More tornado tour groups encountering dangerous weather

Warren, have you any stats on insuring a tornado tour? I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers on cost vs claims filed vs claims paid. if claims arent being filed or paid out on, on these tours then i dont see why insurance companies would bail. They are always happy to take your money. (i used to be an insurance adjuster)

just wondering how you know insurance companies are bailing on tornado tours?

or is this just speculation of what you believe is happening based on these actions?

I cant see it being any more risky to insure than an amusement park, especially considering only 3 have ever died chasing. but thats just my perspective and opinion.




because its what customers want. they want to core punch, they want to get in the bears cage. they want to FEEL it to see it up close and personal. the ultimate thrill.


same reasons kids go to an amusement park..for the THRILL. the adventure, the adrenaline rush.

Yes, I agree that customers want an exciting experience, and yes, hail can happen. I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is when it's openly promoted like some kind of circus ride. As I noted in my original post, we don't know how it happened, and that's fair. It could happen to me or any chaser / tour group. My question was why were they there in the first place. Was it a gross miscalculation, vehicle malfunction or something else. This is fine any maybe even fun if you are a couple of chasers who know the risks, but even with wavers and acceptance of risks, tour owners do have some responsibility to keep their clients safe.

Chasing is not insured like an amusement park. Here is why. Theme parks are controlled environments where a magnitude of safety checks and regulations reduce the risks, or at least help lower the liability. With chasing, as underwriters have told me, is conducted on public roads where anyone can be involved, participating or not. There are no standards, safety regulations, checks, licensing, etc. Yet. Underwriters have a hard time writing policies when there are no safety nets or regulations to protect them. In addition, there are not enough tour companies to make a profit for most insurers, so you already have limited choices. I have family in the legal / insurance / injury attorney business and I've been told that a van load of injured or killed tourists could involve multi-million dollar claims. And what are attorneys going to do, they are going to pull up Facebooks posts. Very few insurers or underwriters want to risk that. You have to remember that storm chasing was not a highly visible (documented) entity until social media, and a few mega chasers have defined it to their own liking no matter if we like it or not.

As for insurance: I had an editorial writer plan a chase with me in May. His company could not find an insurer to cover him while chasing. (They required their own insurance). For me, this was a nightmare. I spent about 2 hours per chase morning haggling with underwriters trying to get him covered. Those who chased with me know the story. To make a long story short, I was finally able to contact several underwriters and insurers who said chasing "was becoming too dangerous," and they would need a month or so to re-write the existing policies. I was eventually able to find an insurer in the UK, although they first required an "evaluation of risks and how each risk was to be resolved." My gut feeling is that this will eventually trickle down to the major companies. I suggest some of them chime in.

So why does it matter that some chasers are now openly promoting dangerous stunts as part of their tour business? Because it will eventually effect all of us, business or privately. Pandora's box is wide open now. If you are a tour group owner, you better be ready to promote close calls and risky tactics because it's the wave of the future, the wave of the future.... :)

And yes, I agree with the post that this mostly concerns business interests ATM. I suppose it would have eventually happened anyway, regardless of complaints.

And yes, this is the way storm chasing is headed and I doubt it can be stopped. Dave Hoadley was right, it turned into a sport. But I go even further and predict chasing will eventually become extremely difficult to execute. Rental cars will be impossible to rent for chasing and they won't be insured, law enforcement will crack down and things we cannot image will pretty much ruin it. We've already seen road blocks and insurance issues. What's next?

W.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been following this thread with great interest as like it or not... it probably is the wave of the future. Sadly, I believe many of the other predictions that Warren Faidley has made may eventually come true.

I've worked for the past 5 years as a guide/driver for Tempest Tours. I can't really comment on the insurance end as that responsibility falls on the company owner, Martin Lisius. I do know that since El Reno - it has become increasingly more difficult to find an underwriter to cover storm chasing tour company operations. Tempest is one of the more established tour companies (this is our 14th chase season) with an excellent safety record. The company owns two 15 passenger vans.

I can share that as a company, Martin has insisted that we follow very strict safety guidelines and policies which all employees are required to go over prior to every chase season. Core punching, hail and close tornado encounters are a big no-no. Drivers have to stay within the speed limits, not use cell phones or glance at laptops while driving and have 8 hours of rest each night. Even our guests are required to go through a safety orientation at the beginning of each tour. Our tour directors (Bill Reid is our primary TD, but also Brian Morganti and Bob Conzemius) are the ones making the call on where and how storms are intercepted. There's a lot of experience there along with company owner Martin Lisius - maybe close to 100 years of storm chasing. That said, I agree with others that mesoscale accidents can and will happen and hail sometimes falls where it's not supposed to. We all know too well that good chasers can sometimes make horrific mistakes.

By the shear number of tour companies out on the Plains, there's a lot of competition for storm chasing tourism. There's definitely an appetite for storm chasing tourism and some guests are going want the "extreme" experience while others may not. I can safely say that as a tour company, Tempest will never promote close calls and risky tactics. Will it hurt Tempest Tours business? I guess only time will tell. Is Pandora's Box now open for all of us? Quite possibly...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again beating a dead horse, this time though I no longer provide guide services for storm chasing, so I don't give a crap anymore and you can't claim I'm biased due to financial interests. As a reminder FMCSA 387.33 for typical van tours requires 1.5 million in financial responsibility (insurance). This is true whether the tour is for direct or indirect compensation of transportation (as in the case of storm chasing), and regardless of size. The idea that storm chasing tours have truthfully obtained 1.5 million in insurance is laughable. Maybe they have obtained it, but they probably never told the truth in the application. Good luck on that paying out when tour customers decide to sue despite the liability waiver. The regulators again won't give a crap, until there is an accident that ends up in the courts. So tours are in the clear until that happens. Mark my words, it won't be a storm, it will be a regular traffic accident that will happen. Why do I feel so confident that there isn't a tour out there that obtained the insurance truthfully? I've called/mailed specific insurers that have insured storm tours in the past, trying to obtain insurance. Curiously the insurer didn't insure those groups the following year. Give me the name and phone number (or Forms MCS-90B or MCS-82B which should be provided at the request of the public) of an insurer that has provided 1.5 million in insurance knowingly and I will gladly shut up about this topic if those groups still have insurance a year later through the same company.

Edit: strongly suspect most don't even bother with insurance...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been following this thread with great interest as like it or not... it probably is the wave of the future. Sadly, I believe many of the other predictions that Warren Faidley has made may eventually come true.

I've worked for the past 5 years as a guide/driver for Tempest Tours. I can't really comment on the insurance end as that responsibility falls on the company owner, Martin Lisius. I do know that since El Reno - it has become increasingly more difficult to find an underwriter to cover storm chasing tour company operations. Tempest is one of the more established tour companies (this is our 14th chase season) with an excellent safety record. The company owns two 12 passenger vans.

I can share that as a company, Martin has insisted that we follow very strict safety guidelines and policies which all employees are required to go over prior to every chase season. Core punching, hail and close tornado encounters are a big no-no. Drivers have to stay within the speed limits, not use cell phones or glance at laptops while driving and have 8 hours of rest each night. Even our guests are required to go through a safety orientation at the beginning of each tour. Our tour directors (Bill Reid is our primary TD, but also Brian Morganti and Bob Conzemius) are the ones making the call on where and how storms are intercepted. There's a lot of experience there along with company owner Martin Lisius - maybe close to 100 years of storm chasing. That said, I agree with others that mesoscale accidents can and will happen and hail sometimes falls where it's not supposed to. We all know too well that good chasers can sometimes make horrific mistakes.

By the shear number of tour companies out on the Plains, there's a lot of competition for storm chasing tourism. There's definitely an appetite for storm chasing tourism and some guests are going want the "extreme" experience while others may not. I can safely say that as a tour company, Tempest will never promote close calls and risky tactics. Will it hurt Tempest Tours business? I guess only time will tell. Is Pandora's Box now open for all of us? Quite possibly...

I've witnessed, and hear nothing but good things about Tempest Tours and Roger Hills group. I often recommend them when someone passes on my expeditions. I'm sure there are others. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. I'd hate to see any tour group go out of business because of ill-conceived promotions and possible misbehavior. Tours are a great way to show people how chasing and weather works. It also keeps a number of inexperienced people off the roads.

Although we often see the hijinks and clips and think so what, there are many people outside chasing who don't share the same opinions. These are the same people who make decisions that could effect us all. I was once told by a very wise chaser, "Chasers need to be careful of what they say in public and how they act, because people are watching." Social media blew that suggestion out of the water!

I don't see this as a "fixable" problem, and never until chasing comes back to a level where more than one chaser dictates how things are gonna be.

W.
 
There are actually companies that will insure 1-2 people under an "adventure package" including chasing. It's the same policy they use for skydiving, scuba, etc. I have an email somewhere from the company confirming the coverage includes "storm chasing." The coverages are quite high, some well over 2 million. The problem is when you have "groups." Then you need commercial policies, and you are right. I tired for a long time to find commercial insurance for groups and I never could.

W.
 
I sure would be interested since:
"The proof of minimum levels of financial responsibility required by this section shall be considered public information and be produced for review upon reasonable request by a member of the public."

Forms MCS-90B or MCS-82B would work.
 
My understanding of the current DOT laws do not require a registration number and the usual inspections, etc., if the funds being received are "indirect." Until the DOT makes a separate ruing on this, I don't think most tour operators are in serious violation. In addition, if you are using a commercially insured vehicle, then general business liability insurance would cover the policy requirements as long as it's for the 1.5 million requirement. I'm not sure how this applies to rental vans used by some chase tour groups, which is obvious complication as far as the rules go.

W.

I believe the last company I had a client use was Adventure Sports Insurance. Also, the requirements for 1.50 million coverage are not limited to a single policy, so you could have a 1 million adventure package and other insurance coverages to reach the requirements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Correct, a usdot number is not required, inspections, etc. (that is for carriers recieving direct compensation) . However, the insurance requirements are still very much valid for most types of tours despite being paid indirectly. As I have already mentioned many times before...

The insurance regulations, as was noted to me by a fmcsa regulator, does not specify whether compensation is direct or indirect, and thus applies to both cases. This has been similarly repeated in other informational pamphlets previously published by the fmcsa.

edit: some of their information now seems more strict the last I looked at it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again beating a dead horse, this time though I no longer provide guide services for storm chasing, so I don't give a crap anymore and you can't claim I'm biased due to financial interests. As a reminder FMCSA 387.33 for typical van tours requires 1.5 million in financial responsibility (insurance). This is true whether the tour is for direct or indirect compensation of transportation (as in the case of storm chasing), and regardless of size. The idea that storm chasing tours have truthfully obtained 1.5 million in insurance is laughable. Maybe they have obtained it, but they probably never told the truth in the application. Good luck on that paying out when tour customers decide to sue despite the liability waiver. The regulators again won't give a crap, until there is an accident that ends up in the courts. So tours are in the clear until that happens. Mark my words, it won't be a storm, it will be a regular traffic accident that will happen. Why do I feel so confident that there isn't a tour out there that obtained the insurance truthfully? I've called/mailed specific insurers that have insured storm tours in the past, trying to obtain insurance. Curiously the insurer didn't insure those groups the following year. Give me the name and phone number (or Forms MCS-90B or MCS-82B) of an insurer that has provided 1.5 million in insurance knowingly and I will gladly shut up about this topic if those groups still have insurance a year later through the same company.

Edit: strongly suspect most don't even bother with insurance...


That's because the profit margin is basically zero I would think (at least it was for me the one year I ran a tour!)
Am I missing something, Robert? According to FMCSA:

§ 387.3: Applicability. (a) This subpart applies to for-hire motor carriers operating motor vehicles transporting property in interstate or foreign commerce.
(b) This subpart applies to motor carriers operating motor vehicles transporting hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous wastes in interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce.
(c) Exception. (1) The rules in this part do not apply to a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,001 pounds. This exception does not apply if the vehicle is used to transport any quantity of a Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 material, any quantity of a Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A, or Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A, or to a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7 material as it is defined in 49 CFR 173.403, in interstate or foreign commerce.
(2) The rules in this part do not apply to the transportation of non-bulk oil, non-bulk hazardous materials, substances, or wastes in intrastate commerce, except that the rules in this part do apply to the transportation of a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7 material as defined in 49 CFR 173.403, in intrastate commerce.



I looked up several 15 passenger vans and they all had GVWRs under 7,500 pounds--so this part (387) does not apply apparently. This whole section seems to deal with cargo vehicles, not passenger ones. Where are you getting your info from?
 
I have to wonder if some tours operate knowingly without insurance, thinking "nothing's going to stop me from living my dreams", willing to just take the risk of a major uninsured calamity in exchange for being able to chase all season, all year. I wouldn't expect that of the longtime reputable tours, but with many of the newer ones, it's either got to be that or a complete non-awareness of the insurance issue. When I researched this several years ago, there was no affordable coverage available without charging guests at least triple the usual rates, or just going to conventional 15-passenger van route and hoping to book a full season to cover costs. Could it even be that some just plan to try and hide behind their LLC and/or file for bankruptcy in the event of a major judgement? I have heard of shady charter bus companies doing just that in order to keep operating: just dissolve the old company when they get sued, and start a new one. Again, I'm not accusing anyone of actually taking that approach, but with so many tours running now, I can't imagine some of that mentality *isn't* going on.

As others have said, none of this will really matter until the first big accident with major injuries or deaths. I can only hope it doesn't trickle down to personal chasing.

EDIT: Here is a link to one example of the charter bus regulation evasion issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyregion/federal-officials-shut-down-26-bus-operators.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stan, 387.33 not 387.3.

Yes, I understand that. 387.3 describes the applicability of the part (which is 387) 387.33 lists the insurance requirements under this part.

OK--I just saw your previous post--interesting, since the regulation seems to contradict what is found in the pamphlet you reference!
 
Yes, I understand that. 387.3 describes the applicability of the part (which is 387) 387.33 lists the insurance requirements under this part.

OK--I just saw your previous post--interesting, since the regulation seems to contradict what is found in the pamphlet you reference!

387.27 covers applicability for passenger carriers (not property).
 
OK, yeah I see it is under a different "subpart"
Technically, the regulation is poorly worded since it says "applicability of this part" NOT subpart. But try arguing that to a judge ;)
 
Back
Top