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:-----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:
Thanks in advance
JR
Jean-Pierre Rondot
AMA 732