Red wrote:I agree with much of what JoeF has said on this topic. I am no expert in insurance, so all of what I say here is accumulated from life, not from specific cases. I like the concept of mutual insurance, because the members are owners, and all profits go back to the members. I really can not imagine that the HG insurance we have now would ever give us a penny back.
The "mutual"term should be explained, maybe. If the mutual company collects more money than they pay out in any given period of time, then the excess (profits) are paid back to the members, or rates are reduced. If the company is hit with losses exceeding the income, then the members will need to pony up any shortfall, distributed equally. That could be done with an increase in the premiums, or a simple one-time assessment on the members, on a case-by-case basis. Without a huge pool of ready cash to attract hungry lawyers, a mutual company should be able to operate with less staff, and fewer headaches. I do not claim any of this stuff is automatic, but with a decent membership number, I think mutual insurance could be a viable option.
Some USA states will have options to protect land-owners from liability, independent of any need for insurance from us. If anybody can provide some real expertise in these fields, it would be good to hear from them here.
Hi Red!!!!Sorry I missed your post earlier. Thanks very much for the tip on Mutual insurance. That might be what we need.
FYI, there's also a good discussion of this subject in the "Bob K to blame for all of the insurance problems?" topic.
Also, I'm curious about your take on this California law:
846. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.
A "recreational purpose," as used in this section, includes activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, private noncommercial aviation activities, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites.
An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby
(a) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for that purpose,
or
(b) constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal
status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed,
or
(c) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or
property caused by any act of the person to whom permission has been
granted except as provided in this section.
This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists
(a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous
condition, use, structure or activity;
or
(b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above
purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any,
paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received
from others for the same purpose;
or
(c) to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to
come upon the premises by the landowner.
Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property.
As I read that, the first section (c) states that an owner would not be liable for injuries caused by a hang glider pilot to a third party. Does it read that way to you?
Also, as I read the second (b) section, I think it might be broken down like this:
This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state,
- and -
This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose;
In the case of San Diego, I'm wondering if the fact that the Torrey Pines concessionaire charges money to use the City's land falls under that second section (consideration has been received from others for the same purpose). What do you think?
Home
