ORIGINAL: mr_matt
Hello,
The normal AMA insurance is secondary to one's homeowners. So let's assume one's general homeowner's liability policy (or a PUP) has a limit of millions (not uncommon) with no specific exclusion for model airplanes. You have a bad accident and do some real damage and create a claim of say 1 million. Your homowners pays and (just for the sake of arguement) my guess is that after that payout they cancel you and this is the last insurance you will ever be able to get for less than 50K a year in premiums
Now repeat this scenario, except this time you do not have homeowners insurance coverage at all. Now your AMA insurance is primary, they pay the 1 million claim and next year your dues still covers you and it is still 58 (or 68 or whtever the dues are now). All is OK with your home insurance as you never got a claim.
So my question is, can we set up a homeowners general liability (or a PUP) that specifically excludes models, (so that the AMA insurance is now primary). In addition, we set up a second seperate PUP for models (only) that is set up to be secondary to the AMA that will only pay if the AMA limits are hit?
It might help to describe a possible scenario. You have an accident and a receive a judgement against you. Your general homeowners liability (or PUP) denies the claim due to the modeling exclusion built into this policy on purpose. The AMA insurance now becomes primary and has to pay. If for some reason the AMA insurance won't pay or hits the $2.5M limit, your SECOND PUP kicks in.
The advantage here is that for any accident resulting in up to a $2.5M claim, your homeowners will not get touched and you will not loose your insurance. If you have a real debacle (>$2.5M claim) the AMA will pay and then your secondary PUP kicks in and if the secondary insurer boots you it will not affect your main homeowners policy.
Thoughts?
mr_matt,
You have a very insightful strategy that one might be able to take advantage of IMO. With that being said, the chances of an accident that would strap you or anyone else with such great liabilities due to model aviation activities would be far less than the risk of losing your life in a car accident while traveling to the flying field.
We usually give little thought to losing our life or even becoming permanently and severely disabled but become absolutely petrified with the possibility of being held monetarily liable for an accident due to flying a model. I am not sure why that is but what-ifs have made the insurance industry one of the most lucrative games known to man.
Another strategy would be to refrain from activities where risks are great enough that we need such exorbitant liability coverage. I know that sounds really silly but to use insurance as means to take more risk is merely a way for someone to erroneously justify risk of another's life or well being while claiming prudent responsibility. I have had conversations with overly aggressive automobile drivers that cite they are fully covered and feel they can therefore take more risk. An argument could be made that some insurances has the effect of making some activities more dangerous.
Insurance companies are sort of like casinos...they always win but if you find a way to get an edge on the system and get better odds I would be all for it.