Changing sides
12-10-2006 | 11:33 AM
#27
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: ira d
but on the other hand its really not worth hassel and expense just to fly a model to
go to court its easier to pay the 58.00 and go fly.
but on the other hand its really not worth hassel and expense just to fly a model to
go to court its easier to pay the 58.00 and go fly.
I do a lot of work for City governments, they all, without exception, require a minimum of $1,000,000 in general liability, and some want more. Ask you agent what a MILLION dollars will cost to get added to your policy to cover model airplanes. I suspect that it might be just a touch more than $58.
12-10-2006 | 01:52 PM
#29
Senior Member
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI
I do a lot of work for City governments, they all, without exception, require a minimum of $1,000,000 in general liability, and some want more. Ask you agent what a MILLION dollars will cost to get added to your policy to cover model airplanes. I suspect that it might be just a touch more than $58.
I do a lot of work for City governments, they all, without exception, require a minimum of $1,000,000 in general liability, and some want more. Ask you agent what a MILLION dollars will cost to get added to your policy to cover model airplanes. I suspect that it might be just a touch more than $58.
So the argument for the same liability coverage as the AMA to use a public facility as an individual is spurious and extremely questionable.
12-10-2006 | 01:57 PM
#30
Senior Member
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: ira d
I dont know this for sure but i suspect the reason some of these cities or requiring AMA
is because some clubs made a pitch about the AMA to them.
I do think if someone was to cahallenge them in court they would have to back down
as long as that person could show they had liabilty coverage in force.
but on the other hand its really not worth hassel and expense just to fly a model to
go to court its easier to pay the 58.00 and go fly.
I dont know this for sure but i suspect the reason some of these cities or requiring AMA
is because some clubs made a pitch about the AMA to them.
I do think if someone was to cahallenge them in court they would have to back down
as long as that person could show they had liabilty coverage in force.
but on the other hand its really not worth hassel and expense just to fly a model to
go to court its easier to pay the 58.00 and go fly.
You can't be coerced or forced into joining an organization to use public property. Demanding excessive liability insurance with out showing good cause for individual use of a public facility then offering a less expensive "alternative" is coercion. Note I said "individual use".
Challenge the elected officials that control the property first.
12-10-2006 | 02:57 PM
#31
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: SoCal GliderGuider
It is to be noted that the $1,000,000 is for ORGANIZED sports such as little league and youth soccer. Not for individuals just playing catch base ball or kicking around a soccer ball. Same could be demanded of an R/C club as it is an ORGANIZED activity demanding the same considerations as other ORGANIZED sports -- control of public property to facilitate their activities.
So the argument for the same liability coverage as the AMA to use a public facility as an individual is spurious and extremely questionable.
It is to be noted that the $1,000,000 is for ORGANIZED sports such as little league and youth soccer. Not for individuals just playing catch base ball or kicking around a soccer ball. Same could be demanded of an R/C club as it is an ORGANIZED activity demanding the same considerations as other ORGANIZED sports -- control of public property to facilitate their activities.
So the argument for the same liability coverage as the AMA to use a public facility as an individual is spurious and extremely questionable.
ira d wrote
I dont know this for sure but i suspect the reason some of these cities or requiring AMA
is because some clubs made a pitch about the AMA to them.
is because some clubs made a pitch about the AMA to them.
12-10-2006 | 03:01 PM
#32
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: SoCal GliderGuider
Challenge the elected officials that control the property first.
Challenge the elected officials that control the property first.
If insurance is not an issue, then why is Costa Mesa requiring it? A better question is why isn't the requirement the same for everyone? AMA members have $2.5 million, but a non-member only needs $500,000. Hardly fair. I suppose you will argue that AMA members are more dangerous now!!
12-10-2006 | 03:24 PM
#33
Senior Member
RE: Changing sides
Costa Mesa is not requiring it as the proposed ordinance has not passed. As you alluded to in a prior post it is the club with the backing of the AMA that foists excessive comparable insurance requirements without justifications. This is one of the means that AMA uses to coerce membership as it is usually cheaper to join the AMA than to bump your homeowners or renters to a half million and a club uses to control a flying site. Besides the park board is more concerned about moving or cutting down trees than digging into actuarial tables and civil liabilities. They didn't listen to the one person on the board that has been selling insurance for forty years.
12-10-2006 | 03:27 PM
#34
Senior Member
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: Phaedrus-MMVI
I was simply saying that a club may choose to not use the AMA insurance benefit as a bargaining chip, but then either the club, or its members, would have to come up with something. Unless of course you are making the point that you think that there should be no insurance required by anyone, which is what you seem to be saying when talking about people playing catch in the park.
I was simply saying that a club may choose to not use the AMA insurance benefit as a bargaining chip, but then either the club, or its members, would have to come up with something. Unless of course you are making the point that you think that there should be no insurance required by anyone, which is what you seem to be saying when talking about people playing catch in the park.
12-10-2006 | 03:47 PM
#35
RE: Changing sides
ORIGINAL: SoCal GliderGuider
Costa Mesa is not requiring it as the proposed ordinance has not passed. As you alluded to in a prior post it is the club with the backing of the AMA that foists excessive comparable insurance requirements without justifications. This is one of the means that AMA uses to coerce membership as it is usually cheaper to join the AMA than to bump your homeowners or renters to a half million and a club uses to control a flying site. Besides the park board is more concerned about moving or cutting down trees than digging into actuarial tables and civil liabilities. They didn't listen to the one person on the board that has been selling insurance for forty years.
Costa Mesa is not requiring it as the proposed ordinance has not passed. As you alluded to in a prior post it is the club with the backing of the AMA that foists excessive comparable insurance requirements without justifications. This is one of the means that AMA uses to coerce membership as it is usually cheaper to join the AMA than to bump your homeowners or renters to a half million and a club uses to control a flying site. Besides the park board is more concerned about moving or cutting down trees than digging into actuarial tables and civil liabilities. They didn't listen to the one person on the board that has been selling insurance for forty years.
Somehow after all these years I still think that one day you will actually let facts enter into how you form your opinions. Silly me.
