Rob H
EF5
People keep talking about "when" this happens, but wasn't a tour hit on 5/10/10 with some minor injuries? Or did this fly under the radar because there were no medical expenses?
-
While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].
FMCSA regulation 387.33
- Thread starter ChristofferB
- Start date
Robert Edmonds
EF5
My impression was that the injuries consisted of cuts from broken glass (I could be wrong since I just heard second hand info). For federal regulators attention to be grabbed, it will have to be a big accident. As in a claim gets disputed, and someone can't or won't cough up the money and the accident goes to the courts.
The federal regulators I spoke to are really "lazy" when I was trying to figure out whether the insurance requirement is presently enforced. They worked hard to say you can't ascertain whether a storm chasing tour could be proven to be an interstate company just from the content out there right now like from videos, or from a website description, thus they don't get involved at the moment at regulating insurance with storm chasing tours. I asked how can you not prove tours to be interstate operations from videos or just the activity itself? They claimed you could drop a person off at the border, they could walk across, and get picked up. Maybe they're different customers each day, but never transported across state lines only picked up and dropped off within the state. As I said they work hard not to get involved... and thanked me for giving them the excuse to watch youtube videos of storm chasing. Basically till a customer or employee files a complaint or it gets taken to the courts they will not get involved in regulating. The kicker is, talked to an intrastate regulator, he said clearly storm chasing tours are an interstate matter so he can't touch storm chasing tours. As I said, they won't enforce the regulations, till they have too, even if they agree a storm chasing tour that crosses state lines should be subject to the federal minimums of 1.5 million. One regulator said he didn't doubt there aren't tours out there operating without the required insurance, but once they have a (big) accident they're in a world of hurt.
Last edited by a moderator:
ChristofferB
EF2
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 197
I could see that, from an insurance company's point of view, it is not enough money in the storm chasing business to dig deep into and understanding the risks. It's easier to save that time and money on the skiing or white water rafting-indutries, which offers more business opportunities. One would hope though, that one (Midwestern based?) insurance company would see this as a business opportunity and serve this community with relevant insurance policies.
It is a really interesting discussion regarding what would happen when (I really believe it is a when) a van will be involved in a crash. On my last tour we were quite close to hitting a deer when the driver tried to avoid it and made the van slightly out of control for a brief, but scary, second. These things must happen all the time since you spend so much time on the road. Roads that are often rainy and / or crowded. I can see, though, that a lazy insurance broker, only looking at tornado videos on youtube would perceive the risk of being sucked up in a tornado as the biggest threat. Which is the general thought among most non-chasers, I believe.
Considering that, would you believe that the largest tour operators have this liability? From a consumer's point of view it would be interesting to know. Not so much for the risk if something happens to MY tour but rather someone elses tour that would shut down operations for everyone who doesn't have this liability, as you mentioned.
It is a really interesting discussion regarding what would happen when (I really believe it is a when) a van will be involved in a crash. On my last tour we were quite close to hitting a deer when the driver tried to avoid it and made the van slightly out of control for a brief, but scary, second. These things must happen all the time since you spend so much time on the road. Roads that are often rainy and / or crowded. I can see, though, that a lazy insurance broker, only looking at tornado videos on youtube would perceive the risk of being sucked up in a tornado as the biggest threat. Which is the general thought among most non-chasers, I believe.
Considering that, would you believe that the largest tour operators have this liability? From a consumer's point of view it would be interesting to know. Not so much for the risk if something happens to MY tour but rather someone elses tour that would shut down operations for everyone who doesn't have this liability, as you mentioned.
Robert Edmonds
EF5
So long as your tour has the full amount of insurance then no they're not getting shut down (big though does not necessarily mean they do have it). If the tour doesn't have insurance, or if their coverage gets dropped, then it really depends on what the regulators end up doing. We all see how Oklahoma/Kansas news eat up bad storm chaser stories. Imagine the TV news knocking on the FMCSA's office door and asking why some tour which didn't have insurance was still operating when they ended up in an accident. I'd imagine they'd change their tune on enforcement quickly. Whether that's how it actually happens, only time will tell. Maybe they will just go on ignoring uninsured tours, and simply go after the tours that end up in an accident. Either direction is a possibility. The FMCSA has the ability of closing down tours, they can claim they're an imminent hazard, or they could simply levy fines of up to $11k per violation (each day of a violation is a separate fine of up to $11k if I'm reading it right). Either way that would make many tours shut their doors quickly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Johnston
EF5
I can't imagine that a for-profit storm chasing tour wouldn't be considered interstate commerce, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to regulate. The point at which guests are picked up and dropped off would hardly be considered the determining factor. Any chase tour worth it's salt would surely be keeping a log of chase activities, which would reveal they cross state borders all the time.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
I have a feeling that "storm chasing" of any type will soon be viewed by lawyers, underwriters and insurance companies akin to "illegal road racing" or similar high risk, uncontrolled and unregulated ventures. It's my understanding that at least one car rental company has "storm chasing" in the "forbidden" activities. This is one reason why I've bitched about the media's one sided portrayal of chasing as a "reckless, idiot fest." I don't care how little or extensive your involvement in chasing, the "image issue" does come into play eventually. The regulations and possible repercussions aimed at commercial chasing interests will eventually trickle down to everyone -- especially after the tragic events in May put chasing under the microscope.
With lawyers in the family who specialize in criminal, insurance and injury law, I'm reminded a tour operator will likely be in big trouble if someone is seriously injured -- especially more than one person. Insurance will cover a specific amount (if the policy specifics allows), and not all policies cover legal / lawyer fees. You would be responsible for any amount awarded over the insurance limitations. Things get complex when "negligence" and "avoidance of regulations" are involved.
In addition, a lawyer or expert now has a reference event to illustrate how dangerous chasing is and "YOU KNEW IT!" If Federal or State regulations (as discussed) are ignored, or if negligence of any kind is even suggested, you could face criminal charges. Remember: some small towns and counties do not like chasers.
I am somewhat curious how insurance companies will handle the recent tragedies in El Reno, including the guy with the cell phone camera who was killed. I know it's too soon and likely improper to get into a discussion about it, but I would like to eventually know how insurance companies reacted or if lawsuits were involved. Again, for reference only, not for any other purpose.
I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in regards to insurance and regulation. It's now a part of chasing -- forever. This is one reason I'm phasing out or limiting my tornado chase tour program. Then again, this could all vaporize by next spring. Fortunately, chasing has a built in forgive and forget period -- kind of like NASCAR.
Warren
With lawyers in the family who specialize in criminal, insurance and injury law, I'm reminded a tour operator will likely be in big trouble if someone is seriously injured -- especially more than one person. Insurance will cover a specific amount (if the policy specifics allows), and not all policies cover legal / lawyer fees. You would be responsible for any amount awarded over the insurance limitations. Things get complex when "negligence" and "avoidance of regulations" are involved.
In addition, a lawyer or expert now has a reference event to illustrate how dangerous chasing is and "YOU KNEW IT!" If Federal or State regulations (as discussed) are ignored, or if negligence of any kind is even suggested, you could face criminal charges. Remember: some small towns and counties do not like chasers.
I am somewhat curious how insurance companies will handle the recent tragedies in El Reno, including the guy with the cell phone camera who was killed. I know it's too soon and likely improper to get into a discussion about it, but I would like to eventually know how insurance companies reacted or if lawsuits were involved. Again, for reference only, not for any other purpose.
I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in regards to insurance and regulation. It's now a part of chasing -- forever. This is one reason I'm phasing out or limiting my tornado chase tour program. Then again, this could all vaporize by next spring. Fortunately, chasing has a built in forgive and forget period -- kind of like NASCAR.
Warren
Dan Robinson
EF5
The reason the USDOT regulations are in place is to make sure that commercial vehicles, particularly those that carry passengers, are operating safely. They help ensure that vehicles are well-maintained and that drivers are safety-conscious, healthy and not overtaxed/fatigued. Regardless of the semantics of whether a tour is commercial for hire or not, it's in everyone's best interest to follow that protocol regardless of whether it's legally required. I understand that the reputable tour operations in fact do operate safely and are well insured, whether they have been exempted from the USDOT regulations isn't known to me.
Personally, the idea of carrying a paying passenger in my car scares me more than anything else in chasing. "This is why we can't have nice things". I wish a waiver was a straightforward answer. That is, the guest fully understands and accepts the risks of chasing like all of us do every time we go out there. From car accidents, hail, lightning, tornadoes, snakes, ticks, bad hotels, food poisoning - everything. I would assume most guests are in fact understanding, it's that one guest you have to worry about that will make your life miserable when something relatively minor goes wrong.
A major accident that causes death or permanent disability has the power to to change everything though. Waivers won't help in that event. That understanding person that signed the waiver that now can't walk after a big crash *will* be talking to a lawyer, and you'll be in court, and might very well lose if the lawyer can be convincing that what happened was due to your negligence.
Chasing isn't the only pasttime that is threatened by these liability issues. It affects *everything*. I used to ride and work on steam-powered excursion trains all the time as a kid. Now, these are extremely rare. Today the railroads are too scared to let these things run on their property for fear of someone getting hurt and suing the railroad. Even illegal trespassers who fall or get hit by trains sue the RRs all the time and either win or settle out of court. Railroads are requiring that excursion operators have sky-high liability insurance policies that have impossibly expensive premiums. For many that are still operating, they contract with Amtrak to provide the equipment and personnel because they already are insured. But that means no steam engines like before.
Personally, the idea of carrying a paying passenger in my car scares me more than anything else in chasing. "This is why we can't have nice things". I wish a waiver was a straightforward answer. That is, the guest fully understands and accepts the risks of chasing like all of us do every time we go out there. From car accidents, hail, lightning, tornadoes, snakes, ticks, bad hotels, food poisoning - everything. I would assume most guests are in fact understanding, it's that one guest you have to worry about that will make your life miserable when something relatively minor goes wrong.
A major accident that causes death or permanent disability has the power to to change everything though. Waivers won't help in that event. That understanding person that signed the waiver that now can't walk after a big crash *will* be talking to a lawyer, and you'll be in court, and might very well lose if the lawyer can be convincing that what happened was due to your negligence.
Chasing isn't the only pasttime that is threatened by these liability issues. It affects *everything*. I used to ride and work on steam-powered excursion trains all the time as a kid. Now, these are extremely rare. Today the railroads are too scared to let these things run on their property for fear of someone getting hurt and suing the railroad. Even illegal trespassers who fall or get hit by trains sue the RRs all the time and either win or settle out of court. Railroads are requiring that excursion operators have sky-high liability insurance policies that have impossibly expensive premiums. For many that are still operating, they contract with Amtrak to provide the equipment and personnel because they already are insured. But that means no steam engines like before.
Last edited:
Matt Tottle
EF4
Not putting down what you said Dan, but if you are operating a tour that ends up with serious injury or death that was not caused by a 3rd party beyond your control (ie: someone plows into you because they were too busy texting and putting on makeup to see the red light), then it means that you did something extremely wrong - and it SHOULD be on you.
Prime example (seen while googling waiver still sue): Someone signed a waiver to go ziplining, and then crashed into the platform and got injured because the person who was supposed to catch her and slow her down stepped out of the way instead. That waiver is null and void because that person's stepping out of the way constituted wanton disregard for regulations and safety. That person has very right to sue because that employee's actions directly resulted in her injury.
So yes if you put your tour in a position where they can be injured, you deserve to go down for it. But a waiver and insurance will still protect you from incidents beyond your control. I know it's not really a fair comparison, but it does sort of speak to the point - the insurance policy that I had to buy for my event ($2 million General Aggregate) actually had a significantly discounted premium because I had a lawyer-approved waiver and risk acknowledgment that all participants had to sign, and parents had to co-sign for minors.
Prime example (seen while googling waiver still sue): Someone signed a waiver to go ziplining, and then crashed into the platform and got injured because the person who was supposed to catch her and slow her down stepped out of the way instead. That waiver is null and void because that person's stepping out of the way constituted wanton disregard for regulations and safety. That person has very right to sue because that employee's actions directly resulted in her injury.
So yes if you put your tour in a position where they can be injured, you deserve to go down for it. But a waiver and insurance will still protect you from incidents beyond your control. I know it's not really a fair comparison, but it does sort of speak to the point - the insurance policy that I had to buy for my event ($2 million General Aggregate) actually had a significantly discounted premium because I had a lawyer-approved waiver and risk acknowledgment that all participants had to sign, and parents had to co-sign for minors.
Dan Robinson
EF5
I wouldn't say that all serious at-fault accidents are caused by gross negligence, though many surely are. Anyone can make a mistake, despite the best of intentions. Though he/she may not always win, it's in the capacity of a good lawyer to take any at-fault accident and spin it into a case of negligence that sends you to court, should the guest choose to pursue it.
I know there are lots of things you can do to minimize the risk of that happening, but IMO it's still present to enough of a degree that keeps me from driving a vehicle with paying passengers. Believe me, I would have been doing it for the past 5 years if I didn't think otherwise.
I know there are lots of things you can do to minimize the risk of that happening, but IMO it's still present to enough of a degree that keeps me from driving a vehicle with paying passengers. Believe me, I would have been doing it for the past 5 years if I didn't think otherwise.
ChristofferB
EF2
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 197
Since I'm from Europe where we don't have the same legal culture it's sometimes a bit difficult to grasp much of this. I have been on tours where we were quite close to hitting a deer (as mentioned) and another where we wound up driving straight under an elephant trunk tornado (after dark). For me, in case something would have happened I would not see it as negligence of the tour operator but rather an indirect cause for me signing up for a tour, and thus my responsibility. But maybe, with a $50.000 hospital bill in my hand that my insurance company won't pay, I would think differently.
Mike Smith
Two comments I hope will be helpful.
Corporation or LLC. Yes, those will help protect you IF you run them like a separate entity. This means separate bank account, tax return, annual report filed with the state, corporate minutes (if applicable), etc. Your vehicle should be different than the one you use for personal transportation and it should be properly equipped (first aid kit, fire extinguisher, etc.). IF you run the business properly, it will be difficult for a plaintiff to "piece the veil."
Lloyds of London. Do not automatically assume that insurance will be unaffordable if written by Lloyds. They wrote WeatherData, Inc.'s professional liability insurance for a number of years for a reasonable fee. You want to disclose what you are doing (point out 5/31/13 were the first ever tornado deaths while chasing) fully and let your broker see what he/she can find. Lloyds speciality is low risk/high impact events. That is what we are discussing here.
Corporation or LLC. Yes, those will help protect you IF you run them like a separate entity. This means separate bank account, tax return, annual report filed with the state, corporate minutes (if applicable), etc. Your vehicle should be different than the one you use for personal transportation and it should be properly equipped (first aid kit, fire extinguisher, etc.). IF you run the business properly, it will be difficult for a plaintiff to "piece the veil."
Lloyds of London. Do not automatically assume that insurance will be unaffordable if written by Lloyds. They wrote WeatherData, Inc.'s professional liability insurance for a number of years for a reasonable fee. You want to disclose what you are doing (point out 5/31/13 were the first ever tornado deaths while chasing) fully and let your broker see what he/she can find. Lloyds speciality is low risk/high impact events. That is what we are discussing here.
