2017
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:23 amSite insurance: Is it really necessary?
Landowner liability across the United States has received dramatic new support from state governments in the past decade.
Many states specifically recognize hang gliding as an accepted form of public recreation under their recreational laws.
Site insurance should only be considered if your state's recreational liability law is not accepted by the landowner.
But if he accepts your state's release of liability guarantee, you're done.
Private insurance incurs expense and brings with it its own set of additional liability concerns and may not be superior, anyway.
I would suggest you first present the landowner with a copy of your state's recreational law and offer assurances that your club will respect his land and privacy.
Formal permission is not to be sought. You remain the general public engaged in recreation. Designated club members can responsible for gate access.
There is a comfort for the landowner in knowing that he is protected by the state from liability for allowing recreational access to his land.
When you compare this to private insurance, which always has a payout limit, you realize how much better a state blanket guarantee of protection is.
That is for the landowner.
The pilot and his driver remain responsible for their actions, including negligence, as do we all.
The other thing about private insurance, which really bothers a lot of us here at the US Hawks, is that it has been used by some groups of hang glider pilots to prevent other hang glider pilots from flying.
Restrictive "guilds" have been established all across the US, using private insurance as rationale, when it is clearly stated that hang gliding is a public right covered under state recreational law, as well as being a privilege open to all under federal law.
We'd like to see that change, where possible, because restricting hang gliding is not where we need to be right now.
The sport needs to be reinvigorated with a new attitude of openness, invitation and affordability.
The essential way to do this is to convince clubs that their insurance expense, in many cases, has become unnecessary and counter-productive for the sport.
Landowner liability across the United States has received dramatic new support from state governments in the past decade.
Many states specifically recognize hang gliding as an accepted form of public recreation under their recreational laws.
Site insurance should only be considered if your state's recreational liability law is not accepted by the landowner.
But if he accepts your state's release of liability guarantee, you're done.
Private insurance incurs expense and brings with it its own set of additional liability concerns and may not be superior, anyway.
I would suggest you first present the landowner with a copy of your state's recreational law and offer assurances that your club will respect his land and privacy.
Formal permission is not to be sought. You remain the general public engaged in recreation. Designated club members can responsible for gate access.
There is a comfort for the landowner in knowing that he is protected by the state from liability for allowing recreational access to his land.
When you compare this to private insurance, which always has a payout limit, you realize how much better a state blanket guarantee of protection is.
That is for the landowner.
The pilot and his driver remain responsible for their actions, including negligence, as do we all.
The other thing about private insurance, which really bothers a lot of us here at the US Hawks, is that it has been used by some groups of hang glider pilots to prevent other hang glider pilots from flying.
Restrictive "guilds" have been established all across the US, using private insurance as rationale, when it is clearly stated that hang gliding is a public right covered under state recreational law, as well as being a privilege open to all under federal law.
We'd like to see that change, where possible, because restricting hang gliding is not where we need to be right now.
The sport needs to be reinvigorated with a new attitude of openness, invitation and affordability.
The essential way to do this is to convince clubs that their insurance expense, in many cases, has become unnecessary and counter-productive for the sport.