ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
<snip>
Since The policy is primary for the land owner.
AND
As the maker of the contract... err... policy, it is all about the exclusions installed by the insurance company.
The evidence is the exclusions that are in the policy.
It is apparent that the land owner policy covers more than just flying associated liabilities such as a typical trip and fall...which likely would be a non-AMA person. So, no exclusion for that type of incident.
Now, we just need to look for any other exclusions of non-AMA use...flying or otherwise.
If the exclusion is not there, it does not exists.
Without the certainty that the landowner would be covered for model flying ( i.e. an otherwise AMA club member with an expired AMA is just one the many possibilities) the policy would be of little comfort since it is reasonable to assume a flying site might attract other than AMA current cardholders.
So...the owner's policy may not say it covers non-AMA flyers but I or anyone else could only bring forward what the policy excludes... Now, where do we find that exclusion? I can't find it...
Well, in the snippet from the Club Charter Kit that you posted, AMA is unambiguously stating that coverage provided to public entities that allow clubs the use of flying sites excludes coverage for liability incurred by actions of non AMA flyers. Where do you find
that exclusion in the insurance policy? I suggest that if you can find it, you will likely find that it does not distinguish between public entities and private landowners. Again, your argument "Without the certainty that the landowner would be covered for model flying...." seems reasonable, but why would it not apply to public entities as well as private?
Abel