Abel,

There seems to be a formatting problem in post 12 of this thread.

Also, my reference in a previous post "There have also been accounts where the AMA had to be sued to recover losses." was not in regards to member to member accidents but was to point out that AMA has denied claims at least until court actions made restitution mandatory.

Otherwise, I am in agreement with your posts in this thread.

I am having trouble with the logic asserted here. How does the absence of "detailed information about claim history" negate claims of a bad history and therefore make any such claims unfounded?

Many feel that since no information is released this is because the AMA has something to hide. COnversely, since no information is released how can you say you know about "bad claims history"? Please cite the facts of the cases that you, or anybody else, feels supports your position.

I guess we should define "bad claims history" first.

I agree with both of the above. In addition, I think a lot of the paranoia surrounds the intentional vagueness of the following statement: "Failure to comply with the AMA Safety Code may endanger insurance coverage." Lots of people are not comfortable with vague statements. Couple that with the nature of the Internet where mis-information can be very difficult to correct and the lack of skills at the AMA for handling Internet brush fires, and you can predict that these little flare-ups of paranoia will be with us for a long time.

In my mind, the truth is so boring it just doesn't make it to Internet threads: The purpose of AMA insurance is to protect and promote the hobby/sport of flying model airplanes. We elect the leaders of the AMA to use their wisdom in making sure this tool (insurance) has the desired effect. The insurance will not protect and promote the hobby if the AMA makes a practice of denying claims (and then loses in court). Likewise, it doesn't help the hobby in any way if they pay claims where the person liable was willfully, intentionally, or criminally trying to do something dangerous. It's up to us to elect leaders who can find their way between these extremes. From what I've seen so far, they seem to have done a pretty good job.

Mike-

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, the only hammer AMA has to enforce their policies is threat of voiding insurance coverage and that tool has been much abused, to the detriment of member trust. DB took upon himself the task of determining how AMA should discipline members within the last two years (not going dig through EC minutes to find ref to that - it's there for anyone that wants to do the digging). AFAIK, nothing has come of it.

Abel

Abel, you do a good job on explaining Insurance primers. Very patient and details covered.


You would think that anyone in this world that pays any attention to the society around himself, is old enough to have either or all, Homeowner's / Renter's Insurance and/or Auto Insurance (Comprehensive and/or Liability) would know the differences that you explain. Liability has to have proof or determination of such as the claimant so claims. The Insurance companies know all the tricks. The "ambulance-chaser" sharks know all the tricks. Certainly settlements are made out of court, however when court is required, both sides are betting they have the best tricks. One other point for the 'record hunters'; most of these cases are sealed by court order. Both sides want such, as they don't want this knowledge to be used in the next case, either way.

For a few of you here, this is the way of the world. If you can't live with it, then just jump off the world into outer space. [sm=cry_smile.gif] There are far more important items within AMA that need attention. Changing the nation's tort system ain't gonna' happen here. [sm=47_47.gif]

This is about as good a summary as I have ever seen.

Although well said, I took the liberty to tweak a bit to reflect a similar but distinctively different view point. I hope you don't mind and I hope you see the nuances intended.



In my mind, the truth is so boring it just doesn't make it to Internet threads: The purpose of AMA insurance is to protect and promote the hobby/sport of flying model airplanes for its members. We elect the leaders of the AMA to use their wisdom in making sure this tool (insurance) has the desired effect. The insurance will not protect and promote the hobby for its members if the AMA makes a practice of denying claims (and then loses in court). Likewise, it doesn't help the membership in any way if they pay claims where the person liable was willfully, intentionally, or criminally trying to cause property damage or inflict injury to someone. It's up to us to elect leaders who can find their way between these extremes. From what I've seen so far, they seem to have done a pretty good job.