another source, AMA member or not (it was an excerpt from the current contract from Westchester, posted on the AMA site, that I cited). Only exception would be if at an AMA sanctioned event with an impound, and the impound manager screwed up.
As for changes noted in the appendices to the EC minutes, these were identified as pending
requests to the insurance company for a change in terms, and do not represent what is covered until the time those requests, if made, are honored.
You tell me - if your twiddling in the pits causes interference that results in crashing somebody's model airplane into a limo full of fat lawyer's wives on the way to the Golden Door spa resulting in a head-on collision with a ready-mix truck, are you covered here and now?
I will hang on to my PUP - it has but one exclusion: my models aren't covered if they can carry human passengers - hamsters are okay. It's a lot easier to remember that than all the wormholes in the AMA coverage built in by lawyers and lawyer wannabes in Munchie.
Abel