Norra Monto Queensland - Insurance Problems

[Guest Michael Coates]

This will starts heated discussion amongst group members..... The RAA are requiring that if you are going to attend NORRA which they are holding over the Queen's Birthday weekend you must be cashed up sufficiently to get a specific insurance coverage specifically for this event naming the RAA as part of the policy.

 

They tried introducing this in the USA with events like Oshkosh and Sun and fun in the 90s, it was deemed to be ridiculously expensive for individuals to obtain and in some cases impossible or with a premium in excess of $100,000. For this reason the EAA decided they would organise the insurance and cover all of the exhibitors with the cost being absorbed in the ridiculously high exhibition fees but as a group of individuals it was impossible to get insurance.

 

A couple of quick phone calls in the last 15 minutes and nobody is interested in covering any businesses to attend this event whether as a static display or as a flying display so I guess we won't be going.

 

Interestingly there were comments about the "products liability risk" one insurance guy told me that if somebody for example purchased a plane from this event then this would be considered part of the products liability risk, if he crashed the aircraft in two years time and claimed the product was faulty he could come back to claim insurance.

 

Once he started telling me this it got way too hard and I told them not to bother I won't be attending.

 

I wonder if the same will happen for other exhibitors when they try to get insurance required by the RAA ?

 

Interesting times and if the same thing is introduced for Natfly and there is not assistance from the RAA in obtaining a group policy I doubt anybody else will be going as well. It would have been good if the industry was consulted.

 

Extract from the exhibitors conditions

 

Participants Insurance

 

Participants must obtain or provide Insurance Protection for all public and or products liability risks and ensure that Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. and their respective personnel are named as insured’s in the insurance policy covering the participant in NORRA-Aus Fly-In Monto 2012.

 

The minimum insurance protection that the participants are required to obtain or provide in respect of their participation in the Fly-In is to be whichever is the higher of

 

a) The existing public and or products liability of the participant.

 

b) An amount not less than 10 million dollars for any one accident or occurrence.

 

 

[bas]

Amazing. This has never been a problem for NATFLY, has it?

 

 

[metalman]

This will destroy every airshow in the country. Geez I hope it's not wide spread!

 

 

[Guest David C]

The way I read it , is that RA-Aus are requiring all participants and exhibitors to gain insurance cover naming the RA-Aus as an insured party on each individual policy ! ... Seems like a cheap way for RA-Aus to " wash their hands" of all financial liability to me . I 'd be steering clear of all of their flyins if that is the case . If the same is imposed for the next Natfly , I fear it could be their last .. Just my opinion of course , but if other exhibitors follow along the same path as Michael Coates and refrain from attending it will be a sad situation for all , and wholly due to the stance of the RA-Aus ..

 

Dave C

 

 

[Guest DWB]

I've been trying to decipher this too as we had booked in for Monto. I haven't sought quotes at this stage. It was on the agenda for next week. Going on what you're saying Michael I'll be prob wasting my time. We certainly weren't bargaining on this red herring. Is all this as a result of the "other" insurance issues RAAus are experiencing at the moment?

 

It certainly has the potential to kill off these events from a Distributor/Dealer point of view. Interestingly no such request of exhibitors has been made for AUSFLY at Narromine, which of course is an SAAA event.

 

 

[Guest avi8tr]

Presumably the RAA's insurance broker has dropped coverage for this. All matches up with the other goings on at the board everyone has been talking about.

 

 

[bas]

So there you are, your stand set up, talking to people about your aircraft, or your radio, or showing off your iPad software. Like WTF could possibly happen that results in a $10M claim FFS!?

 

I mean, this is completely and utterly retarded beyond any insurance requirements I have have ever seen.

 

The ONLY things that could cause a serious claim is an aircraft slamming into the crowd, chopping someone up if started up by mistake, etc.

 

Wanna know a little secret nobody seems to know about? ALL THESE RA-AUS AIRCRAFT ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF 3rd PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE BY VIRTUE OF BEING REGISTERED.

 

I mean, WTF are they thinking?

 

Sorry for the language, well, no, I am not sorry. Who ever came up with this needs an earful.

 

 

[metalman]

I got screwed over by RAA with some wrong advice on registering my aircraft, the result, I'm going VH experimental and seeing the dramas with RAA lately I'm kinda glad really!

 

 

[TAA Student Pilot]

Everybody is running scared (With good reason) from bottom feeding parasite legal fee driven liability problems. You can't blame organisations for trying to protect themselves, blame the legal industry.

 

 

[Guest David C]

You are quite correct there Mr Student Pilot with your assumptions , however , I tend to think that perhaps in this case it may have been a good idea if the RA-Aus had informed the affected parties as to why these insurance conditions were being imposed in the first case . I'm sure if the proper communication channels had been adhered to , then an acceptance of these conditions may have been more palatable .

 

Dave C

 

 

[bas]

They are taking the easy way out. There is nothing stopping them from getting insurance for the event and slightly raise the attendance fee - even the Parafield airshow's insurance would have been only a few grand. (QBE sponsored it instead) I don't think Michael would have pulled out if he had to pay $100-200 more to be there.

 

Asking everyone to get their own insurance to basically cover the entire event is a waste of money, plus nobody wants to touch it.

 

And no: I don't blame the legal industry - I blame the LAW MAKERS for allowing these nonsense blame-society suits. The legal and insurance industry just take advantage of it.

 

 

[Guest David C]

What will be the viability of any future Natfly events be if this insurance requirement is maintained ? , and also considering the fact that the SAAA AUSFLY event does not require such , will that become the " premier " light aviation event in the future ? ... I suppose time will tell ....

 

Dave C

 

 

[Powerin]

It's a shame, but this is pretty standard practice for larger exhibitions these days. The agricultural field days I am involved in and and all the major ag field days in Australia certainly have this as a condition of being an exhibitor. So does Avalon Airshow. The conditions I have read are nearly word for word the same as the one quoted above.

 

I suspect the recent scrutiny of RAA insurance has highlighted this as an issue. I bet you'll find that RAA will have something like a $50million public liability policy and that a condition of that policy is that individual exhibitors also have a $10million policy which specifically indemnifies RAA (and by extension their insurer).

 

Not saying it's right...it's just the reality of today's litigious society. I wonder what all the small country town agricultural shows do?

 

 

[Powerin]

So there you are, your stand set up, talking to people about your aircraft, or your radio, or showing off your iPad software. Like WTF could possibly happen that results in a $10M claim FFS!?

Start with someone tripping over one of your tent pegs/ropes and breaking their skull and go from there. Do you have an urn in the tent for cups of tea? A petrol generator for your site power? Does it have a residual current device on it? Insurance also has to deal with the lowest common denominators. When you work at events like these you realise just how many LCD type people are out there :(

 

 

[TAA Student Pilot]

And no: I don't blame the legal industry - I blame the LAW MAKERS for allowing these nonsense blame-society suits. The legal and insurance industry just take advantage of it.

It's those same lawmakers who come from the legal industry, self interest. Making big bucks from parasiting and bottom feeding. From memory it was in the late eighties things started changing? No doubt you'd have been one of the biggest vocal critics at the time? Look at the outcome of the lawsuits from the black Saturday fires (Those that have finished), only outcome will be when it starts to heat up the power companies will shut everything off and everyone will pay double the money for power bills, it's OK though because some of those in the legal "Game" made several large fortunes out of it.

 

 

[bas]

As soon as you add the word "aviation" to your insurance proposal, everybody that does reasonable deals normally (like these agricultural shows) walks away.

 

Try getting indemnity and liability insurance for a software company. Easy peasy. Now try not for a company that makes aviation software...

 

 

[Guest DWB]

I've spoken to RAA's Insurance Brokers (PSB) this morning enquiring what they have to offer in the way of a policy for this event to satisfy RAAus requirements. They don't - they figured everyone already has such cover & just needed to add RAAus to the policy. Wrong!

 

I explained the situation (in my case) which is similar to Michael's. They are now going back to RAAus to discuss the matter & see what they can do. I also informed them that many exhibitors may walk away from attending Monto due to this.

 

Incidentally, it was PSB who required RAAus to request this cover from exhibitors. No doubt to remove any risk of their own cover for RAAus. I really expected them to have something to offer, without further consultation.

 

They will be getting back to me..............

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

I don't want to get the RAA offside but really there is absolutely no consultation to the industry and this is what really gets me offside. If they had alerted us to the fact that they needed this insurance coverage (and it wasn't included in the original mail out) then we could have presented something to them just like what is done at Oshkosh. We really need to take a look at events like Oshkosh which have an established track record and proven record at running events. As they say, it is pointless trying to reinvent the wheel!

 

RAA, start to listen the people in the industry who have more experience than you do, it is hard when you put an inexperienced office girl in charge of running this sort of event. This is also one of the reasons why we don't exhibit at Avalon, it is impossible to get the insurance coverage, pay the exhibition fees, pay for the motels, food etc and still remain in business by making a profit at the end of the year.

 

 

[Guest DWB]

A bit off topic, but to do with costs for exhibiting at these Fly-Ins & this one is in Monto's favour. I sought a quote from a hire company in Bundaberg for a small marquee, sml table & 2 chairs to be set up at & for the duration of the Fly-in & removal etc. Quote was for a little over $300. Yeah fair enough I figured after all Monto is a fair way from Bundaberg.

 

I sought a similar quote from a Dubbo firm for Narromine AUSFLY - $650! We have found a transport company who will deliver our own there from Camden & return it for under $200.

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

Hello All, just spoke with the RAA and they claim they were not aware of any problems getting insurance for the event. They are now going to have a chat amongst themselves to see what can be done. They are relying heavily on information they are receiving from their insurance brokers who obviously don't know how difficult it is to get insurance for anything aviation as a small business let alone the impossibility to get product-liability in light aviation.

 

Hopefully, there will be progress over the next week and and an affordable insurance option will become available. If they can make it affordable with a blanket coverage then yes we will be attending! If we are up for $1000's or more to try and specifically get coverage for this event then we won't be attending. The same goes for Natfly IMO.

 

Unfortunately, this could be the decline of organised airshows / flyins.... the same as happened with many other recreational activities including powerboating, jet ski racing etc

 

 

[Guest DWB]

Yes Michael I have also spoken with RAAus HQ this morning re this issue, so that makes at least 2 of us highlighting the problem. Interestingly they said that no-one else has flagged this as an issue so I suggested that maybe they had better make sure other exhibitors clearly understood this insurance requirement. I did receive a very sympathetic response I will say from staff at RAAus HQ & they were not aware that there was an issue developing as a result of this, despite their Broker (PSB) yesterday saying to me they would raise it with them. So I'm still planning on Monto unless the "wheels fall off the cart" as it were.

 

 

[Guest Michael Coates]

Hello all, update from the RAA received this afternoon at 3:40 PM.

 

The RAA have have managed to have a bit of a chat and ring around and things are starting to improve. The product liability section of their requirements now only applies to the food vendors because they may sell a dodgy sausage and give somebody food poisoning ?? (is more likely the person leading the sausage didn't wash their hands after the toilet IMO) this only leaves the public liability insurance side of things outstanding.

 

The RAA require to have a copy of each business's insurance policy stating they have a minimum $10 million public liability insurance, it does not need to list the RAA specifically but just be a current and valid insurance policy for the business that is exhibiting.

 

For Oz Runways as an example, you need to have $10 million public liability insurance. For somebody selling an aircraft, you need to have $10 million public liability insurance. For somebody selling propellers you need to have $10 million public liability insurance and so on......

 

I really feel we have had a win today by sensibly bringing the shortcomings of these new insurance requirements to the attention of the RAA.

 

In all honesty nobody other than a few of us actually noticed (including the RAA) that these new conditions have been introduced and were in actual fact very restrictive.

 

 

[Pete777]

It was good you brought it up Michael, as if something very very very small should happen, then ALL hell would've have broken out, good pick up.

 

 

[Guest DWB]

OK after discussing this subject further with Michael yesterday, I discovered that he like myself, was still having difficulty effecting a PL policy to cover us as required for the Monto event. As Michael was leaving for Oshkosh today I said I would pick up the bat & see if I could progress this further.

 

The good news, for any aircraft distributor/dealer etc. having difficulties is that after much ringing around of brokers & Insurance Companies, I finally was referred to a company that would give us cover at very affordable rates for an air show type event. (Most said forget it).

 

Anyone wanting further info can either PM me or contact me by phone/email as per our ATEC Ad in the Sport Pilot Magazine. I have advised the RAAus Monto Secretariat as well (& Michael).

 

 

[Guest DWB]

I just effected insurance cover for 3 months to cover for Monto. All done online - easy.

 

The funny part was, i had to select a category for the market stall out of a list. This list included: Shoes. Clothing, Food, Second Hand Goods etc. etc.

 

Problem - nothing that really fitted Aircraft, then I spotted one I thought was quite apt - TOYS. In the further description box I put AIRCRAFT

 

I await confirmation of acceptance...........