Clarification about 'turning on' when another model is up

In another post, the allegation was made that when a modeler inadvertently
"turns on', that it negates his AMA insurance. I wrote to Carl Maroney and
this is his repley, with email addresses edited.
JR
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxxx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:01 AM
To: 'Jean and Debbie Rondot'
Cc: Ilona Maine
Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC
If a member A turns on his Tx, on the same frequency as member B is flying
on, when B member is flying, does member A have any insurance coverage
should member B's plane strike another member C? YES
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:50 AM
To: 'Carl Maroney'
Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC
If a member A turns on his Tx, on the same frequency as member B is flying
on, when B member is flying, does member A have any insurance coverage
should member B's plane strike another member C?
If the answer is no, where is the exclusion to this coverage? How is the
average member to know about the exclusion? This issue brings up the need to
publish all exclusions, if it is a fact.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Maroney [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:13 AM
To: 'Jean and Debbie Rondot'
Subject: RE: Presentation you made at SWAC
Could you be more specific as to what statement concerns you?
Carl P. Maroney
snipped-for-privacy@modelaircraft.org
765.287.1256 X250
AMA HQ
5161 E Memorial Dr
Muncie, IN 47302
Website:
formatting link

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean and Debbie Rondot [mailto: snipped-for-privacy@xxxxxxxxxxx.net]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:47 PM
To: snipped-for-privacy@modelaircraft.org
Subject: Presentation you made at SWAC
Hi Carl
There is a thread on RCUniverse that has raised some concern. Since it was a
presentation by you at SWAC that precipitated the discussion, I would ask
that you look at the thread and see if the information presented in the
thread is correct.
Personally, I take issue with the concept of having exclusions that the
membership is unaware of and that do not seem to be documented in any
information available to the membership. Specifically, how can an action
such as turning on a Tx negate the coverage when no such exclusion is
expressed? It is my intent to share any comments you may have on RCUniverse.
The thread in question is located at:
formatting link

Thanks in advance
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732
Reply to
JR
Loading thread data ...
Ah. 'Flying under the influence' again?
:-)
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
I think the confusion comes from the AMA specifying a rigid set of rules of operation that, if "violated", negates the coverage. But I think the AMA is creating a problem for themselves if in fact the accidental powering up of a radio causes a problem. They could say that doing so violates one of their "rules", however, inadvertantly turning on a radio is also an "accident" by itself. While I wouldn't want to test this case myself, I'm pretty sure that a decent attorney with an average jury would roll all over the AMA if they tried to deny a claim based on that situation.
MJC
formatting link
Reply to
MJC
Your email to Mr. Maroney didn't mention anything about "inadvertently" turning on. A good lawyer would have the insurance negated if there was posted frequency controls in place and the offender didn't follow them.
Reply to
Paul McIntosh
That`s an interesting thought Paul, I wonder about said interference, coming from an "outside" source (not someone turning on). Since we as fliers must endure any interference to our radios and aircraft. Can it be said that we understand the risk however choose to fly anyway and void the insurance? rick markel
Reply to
Aileron37
This is just my opinion . Feel free to write Carl for clarification.
If the instance was intentional, it would be malice, and not be covered, but, might be criminal.
It is possible that if rule 3 of the Safety Code was in play, as you suggest, that a claim MIGHT be declined.
The old Safety Code had as it's first line: Model Flying MUST be in accordance with this Code in order for AMA Liability Protection to apply.
The new, 2004 Safety Code has as it's first line: I understand that my failure to comply with the Safety Code may endanger my insurance coverage.
JR
Reply to
JR

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.