RAAus Member Public Liability Insurance

[Head in the clouds]

RAA should have contacted you directly re your enquiry. To handball you off to the Insurance Broker is poor form.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

No, actually I was very impressed, I received the information I was seeking within just a few hours from making the enquiry, from the person best able to let me know the current position.

 

In due course RAAus will let us know what will come of it all. No doubt they will take note of views expressed in this thread - I will send them a link before their talks in July to renew the policy. I expect that the amount of cover will be increased to $20m because otherwise we'll be excluded from using all Council controlled airfields (and that is most of the airfields that we currently use) unless we individually pay an extra $450 or so for top-up insurance.

 

Frankly I think RAAus wouldn't be serving the membership correctly, and could well be considered negligent, if they don't maintain our insurance at 'industry standard' levels.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Frankly I think RAAus wouldn't be serving the membership correctly, and could well be considered negligent, if they don't maintain our insurance at 'industry standard' levels.

Correct; as we know all insurance companies set premiums based on the risk history, and predictions, so premiums are effectively set by the court cases and their results.

 

In the case of a death, the dependants of any person killed need to be maintained at the level provided for by the deceased. and they need to be maintained until children have finished their education, and elderly relatives have died. The cost of doing this goes up each year with the cost of living.

 

In the case of an injury, if there is nerve damage to a limb, it's expensive to fix, if limbs are lost, prosthesis and rehabilitation has increasing costs, and if the victim becomes a quadriplegic then house modifications, 24 hour care x 3 shifts for the expected life of the victim, quality of life costs etc can often increase.

 

Regardless of the above, lawyers costs continue to spiral up because of their costs in paying the multiple people involved, rentals etc.

 

It seems to me there are a lot less cases than there were a decade ago, and in that time a quadriplegic case, with all of the above, including both sets of lawyers if you lose a case seems to have gone up from about $9 million to about $13-14 million or about 5.5% flat per year.

 

From my past experience with cases, becoming a Defendant is a life changing event for the five years or so their actions are under scrutiny apart from the guilt they feel, and the one saving grace they have with Insurance is that at least they are not going to lose their home and assets (provided they didn't under-insure).

 

So if the extra premium is $500.00 for 50 hours, that's just $10.00 every time you go flying.

 

Just bear in mind that the legal definition of a breach of duty of care, is an ACCIDENTAL breach, so it's not something you can plan not to do, other than to be qualified to do what you're doing and up to date with your training.

 

 

[jackc]

I was simply referring to the corporate communications chain, If “links” are jumped in a controversial situation, it’s grief down the road. As they say, everyone has to be on the same page.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[Thruster88]

There must have been more than 50? Serious accidents since the RAA insurance started, how many pay outs ?

 

If it is quite a few how is the premium so low, if not many or none why is that?

 

 

[turboplanner]

There must have been more than 50? Serious accidents since the RAA insurance started, how many pay outs ?

 

If it is quite a few how is the premium so low, if not many or none why is that?

Most of those accidents were unremarkable.

 

For PL to kick in someone has to have a duty of care, and the injured party must be able to prove that duty of care was breached.

 

If a passenger suffers a broken leg in a forced landing caused by the pilot forgetting to turn the fuel tap on, that may well be a case, but when the passenger realises that if he doesn't win he may have to pay the defendant's legal costs (even with his own lawyer's no win no fee deal), and he only heard about the tap through hearsay, the most likely outcome is that it won't go ahead.

 

In other cases the defendant settles out of court, so no one gets to hear the details or payout.

 

In other cases plaintiffs, even if they have a good case just don't want to go through the legal trauma and foot the bills themselves.

 

I know of one RA crash where the relatives just wanted to forget the whole thing so took no action

 

In other cases there's a lawsuit, but people don't listen to advice and the case goes off half cocked and the defendant gets away with it. I know of one case where a so called aviation expert advised the plaintiff to sue through non-PL channels and accused a person who had not breached any duty of care, losing the case, while the person who had breached his duty of care, in a very simple case had his estate left intact. There was another where an Association fought a PL claim using its non-PL directors and officers insurance, and quickly ran out of money and had to negotiate a settlement using members money.

 

Of the cases I was involved in, one was an $850,000 payout when someone failed to use a fire extinguisher in the correct manner, another failing to fit a light outside a toilet door in a car park, another failing to advise a plaintiff that he had the right to sue when he entered the premises, and subsequently losing because the promoter failed to connect two safety fence cables together in the layout recommended by the cable manufacturer. All simple things to understand after the event.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I was simply referring to the corporate communications chain, If “links” are jumped in a controversial situation, it’s grief down the road. As they say, everyone has to be on the same page.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Frankly I couldn't give a rats whether 'links' or protocol are circumvented. RAAus office is very busy trying to do all the things we need to keep ops happening and I'm delighted that they very promptly provided me with the avenue to discover what I wanted to know. The way they went about it meant that I quickly learnt far more than I asked for, in my simple question.

 

There are plenty of critics out there, of the way that RAAus 'is', but right now I'm not one of them. I'm impressed, they're working hard for us, and very well at the moment.

 

I do think I'm qualified to comment on that, I am one of the very early members (#000714), I joined AUF in the year of formation, 1983, so I've seen plenty of the good and the bad.

 

 

[Downunder]

I expect that the amount of cover will be increased to $20m because otherwise we'll be excluded from using all Council controlled airfields (and that is most of the airfields that we currently use) unless we individually pay an extra $450 or so for top-up insurance.

Hang on.....you were stopped from using ONE airfield...

 

From that you are saying ALL council airfields are going to stop RAA aircraft?

 

I've registered at many fields requiring "PPR" and never been asked about insurance requirements once.

 

Lets not jump the gun here....

 

 

[kgwilson]

So why do councils allow GA aircraft to land at their aerodromes? They are not required to carry any insurance as far as I know.

 

 

[jackc]

Frankly I couldn't give a rats whether 'links' or protocol are circumvented. RAAus office is very busy trying to do all the things we need to keep ops happening and I'm delighted that they very promptly provided me with the avenue to discover what I wanted to know. The way they went about it meant that I quickly learnt far more than I asked for, in my simple question.

 

There are plenty of critics out there, of the way that RAAus 'is', but right now I'm not one of them. I'm impressed, they're working hard for us, and very well at the moment.

 

I do think I'm qualified to comment on that, I am one of the very early members (#000714), I joined AUF in the year of formation, 1983, so I've seen plenty of the good and the bad.

There is no doubt that protocols should be followed, just read the requirements for nominations for election, nowhere did I say RAA was not doing their job. They could have handled it better in your case

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Many years ago I knew a lazy slob that got paid out big time after an accident. The payout was for future medical expenses for the injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages bla bla bla. This loser blew the money on booze and drugs and other rubbish. Now has nothing and blames everybody but himself. Huge insurance payouts are BS in my opinion and the system needs to change.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Many years ago I knew a lazy slob that got paid out big time after an accident. The payout was for future medical expenses for the injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages bla bla bla. This loser blew the money on booze and drugs and other rubbish. Now has nothing and blames everybody but himself. Huge insurance payouts are BS in my opinion and the system needs to change.

Have you ever seen a quadriplegic? They need full time medical staff 24/7, year after year until they die.

 

You think the wife and children of a deceased are going to blow the kids’ education and weekly expenses on booze?

 

I think the world has just passed some people by.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Just had a look at the GFA insurance arrangements published on their website and it appears they have insurance for everything except public liability yet they operate from council strips.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Many years ago I knew a lazy slob that got paid out big time after an accident. The payout was for future medical expenses for the injuries, pain and suffering, lost wages bla bla bla. This loser blew the money on booze and drugs and other rubbish. Now has nothing and blames everybody but himself. Huge insurance payouts are BS in my opinion and the system needs to change.

That happens far too often.

 

There is a need where they get their money calculated to fortnightly payment like centerlink benefits.

 

KP

 

 

[facthunter]

Your organization should advise you of the need for Public liability. Risks etc.

 

As for insurance.. If they already do it , it's almost a no brainer to have it at the current generally advised level or warn you if it's not. If you do a job you must do it right in this "flying" business. Operating without insurance should not really be a considered option., for most people. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, you didn't remotely address Jabiru7252's suggestion. The thing he said and illustrated is that great big lump sums are bad news for some people. A quadriplegic, for example, needs a long term income stream and not get it all in a lump sum, which is what is right in line with what Jabiru7252 said.

 

Try to avoid doing a fantasy rewrite on a posting in order to attack your fantasy. It's called the straw man technique and it is nasty.

 

 

[clouddancer]

Hang on.....you were stopped from using ONE airfield...

 

From that you are saying ALL council airfields are going to stop RAA aircraft?

 

I've registered at many fields requiring "PPR" and never been asked about insurance requirements once.

 

Lets not jump the gun here....

Can I suggest forumites write with specific airfield issues directly to RAAus, who will be happy to take up the discussion with Councils if RAAus members are not being treated equitably with other aircraft owners?

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Have you ever seen a quadriplegic? They need full time medical staff 24/7, year after year until they die.

 

You think the wife and children of a deceased are going to blow the kids’ education and weekly expenses on booze?

 

I think the world has just passed some people by.

Yes. In fact I had two friends who were confined to wheelchairs. Doesn't change my views on a crap insurance system.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, you didn't remotely address Jabiru7252's suggestion. The thing he said and illustrated is that great big lump sums are bad news for some people. A quadriplegic, for example, needs a long term income stream and not get it all in a lump sum, which is what is right in line with what Jabiru7252 said.

 

Try to avoid doing a fantasy rewrite on a posting in order to attack your fantasy. It's called the straw man technique and it is nasty.

I didn’t need to address his suggestion; after calling the person who lost the money a slob he went off on his own tangent.

 

The Court makes a decision between two arguing parties. That’s what it’s job is and has always been limited to.

 

There’s no fantasy rewrite, no straw man technique, That’s what happens in the process. There is no government involvement and no welfare involvement.

 

The defendant's obligations to the plaintiff cease as soon as the designated sum has been paid.

 

The situation is exactly the same as when an employee receives his paycheck. It's his decision what he does with it whether that be taking it home to the wife or blowing it on gambling.

 

It's not being nasty telling it like it is. What is nasty is when people decide to ignore their obligations and don't bother insuring.

 

Where someone is incapacitated to the point where they can't make logical decision, there are processes whereby others can be given Power of Attorney to manage the money, one of these being State Trustees, bearing in mind that a seven year old child will need to be cared for for 80 years. However those processes are nothing to do with public liability.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes. In fact I had two friends who were confined to wheelchairs. Doesn't change my views on a crap insurance system.

Well if you then go up to the next level where they also can't use their arms to lift themselves, and in some cases require a respirator operating 24/7, you're at Quadriplegic, and I'd just about guarantee that not one of these would go out and blow all their money. And it's not the crap insurance system, in fact nothing to do with insurance, it's a Court awarding payment for damages from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Insurance Company simply makes a payment as it is instructed.

 

 

[facthunter]

The lawyers chase the money. There's little point in winning a case if there's no ability to Pay. Insurance pays out a big amount... then... Collectively all the "Insured pay" a bit more one way or another. It IS the Courts who decide what the compensation is or some times an out of court agreed figure where more of it goes to the injured . Whether the amount paid is followed by upping the cover or vise versa is a mute point. What is important is there is a process of compensation in Place as a way of addressing a definite need.. The victim is usually an innocent party. Balance all this against a "right" to do risky things (IF you affect no one else) which I tend to uphold. and to be able to decide when you die If life is no longer attractive..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The lawyers chase the money. There's little point in winning a case if there's no ability to Pay. Insurance pays out a big amount... then... Collectively all the "Insured pay" a bit more one way or another. It IS the Courts who decide what the compensation is or some times an out of court agreed figure where more of it goes to the injured . Whether the amount paid is followed by upping the cover or vise versa is a mute point. What is important is there is a process of compensation in Place as a way of addressing a definite need.. The victim is usually an innocent party. Balance all this against a "right" to do risky things (IF you affect no one else) which I tend to uphold. and to be able to decide when you die If life is no longer attractive..Nev

Tort lawyers sometimes do package multiple claims into class actions, however our industry/sport is such a tiny sliver of business that it blows along under its own steam.

 

A fatality claim is around $1 million outlay for the Plaintiff ($2 million if he loses) vs about $3 million for the Defendant if he loses. (These are just ballpark figures, not based to any actual costs). The Defendant's estate (if he has departed the scene) will have house, assets, life Insurance or PL Insurance, so most claims aren't started on an economic basis, but on a need for the Plaintiff, such as cost of bringing up children and paying the bills without a breadwinner. The Plaintiff has to justify the claim before the Court, so they can hardly say "We went for him because he's got money."

 

There is no "right" to do risky things, even by yourself, depending on any dependants, so it isn't a balance or discussion point.

 

For example if you go out by yourself and decide to do some low level aerobatics by yourself and kill yourself and your wife is aged 47, she has to find a way to replace your income to pay off the mortgage, maintain a car, buy the groceries, and feed and educate the children over the next 40 years. So she sues your estate.

 

 

[facthunter]

How far do you go in deciding what is risky. and (how dare you or anyone) make such a decision in absolute terms?.. Especially to not even allow it as a discussion point? You can't actually stop it either. What do we do as a severe punishment. The DEATH penalty? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

How far do you go in deciding what is risky. and (how dare you or anyone) make such a decision in absolute terms?.. Especially to not even allow it as a discussion point? You can't actually stop it either. What do we do as a severe punishment. The DEATH penalty? Nev

As far as I know there is no legal definition for risky; no need for it because what IS defined is a precedent case for negligence.

 

So it is absolute.

 

No one cares what you are doing until such time as it interferes with, or hurts, someone else, then there is a simple line in the sand.

 

Punishment can go as high as imprisonment for Manslaughter, so can add up to a lot of years.

 

Punishment can also be monetary, claimed by the person you hurt.

 

No you can't stop it, but you don't need to stop it, it strangles itself, so you don't have to pay all those expensive inspectors.

 

 

[facthunter]

The risk definition can be altered until you ALLOW nothing much of a real nature , to be done by anyone.. I would suggest we are already seeing this effect. You can't be required to not die. Ie Guarantee to live just so someone "dependent" on you is OK. . That "requirement' to satisfy allows a world that most would not recognize or wish to live in. as there's no Defined limit that it operates up to. Like you say" that is enough". The goal posts keep getting moved. Zero road deaths etc. Not achievable and a misleading concept being used for an excuse to impose unlimited restrictions on any thing that particular "PUSH" sees as undesirable. or doesn't interest them. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

At one extreme there are people who jump off cliffs in wing suits. Or try to climb Everest. You cant stop it.