Airpark Liability Insurance

For those of you that live in an airpark, either privately owned with no public access or privately owned with public access. I would be interesting in what liability insurance limits your airpark has purchased to manage the risk.


Thanks

Air park insurance

Hi,

Sent you a pm.

Regards,

Geoff Logan

California has law preventing lawsuits against an airport owner

A few years ago the Recreational Pilots Association (which I think is a nationwide organization) was the lead organization to get legislation passed that prohibits a lawsuit against an airport owner who allows the public to use it for recreational purposes. This law for private recreational land use by the public for various activities such as hiking, horseback riding, off road riding had been in place for many years. Aviation was added to it in the most recent revision. Everyone in California was shocked by this happening in a litigious state with too many personal injury attorneys (no offense intended). A few other states have been successful at getting similar legislation passed. The reasoning behind it is that this law encourages private land owners to share their land for recreational use with the public without the risk of getting sued if someone falls off their bike, horse etc...
The law can probably be found with a google search under the California Civil Code..
The law as written gives the landowner nearly absolute immunity except for gross negligence causing a hazard such as a 3 foot deep ditch across the rwy

South Carolina

Same legislation was passed in South Carolina a couple years ago.

Looks like Washington has a similar statute, awesome!

We have pretty much the same statutes here in Oklahoma. But our airport owners (there's 16 of us), some like to spend money, so we pay about $1300.00/yr for liability insurance.

I am the SC Recreational Aviation Foundation Liason, give me a call tomorrow, I'll be at the SCBC meeting at GMU in the morning. (I PM'ed you my number.)

The Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) has worked hard to implement Recreational Use Statutes throughout the US and South Carolina is one of the states that have implemented an RUS for aviation.

Here is the link listing the states that have passed RUS statutes.

Basically here is how it works; if you allow someone to land at your private strip and there are no known safety issues (ditch or tree across the runway, etc.) and someone, even someone you invited, balls their airplane up, the law treats them as a trespasser. They can sue but chance are the lawsuit will be tossed out.

We have had members who's liability insurance premiums went down when they notified their carrier about the RUS in their state.

If all of you are not supporting the RAF, you need to. They are fighting for all of us, even if you don't land in a back country strip.

I'm a RAF member and also own an airpark and even though Texas isn't on that list it does have a similar law on the books, particularly to promote hunting, 4 wheelers, etc..

To take advantage of the law here you have to comply with 3 things like having minimum insurance, you can charge for the use but it can't be a percentage higher than 20 times something or the other regarding taxes, and there can't be gross negligence. If you comply with all three then if they sue you it serves as an affirmative defense and essentially gets tossed out.

It?s not just liability for accident and/or injury of an outsider. It was a surprise to me, but liability insurance can cover a large portion of the legal fees associated with a lawsuit like a disputed CCR violation. Neighbors, and members, sue each other and HOA?s all the time.... Make sure your insurance covers these types of issues. You can easily run up several hundred thousand in legal fees over a difference in opinion and some hard heads.....

I have $500K single limit bodily injury and property damage, $1MM aggregate. $1MM Liability, and $1MM Contractors and autos on premises. It cost $1,125/year.

Lawyerspeak...

Of course Tennessee has weird wording that make me wonder if I have to get the hiker, pilot, hunter's "waiver" in writing. Can anyone decipher for me? "Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older entering the land of another for the purpose of camping,
fishing, hunting, hiking, dog training, cutting or removing firewood, recreational noncommercial aircraft
operations or recreational noncommercial ultra light vehicle operations on private airstrips, for such
person's use for a consideration may waive, in writing, the landowner's duty of care to such person for
injuries that arise from camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, dog training, cutting or removing firewood,
recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultra light vehicle
operations on private airstrips for such person's use, if such waiver does not limit liability for gross
negligence, or willful or wanton conduct, or for a failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition,
use, structure or activity."

Looks like that waiver in that section of the law is regarding paying to use the property. You might check to see if there?s another section where it doesn?t talk about any type of compensation.

Wildcat69 said:

Of course Tennessee has weird wording that make me wonder if I have to get the hiker, pilot, hunter's "waiver" in writing. Can anyone decipher for me? "Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older entering the land of another for the purpose of camping,
fishing, hunting, hiking, dog training, cutting or removing firewood, recreational noncommercial aircraft
operations or recreational noncommercial ultra light vehicle operations on private airstrips, for such
person's use for a consideration may waive, in writing, the landowner's duty of care to such person for
injuries that arise from camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, dog training, cutting or removing firewood,
recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultra light vehicle
operations on private airstrips for such person's use, if such waiver does not limit liability for gross
negligence, or willful or wanton conduct, or for a failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition,
use, structure or activity."

Click to expand...

Well the language says specifically "in writing". Then includes exceptions for other actionable items with pretty broad terms. I bet the other side would be successful in arguing the need for a fact finder in any case the way that's written.