USPA Member ??? READ THIS !!!

Quote

Why do you think Bill has the name of his company "The Uninsured Relative Workshop"?

Hell, I had a guy file on me after he failed to flair the canopy on landing after an AFF L-1 jump and broke both femurs. Sent his lawyer a noterized copy of my net worth and I was dropped from the suit ASAP. The less insurance, the better IMHO.[/reply
I think you missed the whold point of this discussion.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

• Quote

Quote

The original post said the anticipated premium growth rate was something like 'more than ten times', and suggested the only alternative was to drop the coverage.

Quote

No, that's not what it said...

Or not what I meant anyway...

What I was inferring was the fact than the USPA has 'absorbed' the
premium increases over the last decade, without reflecting
a similar increase in the membership dues.

The rate the money is going out continues to increase at
a much faster rate than it's coming in.

They have cut other programs...lowered manpower levels.
Shaved as much as possible...where possible.

The breaking point has been reached...
It can't go on paying for 90% (my educated guess) of each
members liability coverage.

What I was trying to say, (not very clearly I guess)
Is that your annual membership dues could go up ten fold,
and still not cover your part of the liability premium...

A slight exaggeration perhaps...but how many members would drop
out of the organization if our membership dues were 1000 bucks?

....The foreseen rate increase is meaningless,
even if it were LOWERED 20%...if the USPA has to continue
picking up the lions share...it's out of business.

Quote

We need to find someway to separate the two coverages. Demo coverage should stand on it's own at whatever the cost.

Quote

That being the most obvious solution...

I and the rest of the Membership welcome you to carry on the march and get it done....

Problem is...

With our current risk evaluation assessment...
due to past claims,
and the 'hard' insurance market due to 9-11 and
the stock market slump...

NO ONE SEEMS WILLING TO DO THAT!

...Again, would you personally pay for ALL of your part of the overall premium?

Quote

...Again, would you personally pay for ALL of your part of the overall premium?

If it comes down to it, I'd have to. I'd rather pay a little yearly than risk losing my life and retirement savings because of an accident. But I'd probably just get some sort of umbrella liability policy with named exclusions (skydiving not being one of them).

Reading this thread from the somewhat uninformed standpoint of someone who doesn't speak legalese I'll tell you what I see.
All this talk of third-party this and liability that and premium this and coverage that is so much bs....
You're looking at the genetic code for the informational disease bringing down not just skydiving but a bigger picture as well....
How many billions get spent trying to decide who gets to fuck who over if shit happens? Somewhere along the line you have to just take personal responsibility for what you do and that includes the risk of your own unrecoverable losses due to mischance or error.
This is insane.
Mister fucking learjet can afford to buy a fucking learjet but will spend millions trying to force Joe Poverty to pay for banging into the wing and causing 20,000$ in damage? Or find somebody he can force to pay for Joe's banging into his lear? Or worse...bankrupt the dropzone trying to guarantee that he won't be exposed to the risk of being hit again...
To use the example posted earlier about the mercedes....
It is insane to expect me to pay a fortune to protect me from you suing me because YOU choose to drive something too expensive for me to replace IF I should cause damage to it. By that logic nobody should be allowed to drive unless they have liability coverage that would pay for the most expensive hardware they could possibly wreck, meaning the most expensive thing on the road...meaning unless you drive a lamborghini or a bentley you are legally forbidden to drive because you couldn't replace the lambo if you hit it and cannot afford to pay someone to assume that risk FOR you.
At some point you have to accept that sometimes shit can happen and sometimes you won't get paid back for the loss or damage. Lightning strike, tornado earthquake psycho muslims or Joe the destitute swooper it doesn't matter.
Past the limits of whatever insurance you have you're fucked no matter what happened. Personal responsibility goes both ways. If I choose to drive a 560 SEL I'm accepting the fact that some numbnuts could hit it and wreck it and I won't get paid. I'm so sick of endlessly hearing about people or organizations taking a loss due to chance error or mishap and the first response is "who can we hold accountable for this"?
Enjoy your skydiving while you can....someday this sport will be regarded as unthinkably irresponsible and criminally negligent like allowing your kid to ride in the back of your pickup truck is now. The next step is to mandate punishment just for creating the risk and choosing to assume that risk. Let your kid ride in the back of your 2003 dodge ram and you'll probably be arrested just for allowing that kind of a risk to be taken, a risk nobody and nothing can protect you from... after all, something COULD happen couldn't it? Fines and damage payments afterward or skyhigh insurance premiums beforehand, we're at the point where you get punished by unsupportable financial loss no matter what happens. Even if nothing happens I lose heavily just paying for protection against the possibility of something happening.
Ground zero of this insanity is whats bankrupting the uspa. Watch closely folks cause the disease is spreading rapidly....
fast forward 20 years...
Skydiving is as ancient history as manned space flight and kids in pickup trucks.
It is illegal for a private citizen to own or operate a car unless they can afford $1,000,000 insurance against liability or damage to anything they could conceivably hit. The only things left on the road are heavy equipment and lambos and bentleys owned by the independently wealthy...because they are the only ones left who can afford to assume the risk of every day living and basic transportation.
Everyone travels around on foot, and to be allowed to walk on city property requires a medical certificate proving you aren't likely to have an epileptic fit hit your head and sue the city for not padding all the sidewalks and corners to protect itself from you suing it for allowing such a hazard as unpadded sidewalks to exist. To even get a pedestrian permit you have to have $100,000 minimum liability insurance because you could bump into and damage one of those 560 SEL's out there that you can't afford to pay to repair if you should walk into it and break a taillight or scratch the paint, and now even a paint scratch is evaluated at several thousand dollars loss...not because of the cost of repair but because of the cost of the lawyers and insurance it took to proclaim that it'll cost several thousand to fix that.
There are cameras on every street corner recording everything that ever happens 24\7 to make damn sure that when someone DOES fall and hit their head and knock over someone's souvenir stand, the right person is "held accountable" and strip-mined of all their assets to pay for their negligence. 99% of the loot goes to the lawyers though so everybody loses anyway. The remaining 1% is taken by the state in court fees to keep the whole parasitic cycle going...somebody has to be held accountable for all this courtroom time we have to use to determine who we can hold accountable, after all.
Betcha 100$ I'm right. Oh, wait....gambling is illegal too.....

So we should all just suck it up? I hate the stupid lawsuits people file. Like "McDonalds made me fat, give me money." But when someone damages someone elses property, they need to pay for it. That's what insurance is all about. What if some guy in a 1977 chevy nova hits a tractor trailer and puts it out of service? You know how much those are worth? Maybe it's not owned by a giant corporation that can just suck it up. Maybe it's everything the driver owns. Should he just say "oh well, it happens" and go find a new job because he cant afford to fix his $100,000 truck? Or should we ban trucks from the road because they're too valuable?

Nothing you said makes any sense to me.

Dave

Quote

Ground zero of this insanity is whats bankrupting the uspa. Watch closely folks cause the disease is spreading rapidly....
fast forward 20 years...
Skydiving is as ancient history as manned space flight and kids in pickup trucks.

Quote

Well put...



In response to much of the rest,
One word:


"DECAFF!"

As long as the USPA demonstrates the ability to pay ever increasing dues the lawyers are going to pursue ever increasing awards and damages.

A great political cartoon comes to mind: Two individuals are fighting over the proverbial "cash cow". One is seen pulling on its horns while the other is pulling on its tail. Down on his knees is the lawyer...milking it for what its worth!

Okay,
I quote from your post on Aug. 29, 1:07PM.

"We're talking 1/2 million bucks a year here! "

And also from original post on Aug29, 7:19 AM.

"(B) Raise the individual membership dues to point where it will cover the yearly premium,
doing the rough math...a ten fold increase in your dues..."

OK, $1/2 M divided among 33,000 members is $15.00 each. A ten-fold increase (assuming 9 of those 10 goes to increased insurance premium) is
9 x 39? x 33,000 = $11,583,000.00

So, which one are we talking about? 1/2 M per year or 11.6M per year in premium increase?

Just trying to be able to form an educated opinion.
Thanks,
Adam

Quote

If we want to be attractive for another insurer (and insurance is necessary), then we need to skydive in a way that reduces the chances of shit happening.

It's not that simple.

The primary caveat of joint and several liability is that even if a particular party is found to be only 1% responsible but thay have "deep pockets" then they can be held 100% liable for the awards and damages! This handywork was passed during Ronald Reagan's second term, and the cliche for the people was, "Everyone will get their fair share from these giant corporations who always cheat the little guy."

In the end, it may be that group type policies are too much of a target for law suits.

Quote

"(B) Raise the individual membership dues to point where it will cover the yearly premium,
doing the rough math...a ten fold increase in your dues..."

Quote

Obviously...writing to make my point, ...isn't my strong suit!


I see the confusion...

To start...don't know what the possible premium increase
could be.
I don't even know if USPA has requested a quote for continuing the coverage beyond 3/04.


The 1/2 million (actually just under) is what we're paying now, I believe for just the General Membership coverage.

In conversation with someone (?) at USPA, 6-7 weeks ago...
(they're all starting to run together)

I recall a comment to the effect....
Who knows what the next premium increase
will be...could as much as double.


Another confusing point I twisted...


The point I was trying to make was in reference to the discontent raised as a result of the last dues increase...

If we were to EACH pay the full amount required for continuing the present coverage...
that increase (in dues) could be 10 fold the last one...
that caused so much grumbling.


.....Any hey troops!

I just want to make the point that I'm not an expert or an authority on ANY of this stuff.

I didn't start the fire!

I'm just pointing at all the shinny red trucks pulling up...
as it seems not a lot of people noticed!!!

This is certainly an issue that effects all of us, we gotta start working together and find a fix!

I don't know...
wonder what kind of reception the general membership would give to the idea of all of us paying our own percentage of a renewed policy, regardless of the price??

I would...would you?

Okey Doke.

I wasn't trying to start anything with you, and I appreciate the calm reply!

I too, am concerned about this issue. I sure can't afford to get individual liability policy to cover this. It doesn't make sense to anyway, since we are obviously a "group".
So, if the premium doubles, then our dues will go up by $15 more next year. That's unfortunate, but survivable for most of us.

If certain individuals or subgroups (e.g. demo jumpers) are disproportionately responsible for claims against this policy, then it should be up to USPA to look after the interests of the membership at large.
In other words, remove "high risk" individuals or groups of individuals from the coverage. You know, kick out wreckless members and this should help keep premiums under control.
That would be, like, you know, like an ACTUAL governing body that does something!

Just a thought,
Adam

Quote

In other words, remove "high risk" individuals or groups of individuals from the coverage. You know, kick out wreckless members and this should help keep premiums under control.

Quote

Yeah...

But then again, in another thread...
some 'nut' was talking about the possibility
of raising the requirements to get a "PRO" Rating..

I hear it wasn't to well recived...

Quote

But then again, in another thread...
some 'nut' was talking about the possibility
of raising the requirements to get a "PRO" Rating..

Well, let's see...$5k v. $83k per incident per claimant for general membership v. demo jumper respectively. I doubt that anyone can tighten up things to balance this issue.

Quote

I doubt that anyone can tighten up things to balance this issue.

***
Well....
Actually,

If the under qualified "@#**@#" that landed on someone and killed them,
a few years back...

and cost 7 figures to settle...

had stayed outta Demo jumping and stuck to something
he was GOOD at...

like maybe Guitars....

The averages may have been somewhat closer!

Remember, there are like 5 times as MANY
general membership claims....

Just haven't Killed anyone yet!

o we should all just suck it up? I hate the stupid lawsuits people file. Like "McDonalds made me fat, give me money." But when someone damages someone elses property, they need to pay for it. That's what insurance is all about. What if some guy in a 1977 chevy nova hits a tractor trailer and puts it out of service? You know how much those are worth? Maybe it's not owned by a giant corporation that can just suck it up. Maybe it's everything the driver owns. Should he just say "oh well, it happens" and go find a new job because he cant afford to fix his $100,000 truck? Or should we ban trucks from the road because they're too valuable?

You're telling me the tractor trailer owner isn't already insured against loss and damage to his truck? With a 100,000$ piece of hardware I'd have the max coverage I could get on that puppy.
The point is, we all DO just suck it up whether or not anything happens and it has grown ridiculous...Whats the max on YOUR liability insurance? 20,000$? Go hit a lamborghini. The guy's insurance company will replace his car, but then come to you expecting to recover the loss...that's what insurance companies are for, to be paid to assume the risk of having to "suck it up", and absorb a loss greater than the individual can pay for...to BE the giant corporation that can suck it up. Lets say you're joe the destitute swooper. You do not have the 300,000$ it will cost to replace that car. Blood from a stone, man if there's no money to take there's no money to take. What will they do, take half his paycheck every week for the next 50 years? I fully agree with the necessity of taking reponsibility for damage you cause but past a certain point it's simply not possible to protect against the losses that could happen if someone fucks up.
We as uspa members have a certain coverage against damage we can cause but eventually the cost of that coverage will, also, like the lambo, be more than we can possibly pay, cost more money than we have. We would be effectively paying for any possible accident whether we have one or not!
Right now the system still permits the possibility of unrecoverable loss. You aren't yet required to have coverage enough to pay for a wrecked lambo...but you WILL be. The system is designed to self correct which means every time you submit a claim the price goes up...
My point being, in most states it is illegal to drive without insurance. Have enough fender benders and your coverage is too expensive to afford anymore. Drop the insurance you can't pay for anymore and it becomes illegal for you to drive.
The same is happening to skydiving but collectively. Skydiving is dangerous and shit can happen. A reserve pops on the strut and takes out a c-182, all jumpers survive but the dz loses a plane and somebody gets an aileron through the windshield of his lincoln. A skyball goes through a roof. A wayward demo hits a car in a parking lot. There is no way to remove this risk or prevent all possibility of shit happening. Minimize, yes, but not eliminate. There WILL be claims. The price WILL continue to rise as it must under iron laws of economics...
The uspa is losing badly as this cost rises. It can not afford that insurance anymore, plain and simple. Lose the insurance, jumps stop cold, shut down game over. Like driving in a mandatory insurance state, if you cannot pay for any possible damage you might cause or pay someone to assume that risk you will no longer be permitted to engage in that activity.
Used to be, driving with your kid in the back of the truck was an acceptable risk. It is not anymore, and you are not permitted to take that risk or use your own judgement on the matter. Used to be, driving with no insurance was a risk you were allowed to take. It is not anymore. The same is already true of skydiving...and we cannot afford to pay for the right to take that risk any longer. The system, by its inherent nature, tries to eliminate the possibility of unrecoverable losses and to make it illegal to create that possibility. Skydiving creates that possibility, so when we can't afford the insurance anymore, we get shut down. If a demo jumper makes 300$ doing a demo but insuring that event costs 495$, is he going to do the demo? And I can't think of a damn thing the uspa or the faa or the aopa or anybody else can do about it. So enjoy your jumping while you can. Like kids in the backs of pickup trucks and uninsured drivers it will eventually be legislated and financially driven out of existence as a thing too risky to be allowed to exist.
Make sense now?
.

Quote

The uspa is losing badly as this cost rises. It can not afford that insurance anymore, plain and simple. Lose the insurance, jumps stop cold, shut down game over.

The smaller DZ clubs at public airports will have a tough time without USPA third party coverage, and they will probably fade away. However, there are DZO(s) who operate from private facilities, and they have too much invested to simply fade away. They will buy their own insurance, and the price of the jump ticket will increase. Much like Walmart driving the "mom-n-pop" stores to extinction, the larger DZO(s) will absorb the jumpers from the smaller displaced facilities.

Quote

The smaller DZ clubs at public airports will have a tough time without USPA third party coverage, and they will probably fade away. However, there are DZO(s) who operate from private facilities, and they have too much invested to simply fade away. They will buy their own insurance, and the price of the jump ticket will increase. Much like Walmart driving the "mom-n-pop" stores to extinction, the larger DZO(s) will absorb the jumpers from the smaller displaced facilities.

Quote

That is already happening to a small extent with what
has happened with Aircraft Insurance...
I agree, the trend is going the direction you outlined.

Anybody see..
Conspiracy Theory?

Quote

All I have to say is that if we are no longer afforded that insurance coverage, then our dues better be going DOWN soon.

IF they don't, I may just drop my membership outright.

I'm already an AOPA member, I won't see the need for the USPA card after this.

Quote

Quote

I'll join the AOPA...

Quote

I'm already a member...

Magazine is boring.

Yea, but the USPA museum will be worth us not having this insurance, right?

I'd rather not get our "official" magazine and still have insurance.

How about a deductible increase (I don't know if there even is a deductible as it is now) Such as a $250 deductible?

An increased deductible, drop demo insurance, and maybe raise the membership costs a little? The combination of these three might be able to do it?

Quote

How about a deductible increase (I don't know if there even is a deductible as it is now) Such as a $250 deductible?

An increased deductible, drop demo insurance, and maybe raise the membership costs a little? The combination of these three might be able to do it?

***
I don't know if any or all of those would be an option...

But at least it's an idea as to how we may solve this...

And that's a step in the right direction!


Props for that !

I know that others much more in tune with the day to day on this subject rewiew these posts...

Any chance for a comment from one of them?!

Quote

How about a deductible increase (I don't know if there even is a deductible as it is now) Such as a $250 deductible?

Sorry, but these days lunch with your lawyer will cost you $250, not including the meal. Chances are a $5k or $10k deductible would be more realistic, for a turbine DZO anyway. The insurance is only for the serious stuff.