new insurance ideas

I know, I swore off of this group again, but I got a thoughtful, intelligent reply from somebody who tends to write intelligent posts, so here I am again. I thought I should start a new thread to take the discussion away from the Kline vs. Scholefield melodrama as well as the whole AMA-bashing stigma. This is more about real insurance coverage issues and securing flying sites in the future rather than "AMA: yea or nay" anyway, so here it is, taken up where the "AMA insurance questions" thread leaves off.

Abel Pranger wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:25:55 -0500, Robbie and Laura Reynolds > wrote: > > > > Thanks Robbie, for a very well thought out posting, and the work that > you did behind it. Lots of ideas therein that could help shape and > secure the future of model aviation, if people will only give you a > listen instead of just saying "that's not the way we are used to doing > it." > > Abel

Thanks for saying that. It's nice to know that somebody is hearing and processing these ideas. Sometimes I fear that some of us will end up with bad knees, what with all of the jerking that goes on...

Here's a little tidbit that I stumbled across: I went out to a local blues club to play at an open-mike jam session tonight and I was talking to a fellow named Steve afterwards about playing harmonicas and guitars, etc. I asked him what he does for a living, and he said he works for a colossal insurance company with 2000 employees. Well, this was too good to pass up, so I told him about the discussion we've been having here, and as it turns out he has in fact researched the model airplane insurance market on behalf of a client company that writes insurance for a variety of recreational activities. That company eventually decided not to get into the RC market because Steve had told them it would take some work to open up the market, as it seems to be tied up by a large non-profit organization called AMA. I asked him what it would take to get the market opened up, and he told me of a few possibilities, including forming a small organization that self-insures through what they call re-insurance, which is where you pay from your own treasury any claims that are below a specified deductible, and any claim above that is paid by a policy that you buy from a larger company. This practice is quite common and very easy to do, and would likely become profitable in just a couple of years. In fact, he told me that he would be very interested in setting up such a venture with a group of local modelers, except that it poses a conflict of interest with his job. He expressed the opinion that the profit on AMA insurance is most assuredly exhorbitantly high for the company that AMA buys coverage from, so it would be nice to get a piece of it and give people a better deal at the same time. This was based on his own research, of course.

Steve also strongly suspects that AMA's clause about voiding your coverage by not following safety rules is likely to be illegal in a lot of states. He found the concept laughable, and he advised me to ask the state insurance board to say whether it is legal or not to write such a clause into a liability policy for a calculated risk.

In general, Steve seemed to think that it is highly feasible to open up the model airplane liability market without too much trouble. First and foremost, he said that I should ask the bureaucrats at the state capital to tell me whether there are any statutory conflicts involved in the county's insurance requirements. Apparently such conflicts are common, as there are multitudes of laws to regulate insurance in an unfathomable number of different ways. Bringing attention to such a statutory conflict, if any exists, would naturally create a situation where the county would be very receptive to listening to all kinds of new ideas.

As it turns out, Steve is also on the Parks Board of a local municipality, where they just happen to have recently passed an ordinance to ban RC aircraft from the city parks. I told him they ought to have a dedicated space for RC flying at one of their parks, because if it's popular enough to ban, then it would be a good idea to designate a specific location for it. He agreed. Based on HIS OWN opinion of AMA from HIS OWN prior research, he told me that he thinks it would be a very good idea to establish a park where a simple city permit and widely available insurance alternatives would allow people to fly. This guy truly appears to know what he is talking about when it comes to insurance. He was making lots of sense. The really interesting thing was that he already knew a fair amount about AMA from his research, and he expressed a real enthusiasm for rocking their boat, just because of the opinion that he had already formed of that type of organization before talking to me. Mostly I think that his distaste comes from the tendency for such organizations to waste money by paying too much of the members' money for insurance. From what he told me, it is quite feasible for a small group of a few dozen members to set up their own insurance company that pays the shareholders dividends when there are no claims, so that you end up paying a lot less in the long run.

Very interesting evening.... The only thing wrong is that this guy still needs to work on his timing when he sings. Other than that, he sounded pretty good!

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds
Loading thread data ...

R & L Reynolds,

Thanks for sharing your ideas. Its nice to see thinking outside the box. Tell Steve thanks.

Mike R

Reply to
Mike

One of the best ways to protect yourself if you do not wish to be a part of AMA is a personal liability policy on your homeowners or car insurance. In the lawsuit happy USA, you need this even if you do not fly RC. Of course, you can't fly at club fields without AMA.

Reply to
Marvin

Reply to
Storm's Hamburgers

This is all well and good, but who is going to administer these programs? Most clubs have enough trouble getting people to mow the lawn, or hold what are essentially figurehead positions with a minimum of paperwork under the AMA system. Where are you going to find these tremendously generous and ambitious people who are willing to give up their flying and building time to establish and administer what is essentially AMA Lite?

Steve's plan is good on paper, but he totally and completely ignored the human factor.

Reply to
mkirsch1

Good question. No, I was not. Steve had an IBC root beer and a few tobacco cigarettes, though.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

By your logic, in all of human history nothing at all should have been accomplished by anybody, and the fact that anything at all has been done is a miracle.

I don't know about the people where you fly, but we have a lot of guys here who get things done. The grass is always cut and the fields get improved on a regular basis. Even building planes and learning to fly without crashing qualifies in my book as a sign of dedication and perseverance. If you want something, aren't you willing to work for it? I know lots of people who are.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

Typical of someone who does not know the meaning of the word "logic."

My "logic" is that if it the activiy is not flying R/C models, period, finding someone to do it is nigh on impossible. Don't get me wrong, we have people that get things done too. Problem is, it's the same 10 people again and again and again. The rest "just want to fly," and have

100 excuses why they can't contribute more than club dues, and half of them don't even do that because that county field is public, and we can't demand that they join the club to use it.

I'm sure the situation is the same in your club when push comes to shove. Propose this self-insured idea to them, just remember to describe EXACTLY what is involved in setting up and administering such a thing.

Reply to
mkirsch1

I would suggest your friend study in some detail the failure of United Modelers Association, Sport Flyers of America II, and Sport Flyers Association. It might give him some clues as to how to capitalize on the perceived AMA stranglehold on the model aviation market.

Or then he might get his company to bid on the AMA insurance package if they can show a way to lower the rates.

Red S.

Reply to
Red Scholefield

Try to stay away from ad hominem attacks. Such attacks don't do anybody any good, and indulging in them makes your brain lazy.

That's pretty much what I was talking about. You are assuming that nobody wants to put forth any effort for their own good or the good of the modeling community. I believe that this simply isn't true. Somebody founded your club, the field, the AMA, and even the county you live in, when it would have been easier to just maintain the status quo. Somebody can start a new insurance provider or find an alternative already in existence. Regarding your statement that the same 10 out of

100 do all of the work, this is always true. But it shouldn't keep the productive 10 from trying new things. Incidentally, we have the same county field policy here as you do. I don't belong to a club. I'm one of the 90 out of 100 who use the county facilities but don't join the clubs. A few of us non club members are taking action now because we have the initiative to do so. Don't assume that all of the productive folks are club members.
Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

Good idea. Studying past history and risk is what insurance people do best. And of course any company that thinks they can make a few bucks by giving you a better deal is always happy to write a policy. There's a world of possibilities out there.

I'm not interested in asking a new insurance company to give the AMA a better deal on their insurance coverage, because lowering their insurance cost by 10% would still leave us sending them 40 bucks for all of that other stuff they spend money on. Really, I think AMA would be a much better organization without the insurance. Just let them focus on museums, competition, education and general heritage. They really do a good job on these things.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

Hey Red-

Quoting Robbie, " he said he works for a colossal insurance company with 2000 employees." I have some doubt that the 800 lb gorilla needs lessons from the history of the SFAs and UMA.

Now then, getting his co. to bid for the AMA insurance package has possibilities............ Lowering the insurance rates would be nice. If they could show a way to lower the hefty overhead that gets tagged onto those insurance rates, that would be a whole lot nicer.

Abel

Reply to
Abel Pranger

The people who administer these programs are the people who would like to profit most from them.

Think about it!

Reply to
Chuck Jones

Ah yes! Point out the failures of others and imply that there's no way you can make it work!

Good party line Red!

Reply to
Chuck Jones

Yeah! We're not shackled by politics, good ol' boy networks, stupid rules and idiot wannabe leaders.

We're lean and mean and ready to tackle the situation! :)

Reply to
Chuck Jones

Red is just trying to scare the potential threat to AMA back into it's cage. That's all!

Reply to
Chuck Jones

And your role in all of this would be . . . . . .? With your expertise in so many areas they can't fail. I'll check in next year and see how you have progressed. I hope it is better than the legendary K. Kline who set out to set the modeling world straight by organizing a group to better serve the hobby.

RS

Reply to
Red Scholefield

Kevie-

Robbie opened this discussion with "I thought I should start a new thread to take the discussion away from the Kline vs. Scholefield melodrama as well as the whole AMA-bashing stigma." Why not show him a little respect and butt out? You can start your own thread and bash AMA, Red and whatever else you hate. I don't need your take on what Red is trying to do. Trust me on that.

Abel

Reply to
Abel Pranger

Yeah, what he said.

How about some substance?

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

How hard would it be. A copy of the insurance policy, policy and telee. Most major insurers have automated systems open 24/7 and on the net

Mike

Reply to
Mike

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.