CAP Members Become Financial Liable for All Vehicle Accidents?

[RADIOMAN015]

My understanding is the new board stance is that IF you have an accident even if it isn't your fault while driving a CAP vehicle, it is CAP intention to file a claim against your insurance company!!!!  It appears that CAP basically doesn't want to  fund any repairs now, and will use this as a ploy to get member's insurance to cover regardless of who is at fault (even if you clearly are not at fault).  This means that members insurance premiums could rise for their volunteer efforts.   Can anyone verify this one way or the other?
RM

[Pumbaa]

Since rejoining CAP the past 3 years I've refused to drive a CAP vehicle....  This just confirms I am right...

Our Group just got rid of all CAP vehicles earlier this year.. I guess the commander knew what was working it's way down the pipeline..

[Timbo]

That is a shame.  Let them try to file the claim against someones insurance......that is what lawyers were built for.  I know that with my insurance company (USAA) I have to notify them if I will drive a corporate work vehicle.  It may just be my state laws in play I am not sure. 

If CAP CORP does follow through on this rumor I would think we would have to sign some form from them stating they can file against us.  If not, (and I am no lawyer) wouldn't that be a great lawsuit??

I know I don't have to have insurance to drive a friends car, only a drivers license, so when I wreck the car it goes to his insurance company, as I don't have any insurance, then he can sue me if he has full tort on his insurance policy for the damages.

Sadly if this goes through, I would never drive another CAP vehicle again.  I believe many others would follow suit and only IDIOTS would drive corporate vehicles.     

[arajca]

What is the source for this RUMINT?

[Eclipse]

Yes, how about a quoted source instead of wives-tale hearsay, which is bound to creep into the lexicon of "what is wrong with CAP" despite the fact that again, its utter nonsense.

For one thing, anyone who has ever read their insurance policy would know that without special riders, the vast majority of consumer coverage explicitly excludes vehicles used in the course of business and/or service to a government agency.

Second, NHQ can't simply "file a claim against your personal insurance" - when I drive a COV, it is no different than when I drive a vehicle for a business for which I am employed - the liability goes against the vehicle and the owner, not the driver.

In order to try and recover damages against a member who was driving, CAP, Inc., would have to file a civil suit against that member and then prove negligence outside normal duties, and if that member was "on duty", there's a very good chance CAP, Inc., would have to provide legal counsel for the very person they are suing.

[FW]

 

No.  Nada.  Fugettaboutit.   CAP members are not financially liable for all vehicle accidents.  However, if a "report of survey" investigation shows driver negligence, there may be an "assessment"  made.  A new CAPR 174-1 will explain this process.  Until now, I have never heard of any member being held personally or financially liable for a vehicle accident.

[Timbo]

^ But in the near future when the new 174-1 comes out they may be held liable??

[LtCol Hooligan]

I think that goes without saying that if there is gross negligence, you will pay.  This is no different than with the planes.  We had a mishap a few months ago when a driver pulled into a parking spot and bumped another truck.  There was no one in the truck, but the owner was present (and a little miffed).  They filled out an accident report and then we went through the motions with the safety forms and such.  CAP's insurance paid for the other person's vehicle and unfortunately the newer CAP van has a small smudge in the bumper.  Moral of the story is that although this was the driver's fault, she was not grossly negligent, ie. driving too fast or something like that.  CAP paid and her insurance was clear.  Accidents will happen folks.  CAP understands that.

[Pylon]

^ But in the near future when the new 174-1 comes out they may be held liable??

I don't think that's a change in policy/practice.  If you take the CAP van out on an unauthorized joy ride, blasting the radio, peeling out and ripping donuts in a school parking lot and you subsequently plow into a school bus, do you think CAP is not going to expect you to reimburse them for expenses incurred? 

[Eclipse]

What he said...   

[Timbo]

^ But in the near future when the new 174-1 comes out they may be held liable??

I don't think that's a change in policy/practice.  If you take the CAP van out on an unauthorized joy ride, blasting the radio, peeling out and ripping donuts in a school parking lot and you subsequently plow into a school bus, do you think CAP is not going to expect you to reimburse them for expenses incurred? 

Yes.....I will stop that immediately.  Man.....first time I laughed all day, Thanks MIKE!

[MIKE]

If you take the CAP van out on an unauthorized joy ride, blasting the radio, peeling out and ripping donuts in a school parking lot ...

This must really be how all those roll-overs happened. 

[RiverAux]

I'd be interested in knowing if a CAP member has challenged as "assessment" for damage to a CAP aircraft (or vehicle) and if they lost the challenge, what happened then?  Just what recourse does CAP have to go after someobdy who refuses to pay an "asssessment" made against them? 

[Johnny Yuma]

It used to be that with CAP's "self insurance" if you had any accident no matter the reason that the $500 "deductible" was on the member. This was late 80's-early 90's. Not sure when it changed.

[SJFedor]

I'd be interested in knowing if a CAP member has challenged as "assessment" for damage to a CAP aircraft (or vehicle) and if they lost the challenge, what happened then?  Just what recourse does CAP have to go after someobdy who refuses to pay an "asssessment" made against them? 

I would assume since you agreed to operate the vehicle/aircraft IAW current regulations, and you end up getting assessed, that NHQ would have legal recourse to begin a civil suit if you failed to pay.

[Cecil DP]

I'd be interested in knowing if a CAP member has challenged as "assessment" for damage to a CAP aircraft (or vehicle) and if they lost the challenge, what happened then?  Just what recourse does CAP have to go after someobdy who refuses to pay an "asssessment" made against them? 

I would assume since you agreed to operate the vehicle/aircraft IAW current regulations, and you end up getting assessed, that NHQ would have legal recourse to begin a civil suit if you failed to pay.

If you didn't pay you could be 2b's for not paying the assessment.

My advice to members who are concerned about financial liability is just don't drive the vehicle. If I were assessed I would develop "whiplash" and countersue for damages due to negligent maintainence.

[RiverAux]

If you didn't pay you could be 2b's for not paying the assessment.

Well, I pretty much assumed the 2b, but if this situation has arisen has CAP gone after the member for the assessment beyond that? 

[FW]

I'd be interested in knowing if a CAP member has challenged as "assessment" for damage to a CAP aircraft (or vehicle) and if they lost the challenge, what happened then?  Just what recourse does CAP have to go after somebody who refuses to pay an "assessment" made against them? 

There have been assessments made for aircraft damages.  I don't know about vehicles.
I don't know of any challenges made however, all assessments to date (I know of) have been for $500 or less.  Most members assessed have quit CAP.  I don't think we have gone after them for the cash.  However, after CAPR 174-1 is published, there may be a threshold where that option may be persued.

When CAP pilots complete a CAPF 5 ride, they understand what is expected and what the consequences of negligent operations are.  When a member obtains a CAP "drivers permit" the same understanding is required.  As I understand it, this is basically a contract which would hold up in a collection action.   As for "counter suits", we would go after the expenses for them as well if deemed "frivolous".    

There have never been such actions to date but, if I feel the urge....

[Major Carrales]

Why not just drive safely?  As with aviation, if one is doing what they should via safety (in case of a vehicle, slow down, be alert (Semper Vigilans, after all) and be attentive) then one never need even deal with insurance woes.

I find it unusual that most people react this way when these type of policies occur, its as if one starts from a position of culpability instead of reason.  Just my opinion, of course, however, one risks insurance vioation simply getting on the road in any vehicle.

[RiverAux]

I think what makes people nervous is that they don't trust that CAP would be fair about such things, both in determining whether an assessment should be made or in being fair about the amount of that assessment.  Personally, I think this might be another area where a little sunshine on the process would do the organization some good.  Also, there is no evidence that this sort of program either makes people act safer in the first place and looks more like a straight-out attempt to punish people.