This is from the Jets Forum involving a court case in which the jet owner won a judgement against another modeler b/c the individual took the first guys pin down while he was flying and put his pin up and "turned on". You can read about it there.


Let's look at the AMA thing from the other guy's perspective. IF he has AMA, then surely one of the reason's is for the insurance that covers his modeling related activites. He now has a $5,000 judgment against him from the CA courts because of those activities. They will probably deny coverage saying he was operating outside of the the safety code but it will be interesting to see.


Just wanted to see what people thought. I admit, I have never been very interested in the AMA dealings, I've always just paid because I "HAD" to and flew. Well, now that I'm in turbines, the AMA has become a part of my life and I'm just starting to learn (see the light) about the AMA and care what goes on. Whether that's good or bad, I don't now, but it's the truth and reality. Most people don't care until it affects them.

George

The AMA shouldn't have to get involved, here, nor should the insurance pay. If the facts are as stated above, the club should reprimand the clown who pulled the pin down to put his own up. The courts can only do so much, so the club should do the rest. Seems pretty selfish, inconsiderate, stupid, etc., to me.

JMHO

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to mention; this is not a club and was on public property that is used for RC flying.

George

Then the nut who took the pin down to put his own up got off light with only $5000 levied against him.

I am unaware of ANY insurance coverage that protects you against being stupid on purpose.

If the courts has imposed a judgment on the modeler, I would expect any and all of his various insurers to deny coverage the same as his auto insurance will deny coverage if he torches the car on purpose.

Liability insurance (which is what we are speaking of with the AMA coverage) is for unintentional negligent acts, not intentional acts of destruction and damage.

Flame suit on!

If there was a frequency pin board as stated, then there must have been a frequency pin safety policy established at the field.
In order for AMA insurance to be in play, both AMA and any established flying field safety rules must be complied with.
In this case it seems like both were violated by MR. STICKY PIN FINGERS. I hope he really enjoyed his flight.

No suit needed Jim.

I don't think the the guy did it (shot him down) intentionally. I believe he walked up and down the pits asking about the pin, but never walked out to the flight line. I don't think he intentionally meant to be STUPID, but he was negligent.


As far as the "board", there was one but I guess is "self-patrolled" b/c of the public land and lack of an organized club.

As far as the AMA is concerned, the coverage is secondary unless the member doesn't have any sort of insurance correct? The liabilty would have to come from his primary first, right?

George

Yes, the AMA coverage is secondary unless the member has no primary coverage available (read that as renters or homeowners).

know for a fact that the AMA does require that you exhaust your coverage BEFORE you file a claim. A friend dropped a giant scale war bird through the roof of a nearby manufacturing plant and was upset when the AMA refused coverage until after he had contacted his homeowners carrier.

As for the jet incident, the participants already have resorted to legal fun and games so I suspect we will never really find out what the result is. I would expect the shooter to be defined as at least negligent, and AMA coverage is good for that kind of stupidity. Intentional acts are also negligent, but they are also normally actionable. I do not wish to second guess the legal piranha already attracted by the smell of fresh meat.

Now as for the Frequency Pin Control issue, I strongly suspect that the system in use is defective or someone violated the rules. My club rules are that you put your AMA card in place of the pin or you do not fly. If you turn on a radio without the pin and shoot someone down, you just bought a plane. If you get shot down because you didn't get the pin or or don't leave your AMA card, that is tough because you are at fault.

If the pin is missing (Frank took it home last month), you still leave your AMA card and any flyer has to find the person whose card is in the frequency pin slot before you fly. If Frank took the pin and left his card, cover it with yours and fly at your own risk. The risk is that Frank will return and turn on since he has the pin! In those cases, the 2 work it out with the club position being that Frank did violate a club policy by taking the pin home.

Hideho all,

As an insurance agent, somethings fishy here. This is clearly a viable homeowners claim, and never should have reached the court system.

Hard to tell without all the facts, but somethings not right.

That's the purpose of insurance, transference of risk. This is clearly a liability issue. Not that I like claims, but this sounds ligitimate to me.

Mike, I think (read that, THINK) but am fairly sure that the reason it ended up in the courts is b/c "The Shooter" would not take responsibility. The plantiff lost a bunch more than $5000 in the incident, but chose small claims court for time and expenditure purposes. He also wanted the guy to be held responsible for his actions since he was not doing it himself. I would be incline to do hte same and head to court in the same situation.

It's good to see our "system" work once in awhile .


BTW Jim, good rules and system your club has. What happens if the member refuses to "buy" the plane he just shot down? Is he kicked out of the club?

AHhh, we have never had that "test" and I am not interested in seeing someone try it!

I very strongly suspect that if Frank Flightpack refused to "buy" a plane he just shot down, he would find the club flying fields very unfriendly places. I also suspect that the victim would take actions similar to the jet guy.

The really hard one is when someone shoots you down out of carelessness and without knowledge or malice. You know, Franks and his kids shut down for the day and drive off without realizing that their transmitter is still "ON" and you go flying on the same frequency. That eats airplanes and leaves you with no sure clue just a hint of an idea of what MIGHT have happened based on other instances of carelessness. BTDT and do not like it! There is no recourse as there is no proof and even mentioning the possibility can cause grief

Hideho,
It's not up to the "shooter" to accept liability, [i]or blame[/b], it's up to the insurance company. Now it is possible, hell more than likley that the claims dept. turned it down though.
That's a sad thing too when the guilty party won't admit fault, but that's what's wrong with these times, zero accountability.

Still, a sad deal for all concerned.