AMA and insurance claims

Actually this para makes me wonder, what percentage of AMA members would have to rely on their AMA coverage as primary? Now that might be an interesting pool to take.

But there I go again! Raising questions which will no doubt cause a select few to accuse me of AMA bashing! But what would be worse? Those who bash? Or those who blindly follow the likes of Red and others? All of whom seem to all too willingly bash those who blindly follow the likes of DB! Hmmmmm! Similarities of the two?

Like you said! It's public! So answer me this if you dare.

Do the words FOAD mean anything to you?

Is that anti-social enough for you?

Robbie-

Your bud Randy seems a reliable source, at least in this instance. See

Abel

Where but in California where high profile child molesters and murderers go free?

$1,350,000 recovery in a defective product case where a model airplane caused a leg fracture. Plaintiff, a 48 year old United Airlines pilot when he was struck by a high speed model airplane being clocked for speed at a sanctioned competition of the Academy of Model Aeronautics at Whittier Narrows. The crash of the model airplane and the injuries to plaintiff were caused by faulty construction, faulty pre-flight inspection, and the failure to conduct such races in protected fenced arenas. In addition, the standard AMA pre-flight pull test is believed to have caused the failure of fuselage bolts which caused the plane to fly out of control at a speed of 184 m.p.h. Because he was a co-participant in the racing competition and had started the doomed aircraft, the Academy claimed the plaintiff assumed the risk of this injury, although this was the first known case of such an injury occurring. Assumption of risk is a complete defense in recreational activities under recent decisions of California courts. Because of a non-union of the tibia and fibula, eleven medical procedures were required at a cost of $220,000. Fortunately plaintiff returned to return to work as a pilot. Armstead v. Academy of Model Aeronautics, Alameda County Superior Court No. H-150430-1 settled before Hon. Daniel Weinstein, retired judge of the Superior Court, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service.

RS

He can change his name, his phony e-mail address, but it still won't hide the fact that he is the same pathetic individual that has haunted this newsgroup for several years with his anti-AMA diatribes, insulting replies and argumentive demeanor, designed only to get a response albeit usually negative. The coincidence of one disappearing at the same time the other appeared cannot be ignored. The powers that be would never be so vindictive as to curse the modeling world with TWO individuals so abhorrent. It is difficult to disguise the style and mannerisms that characterize a person, particularly one suffering from delusional grandeur and paranoia simultaneously. Seems to be still crying out after all these years, "SOMEONE PLEASE NOTICE ME". Well we do notice you, just like stepping in cat dung with waffle sole shoes.

It must be tough going through life with this forum being the only place where you are noticed even if only as a festering boil on the backside of humanity. This is the only place where he forces himself to be heard without risk of getting his face altered. No wonder he has changed identity and hides behind the keyboard. Apparantly no one that knows him personally is on this forum or they surely would have blown his cover coming to his defense and verifying that he is the worlds greatest modeler with his own private flying field and lots of flying buddies.

Most on this newsgroup have you pegged, the rest could care less and do the wise thing and ignore you completely.

RS

Red-

No doubt there were and always will remain varied opinions about the legitimacy of the case. Nothing unusual about that - such disagreements exist in every instance that winds up in the civil court system. In the end, the only opinion regarding the merit of the case that counts is that of the court. AMA may very well pay every claim that they opine to be legitimate. In this case, their opinion was that injured party had assumed the risk because he was a participant in the activity, so there was no liability on the part of their insured. I hope those among us that feel they are protected by the liability insurance the guy next to him on the flight line has been forced to buy grasp the lesson of this and similar cases, which are by no means rare. Better learn what the legal concept of "assumed risk" may mean to your future if you are seriously injured while participating in model flying. Liability insurance exists to protect the insured, not others that the insured may cause injury to.

Abel

Bottom line though:

AMA refused to pay. They were taken to court and lost! Just like Red does with his rants of this.

Not unlike the wise do with you!

Go fix your AMA Red. Make it in your image! Face Muncie and pray to it!

The rest of us are flying and having fun. Without you!

Oh! Almost forgot. Why should I use a legit e-mail here? That would mean I trust you Red! Now can you tell me why I should trust you?

Must have been a long line at the unemployment office, you're late tonight. Or did you stop off at the soup kitchen for supper?

You have my name, address, know what I look like, where I can be found, etc. what are you afraid of? Does this old man really scare you? Or are there others that you are afraid of perhaps?

RS

So Mr. Scholefield, would you agree after busting on the unemployed and homeless that after reply #46 that you " Got your a$$ handed to you on a silver platter??" Or like the Energizer Bunny ( Energizer is a battery....you do know something about batteries??) you will keep " going and going and going on......."

Mike

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 20:10:40 -0400, "Chuck Jones" wrote:

Kevvy K-

AMA primarily sells liability insurance, the other elements of medical and fire/theft coverage being fairly trivial add-ons. Their obligation is not to pay claims, but to protect their clients that face financial losses due to liability (liability insurance - get it?). That is what they owe AMA members, by contract. There is no contract, other than the limited medical coverage terms, to pay compensation to somebody just because they were injured by model airplane activities. Injured parties are compensated only after a determination is made that the insured is liable for those injuries. Frequently, that determination is anticipated by AMA, as it is by any other insurer, before the incident gets into the legal apparatus and the additional costs of paying the ambulance chasing scum have to be paid in addition to the injured party's damages. Any insurer I deal with that would pay liability claims against me in a perfunctory manner would send me looking for anothe insurer. Their obligation is to defend me against such claims. A high percentage of claims paid by an insurer is hardly a sign of their integrity - I take it as an omen that they will do a lousy job of defending me against liability claims that may arise. A blanket policy of assuming all claims that come their way are legitimately the fault of the insureds and paying them would be as absurd as a lawer that automatically pleads his clients guilty. Bottom line is that I don't give but a rat's corpse what AMA's overall percentage of claims paid is. OTOH, (hypothetically, as my HO and PUP policies would preclude AMA's secondary insurance ever getting involved) I would care about what their payout history is specifically and exclusively for those cases where their insureds were found liable for the injured party's damages. If anything less than 100%, I would certainly want to know why for each and every exception. If you can cite a case where an AMA insured was left holding the bag for monetary damages due to his legally assigned liability that AMA refused to pay on his behalf, then you might have a legitimate bash against AMA. If not you have nothing to offer but noise. and your record stays intact.

Abel

Yep, as long as Chuck Kevie Jones Kline continues to offer such a tempting target or until he decides to slither back under his rock until he come up with a new pseudonym using a different MO. But then that might get boring after a while and lose its entertainment value. Of course now that someone finally has stepped forward as a supporter of CKJK things might stay interesting.

Red S.

Mike,

Just checking to see if the address is legit.

And if it gets though I'm not sure I got the jist of your statement below. " So Mr. Scholefield, would you agree after busting on the unemployed and homeless that after reply #46 that you Got your a$$ handed to you on a silver platter??"

Care to explain how I got my a$$ hand to me on a silver platter?. #46 was nothing more than another of CKCJ's meaningless comebacks to my #44 which simply posted the court case. Able Pranger's #48 that explained it all in terms even you and Chuckie/Kevie should be able to comprehend.

RS

Just checking to see if the address is legit.

And if it gets though I'm not sure I got the jist of your statement below. " So Mr. Scholefield, would you agree after busting on the unemployed and homeless that after reply #46 that you " Got your a$$ handed to you on a silver platter??"

Care to explain how I got my a$$ hand to me on a silver platter?. I must have missed something.

RS

Seems like you sickos come out of the ground in hot weather..... Now..to those who don't like AMA...who cares what you think anyhow? Keep your sick and vicious messages to yourself...unless, of course, as Red said, you need to be noticed. I have been a member of AMA for more years than I can remember and while nothing in this world is perfect (including especially yourself) it is a fine organization and has served the modelling community superbly. I know because in past years I was an associate vice president, contest coordinator and served on the frequency committee. So, to those who want to bash the AMA...look inwardward to yourselves...surely you have something better to do...maybe fix your planes...and readjust your minds.... Frank Schwartz AMA123 in Hendersonville, TN building and flying for 70 years (I am going on

That's why I consigned him to the bin a while back. Guy's an outright loony. Only time I ever saw him post on an *actual* RC related matter he ended up looking a complete fool and spent several posts trying to back out of the corner he had painted himself into.

If he changes his identity I will just apply some strong disinfectant and pop him straight back into the bin again >:-)

Life is too short to waste on idiots like him.

Planes to be built, flying to be done.

Reg

I promised myself I wouldn't look here again.... I already deleted the newsgroup from my server for the sixth time in ten years, but the guy with airplane plans for sale emailed me to say that the list would be on the group so I resubscribed. I tried not to look at this thread, but I couldn't help it...

Hey Mike,

Red has not had anything handed to him on any kind of platter. He has not said anything technically incorrect, and nobody has met his challenge. Red is correct that all accusations of AMA failing to pay that for which they are determined to be responsible are hearsay or are nonexistent. In the case in California, which Red childishly belittled because of his opinion of the California legal system, AMA claimed that they were not responsible, the jury said differently, and AMA had to pay, which they presumably did, although the article did not address that point.

The real point here was addressed by Abel Pranger: "In this case, their opinion was that injured party had assumed the risk because he was a participant in the activity, so there was no liability on the part of their insured. I hope those among us that feel they are protected by the liability insurance the guy next to him on the flight line has been forced to buy grasp the lesson of this and similar cases, which are by no means rare. Better learn what the legal concept of "assumed risk" may mean to your future if you are seriously injured while participating in model flying."

and: "hypothetically, as my HO and PUP policies would preclude AMA's secondary insurance ever getting involved"

Most of the really important concepts are summed up in these paragraphs. Most of us go merrily about our way flying airplanes and feeling secure with our AMA cards. But did the legal concept of "assumed risk" ever even occur to you? Probably not, because most of us are too honest to think of such weasely ideas. I would never have dreamed that somebody would come up with that cockamamie argument. The reason we have insurance is to protect us from mishaps, not so that somebody can dream up a bunch of nonsense about voluntarily assumed risk, or not following a safety code, or so we can get a policy that says right up front that it's actually somebody else's problem. I'd like to see somebody assert that by driving a car you had assumed risk of being hit by another driver. That's just silly.

As for Red and other people who are comfortable with the status quo, I will repeat that I bear them no ill will. It's very comforting for these folks to be so certain that everything is as it should be, so why would anybody want to make waves in their pond? And Red is smart enough to always define arguments in his own terms, which is why he can always be so sure that he will never lose one. It's a neat trick, and those who have been bickering with him here for ten years should have caught on to it by now. However, if you're really wondering about the how and why of liability coverage, it certainly does deserve a closer look. Just remember that this has nothing to do with Red or his chosen arguments.

We all understand, it's habbit forming. :-)

WHOA HORSE! Who was it who's District VP fought like hell to get him kicked out of the AMA because he was campaigning for the opposition? Who was it that campaigned hard for Dave Mathewson when he ran against Dave Brown?

Yes, I have come down hard at times on the AMA bashers - but where the heck are they when the elections come around? The status quo exists because THOSE people were to GD Lazy to mark a postage paid ballot and drop it in the mail box.

Re: California courts - all the justice money can buy!

And thanks for understanding me - :-)

Red S.