Dan Robinson
EF5
I also wouldn't be so much concerned about the regulation's requirement, as it's just a bare minimum. $1.5 million is not going to be nearly enough in the event of a major accident with 3 or more people seriously hurt.
More tornado tour groups encountering dangerous weather
- Thread starter Warren Faidley
- Start date
Robert Edmonds
EF5
Correct me if I'm wrong LLC, incorporation, etc. protects you if you are not knowingly/purposefully breaking the law.
Stan Rose
EF5
yeah, it should protect you from the typical negligence situations...course youd still lose your business.
Todd Rector
EF4
One thing for sure, any accident would be exceptionally well-documented by running video equipment. I agree with a previous post that the accident will be a simple traffic accident rather than a tornado encounter. Speeding to get to a storm, going too fast for conditions and sliding off a gravel road into a ditch, not completely stopping at stop signs, etc. Two of these are illegal, one is probably negligent.
Marcus Diaz
EF5
Something a little off topic but not really...I think everyone had seen the Basehunter's video by now and know about the little white Honda that was perilously close to that tornado with the flying debris. Let's say that car was damage from the debris and the person goes to claim the insurance. Can the insurance deny the claim because of that viral video? Can they run that license plate and completely drop their coverage for blatant careless driving?
Todd Rector
EF4
No matter how obvious the danger is to everyone who has seen that video, if this was your average Joe Driver I think an insurance company would have to pay. The driver wasn't breaking any law, and was not (presumedly) cited by the police for careless/inattentive driving. While I am sure we would all love to know what the heck that driver was really thinking, all the driver would have to say is "I panicked and didn't know what to do". Under extraordinary circumstances such as this, what else could an insurance company do but pay out? In the big picture (heavy damage to the city of Pilger) a single auto claim is very small in comparison and not worth much investigation even in the presence of such a video. That being said:
If that was a chaser's vehicle* the insurance company could easily prove there was intent to get that close, and would probably exclude coverage because the damage was foreseeable and avoidable. (Also, the chaser should probably worry more about their life insurance than car insurance if they are going to do that sort of thing. That was a serious attempt to "win" a Darwin Award).
*It's pretty easy to make a determination whether or not you are a chaser. A red flag immediately goes up if you are in Nowhere, Nebraska during a tornado, but you live in Denver. During the phone interview, your insurance company will chat you up and ask what you were doing, etc., and if you lie to them in order to secure coverage, you are committing insurance fraud.
If that was a chaser's vehicle* the insurance company could easily prove there was intent to get that close, and would probably exclude coverage because the damage was foreseeable and avoidable. (Also, the chaser should probably worry more about their life insurance than car insurance if they are going to do that sort of thing. That was a serious attempt to "win" a Darwin Award).
*It's pretty easy to make a determination whether or not you are a chaser. A red flag immediately goes up if you are in Nowhere, Nebraska during a tornado, but you live in Denver. During the phone interview, your insurance company will chat you up and ask what you were doing, etc., and if you lie to them in order to secure coverage, you are committing insurance fraud.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
One thing to beware of, insurance companies do troll Facebook for underwriting and fraud. There are multiple references to this practice on the Internet, here is one I found by a simple search: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/business/la-fi-facebook-evidence-20110125
This was one of the original reasons for this thread. If a chaser or tour company posts this kind of stuff, people are going to notice. I think we can all claim to have done bonehead things. Some are unavoidable and often caught on video. But do we really need to post everything, especially when it makes us or others look idiotic and hurts the chase community? I've got footage of tourists exiting a "popular"
tornado chase tour van and standing in the middle of the road on the other side of a hill. I had to skid to avoid them. Am I going to post that, of course not.
I'd be really careful what I post in the current social media environment.
W.
This was one of the original reasons for this thread. If a chaser or tour company posts this kind of stuff, people are going to notice. I think we can all claim to have done bonehead things. Some are unavoidable and often caught on video. But do we really need to post everything, especially when it makes us or others look idiotic and hurts the chase community? I've got footage of tourists exiting a "popular"
tornado chase tour van and standing in the middle of the road on the other side of a hill. I had to skid to avoid them. Am I going to post that, of course not. I'd be really careful what I post in the current social media environment.
W.
Marcus Diaz
EF5
I'm not going to explain in detail for obvious reason, but on my last car I claimed hail damage after a few hail storms rolled through the area. It had a combination of several different small hail events, but luckily the storm I claimed it on was one just outside of town. But I ended up trading this car in after almost driving into some massive hail some 2 weeks after it came fresh from the body shop.
Robert Edmonds
EF5
As I was reminded once on this forum:
"In reality, there IS NO chasing community."
edit: and I kind of agree now. I'll point out curious stuff, but you are all welcome to do whatever you want. Rarely do I get a lovey community feel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Rector
EF4
A few thoughts regarding chase tours (regardless of motivation and behavior)
Regarding insurance:
From a coverage aspect, it seems prudent to have a full-disclosure "come to Jesus" discussion with your insurer so they are well-informed of the conditions you will be chasing in, and they are aware it is a COMMERCIAL, FOR-PROFIT endeavor with paying passengers. It is at this point that 95 percent of insurance companies who do not employ actual underwriters will decline coverage. Once you have discussed these things with a company that is willing to underwrite you (Lloyd's of London, perhaps), you will find they will offer a highly restricted policy that costs a literal fortune per year, and it will be filled with exclusions/conditions such that the insurance company is favored in nearly any situation and can therefore find ways to deny a catastrophic claim. Insurance companies are FOR-PROFIT businesses and have an entire fleet of lawyers at their disposal. They simply will not risk $150K+ liability per passenger plus likely vehicle damage for a premium most tour companies can afford.
Because of this, I speculate there are a lot of pop-up chase tours that only have typical personal insurance coverage on their vehicles, with their "business model" relying on a combination of luck, insurance company deception "I was jus' drivin' down the road, and... HAIL!" and the relative comfort of having signed waivers from their customers (more on this in a bit).
Regarding liability waivers:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't have to be to initiate litigation
Even the most iron-clad waiver can be shredded under certain circumstances, and I chuckle to think how many tour operators took the cheap route and used a boilerplate waiver they found on the internet rather than engaged an attorney to write one. That being said - A customer can sign a waiver that states they understand chasing is inherently dangerous and that they may be placed in dangerous situations the tour company cannot predict or control, but the tour company would STILL be expected to engage in best practices when presented with choices and not act in a reckless or negligent manner.
Practical example:
Getting in an accident while driving 100mph or running a stop sign to get to a storm: Likely not able to be waived (it's hard to say you're acting in a non-reckless manner when you're breaking the law.)
Reasonable exception: Driving 100mph or running a stop sign because OMG THAT TORNADO IS GOING TO KILL US, might be considered part of the "inherently dangerous" nature of storm chasing.
Perhaps ironically, any litigation from an injury accident it would be highly documented because nearly everyone involved (including the tour operator) has unbiased video documentation. This would include video of any speeding, running stop signs, driving faster than conditions/visibility would warrant, decisions to drive through a hail core rather than take safer, alternative routes... And tapes would be played to a jury from the beginning in an attempt to show patterns of reckless behavior. If you have NEVER made a questionable pass on the highway or gone more that 5 over the speed limit on an active chase, you are definitely in the minority. I sure wouldn't want to face that sort of scrutiny.
Regarding insurance:
From a coverage aspect, it seems prudent to have a full-disclosure "come to Jesus" discussion with your insurer so they are well-informed of the conditions you will be chasing in, and they are aware it is a COMMERCIAL, FOR-PROFIT endeavor with paying passengers. It is at this point that 95 percent of insurance companies who do not employ actual underwriters will decline coverage. Once you have discussed these things with a company that is willing to underwrite you (Lloyd's of London, perhaps), you will find they will offer a highly restricted policy that costs a literal fortune per year, and it will be filled with exclusions/conditions such that the insurance company is favored in nearly any situation and can therefore find ways to deny a catastrophic claim. Insurance companies are FOR-PROFIT businesses and have an entire fleet of lawyers at their disposal. They simply will not risk $150K+ liability per passenger plus likely vehicle damage for a premium most tour companies can afford.
Because of this, I speculate there are a lot of pop-up chase tours that only have typical personal insurance coverage on their vehicles, with their "business model" relying on a combination of luck, insurance company deception "I was jus' drivin' down the road, and... HAIL!" and the relative comfort of having signed waivers from their customers (more on this in a bit).
Regarding liability waivers:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't have to be to initiate litigation
Even the most iron-clad waiver can be shredded under certain circumstances, and I chuckle to think how many tour operators took the cheap route and used a boilerplate waiver they found on the internet rather than engaged an attorney to write one. That being said - A customer can sign a waiver that states they understand chasing is inherently dangerous and that they may be placed in dangerous situations the tour company cannot predict or control, but the tour company would STILL be expected to engage in best practices when presented with choices and not act in a reckless or negligent manner.
Practical example:
Getting in an accident while driving 100mph or running a stop sign to get to a storm: Likely not able to be waived (it's hard to say you're acting in a non-reckless manner when you're breaking the law.)
Reasonable exception: Driving 100mph or running a stop sign because OMG THAT TORNADO IS GOING TO KILL US, might be considered part of the "inherently dangerous" nature of storm chasing.
Perhaps ironically, any litigation from an injury accident it would be highly documented because nearly everyone involved (including the tour operator) has unbiased video documentation. This would include video of any speeding, running stop signs, driving faster than conditions/visibility would warrant, decisions to drive through a hail core rather than take safer, alternative routes... And tapes would be played to a jury from the beginning in an attempt to show patterns of reckless behavior. If you have NEVER made a questionable pass on the highway or gone more that 5 over the speed limit on an active chase, you are definitely in the minority. I sure wouldn't want to face that sort of scrutiny.
Jake Orosi
EF4
Regarding liability waivers:
I am not a lawyer, but I don't have to be to initiate litigation
Even the most iron-clad waiver can be shredded under certain circumstances, and I chuckle to think how many tour operators took the cheap route and used a boilerplate waiver they found on the internet rather than engaged an attorney to write one. That being said - A customer can sign a waiver that states they understand chasing is inherently dangerous and that they may be placed in dangerous situations the tour company cannot predict or control, but the tour company would STILL be expected to engage in best practices when presented with choices and not act in a reckless or negligent manner.
I was in the middle of typing something very like this when my computer did something bad, lost what I'd written, and I was too frustrated to type it up again.
"Liability waivers" are not as all-inclusive or protecting as some people in some places I've read seem to think they are. Your passengers can sign any waiver you hand them; if they get into a vehicle that you're driving, and you as the driver of the vehicle make decisions that lead to damage, injury, and/or death you can paper your birdcage with those waivers.
Walking along an unattended beach or through an unpatrolled nature preserve can be "at your own risk". Using unsupervised, unmaintained playground equipment can be "at your own risk". Your car, while being actively operated by you, is not such a circumstance; you can't make other people sign away your responsibility for their safety as the operator of the vehicle. This is leaving aside the whole "business ethics" part of it.
