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. 

[Major Carrales]

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. 

Those that mess up must be help accountable.  If someone is lacks in their safety, they once might say they deserve to be "help accountable."  If that is a "punishment," then so be it. 

In my life I have come to note that most "punishments" are built in.  One fails to heed a warning or disregard a policy/procedure...then they live (or die) with the consequences.  One man's opinion.

[RiverAux]

As implied by my question, I have yet to see this process carried out against anyone I know, so I remain skeptical but somewhat open-minded about it. 

I know that if I did something really stupid while driving a CAP vehicle that I would be open to being held financially responsible IF it were done fairly. 

[desertengineer1]

This is rumor mongering again.

No CAP Wing CC in their right mind would go after a member in an accident not their fault.  Two levels of common sense are in there, minimum. 

First, it's a pretty low thing to try to do - most CC's have better sense than that.  Second, it's a HIGH legal risk.  A big insurance company's legal department would have a field day with it.  I would also predict they have a little more money than HQ CAP.  Even if a Wing CC tried such a thing, there should be an entire chain of people to step in, saying, "umm.....no".

Such nonsense...

[Major Carrales]

This is rumor mongering again.

No CAP Wing CC in their right mind would go after a member in an accident not their fault.  Two levels of common sense are in there, minimum. 

First, it's a pretty low thing to try to do - most CC's have better sense than that.  Second, it's a HIGH legal risk.  A big insurance company's legal department would have a field day with it.  I would also predict they have a little more money than HQ CAP.  Even if a Wing CC tried such a thing, there should be an entire chain of people to step in, saying, "umm.....no".

Such nonsense...

I agree on these points, however...

My point is a simple one..."one wrecks a vehicle, one has to fess up responsibility for that accident." 

Some seem to demand, or even think they are somehow entitled to, some sort of "free ride in CAP."  It is the "free ride" mentality and complacency that the "free ride" mentality spawns that is likely the true evil haunting our safety programs.

There was a time, when a similar rumor about Aircraft liability, decimated a squadron I know of.  No one wanted to fly anymore because they would have to "pay for any damages they caused."  Numbers dropped to almost catistrophic levels. Why would such a policy scare anyone so? 

CAP is not free or cheap flying, it is a tradition bound form of Community Service going back to those days of WWII.  Yes, take advantage of the opportunities to fly, but never forget that the aircraft and vehicles of CAP are not "consumables" or "worthless chattel" for members to tatter and ding as they please for their own ends.

Have pride in what you have; I, for one, am glad and proud that we have a CAP Van assigned to us...also that we are getting an aircraft after the turn of the new year. 

[Eclipse]

Some seem to demand, or even think they are somehow entitled to, some sort of "free ride in CAP."  It is the "free ride" mentality and complacency that the "free ride" mentality spawns that is likely the true evil haunting our safety programs.

I agree with the further comment that this is a societal issue not limited to CAP, spawned of a culture where there is little emphasis placed on personal responsibility.

[RiverAux]

No one wanted to fly anymore because they would have to "pay for any damages they caused."  Numbers dropped to almost catistrophic levels. Why would such a policy scare anyone so? 

Like I said earlier, I think it is not because they don't want to pay for damage that they caused because of their own stupidity, its that they don't trust that such a policy would be administered fairly by CAP.

By the way, the aircraft thing isn't a rumor -- it is in the regulations. 

[desertengineer1]

I agree on these points, however...

My point is a simple one..."one wrecks a vehicle, one has to fess up responsibility for that accident." 

Some seem to demand, or even think they are somehow entitled to, some sort of "free ride in CAP."  It is the "free ride" mentality and complacency that the "free ride" mentality spawns that is likely the true evil haunting our safety programs.

There was a time, when a similar rumor about Aircraft liability, decimated a squadron I know of.  No one wanted to fly anymore because they would have to "pay for any damages they caused."  Numbers dropped to almost catistrophic levels. Why would such a policy scare anyone so? 

CAP is not free or cheap flying, it is a tradition bound form of Community Service going back to those days of WWII.  Yes, take advantage of the opportunities to fly, but never forget that the aircraft and vehicles of CAP are not "consumables" or "worthless chattel" for members to tatter and ding as they please for their own ends.

Have pride in what you have; I, for one, am glad and proud that we have a CAP Van assigned to us...also that we are getting an aircraft after the turn of the new year. 

I don't see the problem with the situation that someone is careless and neglegent - aircraft or vehicle.

But the original post was about the fear that even if it wasn't your fault, action would be taken against you anyway.  This is pure hogwash.  The other driver's insurance company (or the driver) will be in the hot seat.  If it's a unique situation like an illegal alien in an uninsured vehicle (happened to a friend of mine not in CAP - scary), CAP will still deal with it, but the member will be fine.  

Bottom line - if it is your fault and you were doing something stupid, yeah, you will be held responsible.  If it was NOT your fault (and you weren't doing something dumb), you'll be fine.

Just don't do dumb things and the world will be happy.

[Major Carrales]

Some seem to demand, or even think they are somehow entitled to, some sort of "free ride in CAP."  It is the "free ride" mentality and complacency that the "free ride" mentality spawns that is likely the true evil haunting our safety programs.

I agree with the further comment that this is a societal issue not limited to CAP, spawned of a culture where there is little emphasis placed on personal responsibility.

Yes, some would say that somewhere down the line we got to the point where suddenly everything is "someone elses" fault, problem or issue.  Parents blame the schools when their kids are failing (even though the student hasn't turned in a bloody thing nor come to the school infavor of skipping), kids grow up to blame their parents for their own wrog choices (after all, a person's parent can be blamed for not getting their kids a certain christmas gift at age 7 so, of course, the child had to become a womanizing drunk 30 years later) and everyone looks to government to take care of them (since charity is not the domain of govenrment instead of religion, where it is normally a tenet of doctrine).

Wow!  That's a rant worth of the political forums I frequent, abliet not any less true for being posted here.

We have to have high standards in our policies and practices, if not...if we don't care to care about our actions...the buck will never stop being passed.  In a world where nothing is anyone's own fault, then there is never a need to correct, change or refine the system for the better.

[Major Carrales]

No one wanted to fly anymore because they would have to "pay for any damages they caused."  Numbers dropped to almost catistrophic levels. Why would such a policy scare anyone so? 

Like I said earlier, I think it is not because they don't want to pay for damage that they caused because of their own stupidity, its that they don't trust that such a policy would be administered fairly by CAP.

By the way, the aircraft thing isn't a rumor -- it is in the regulations. 

Dessertenginner1 has addressed your issue.  No CAP entity is going to go after anyone who is "in the right."  It is counterproductive and would be followed by legal actions and other litigation that would not be worth it for any party involved.

(By the way, as an aside, there never is, it would seem in the general body of CAP, as much conspiracy as CAPTALK seems to imply there is.  By that I mean to say that most CAP people I know don't even know what CAPTALK is much less the issues we post here at the "WATERGATE" level.)

If there is to be insurance liability based on a regualtion, we operate within it's parameters, try to avoid the "horseplay" and "stupidities" that cause accidents and will take responsibility should there be an accident or other trouble.  Not because it is in the regs alone, but because it is the right and honorable thing to do.

[RiverAux]

Dessertenginner1 has addressed your issue.  No CAP entity is going to go after anyone who is "in the right." 

Hmm, tell that to some of the people who have been kicked out of the organization in the past.  I think a healthy dose of skepticism towards the assessment system is warranted because of our not-so-pristine history in this area. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Well actually if you go by the current regulation on vehicles CAPR 77-1...." 1)
For damage that occurs due to a member's (simple) negligence, the member may be assessed up to $500. Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent, careful person would use under similar circumstances...."  If you hit a parked vehicle while you are trying to park the CAP vehicle, in my opinon that would seem to me that you are at fault (from an insurance standpoint you would be liable).  Perhaps you are not experienced enough in driving that specific vehicle.  Gross negligence is in the next paragraph in the regulation.   BTW the regulation also indicates that other personnel besides the driver can also be held responsible for the accident.  I wonder how consistent CAP wide this determination would be the same for the member not to paying anything? 

RM

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.

[RiverAux]

Exactly why I alluded to the need to put some sunshine on how this is being implemented -- specifically, whenever a CAP member is assessed for such damages it needs to be noted somewhere public so that we can see what happens.  Perhaps the best way would be to include it in the Safety Sentinel where they mention all the accidents.  They wouldn't have to mention it by name or wing, but could still spread the word. 

[Eclipse]

Dessertenginner1 has addressed your issue.  No CAP entity is going to go after anyone who is "in the right." 

I will, if you give me their names, because frankly I've never met one, or even heard of one.

There's always more to the story than "member = angel, CAP=evil", whether its the actual infraction, or the member's actions post-incident.

[RiverAux]

Didn't say that they were all unjustified.  I know of more justified 2bs than unjust, but the fact that the unjustified ones have occurred are enough to give me concern about CAP's ability to always do the right, or the smart, thing.

[Major Carrales]

Dessertenginner1 has addressed your issue.  No CAP entity is going to go after anyone who is "in the right." 

I will, if you give me their names, because frankly I've never met one, or even heard of one.

There's always more to the story than "member = angel, CAP=evil", whether its the actual infraction, or the member's actions post-incident.

Maybe my understanding of JUSTICE is a bit more idealistic than yours.  Suffice it to say this then..

"Begin not with either side as EVIL; the member should nto be out to 'screw' CAP and CAP should nto be out to 'screw' the membership."

We live in a time where things seem to be in the air...nebulous and ambiguous.  We tend  to see our Government as an EVIL entity and the people as ignorant and apathetic.  I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

Should we condemn/cannonize CAP policy based on the sole reason... "CAP is out to get us/Never trust anyone over the rank of Lt Col" or should we condemn/cannonize members because they "are selfish opportunists/ all they want to do is fly for cheap?"

It would seem like we have entered that discussion here.  I am still formulating my thoughts on the matter.

[RADIOMAN015]

I sort of baited the site with my initial post BUT....  I think that members volunteering to drive a CAP vehicle are not getting ANY personal benefit from this (hey you even have to fill the vehicle gas tank & than wait for reimbursement -- because the wing banker program does not allow units to have a petty cash fund that just about every company & even non-profit organizations have with an appointed petty cash custodian).  As far as aircraft flying the Cessna 182's rate per hour in some instances is more than renting a Cessna 172 from a local FBO, so members flying the CAP aircraft at personal expense are basically to remain proficient so they can participate in missions versus just plain pleasure of flying an aircraft!!!

Again, it seems that the current rule, will basically penalize the member up to $500.00 for simple negligence when property damage occurs.  IF there's personal injury involved, than all bets are off on what is really going to happen (because the other regulation basically says that CAP legal department has to be consulted even before the formal accident report is submitted -- so you know right from the start that the spin will be on to protect the corporation & not necessarily the "volunteer" member) , BUT the member will likely have to report the potential liability to his/her insurance carrier.  Maybe the new rule will have a higher amount & mandate certain other actions.  So it gets down to a personal decision by each member.  What potential financial risk am I willing to take on behalf of my "volunteer" efforts for CAP?  For example the member who gets a CAP driver's license might decide that they will only drive a CAP vehicle (van) on an authorized AF mission, and perhaps limit the number of people in the vehicle (e.g. UDF team composition).  IF it involves loading the 12 pax van with cadets for a CAP sponsored activity only, they may decide that the personal financial risk potential is too high ane elect "not to volunteer" for this activity.  The same could apply to flying (AF sponsored mission, versus CAP activity).

There's not enough public information posted to the membership to really determine if some member's perceived increased potential financial risk is reality, since any lawsuits against the corporation are always discussed in executive session & no reporting is made as to how much money CAP members had to pay the corporation for damages to CAP vehicles, aircraft, or equipment.

I wonder how other non-profit organizations handle volunteers who have an accident while driving for an organizations?

RM
   

Should we condemn/cannonize CAP policy based on the sole reason... "CAP is out to get us/Never trust anyone over the rank of Lt Col" or should we condemn/cannonize members because they "are selfish opportunists/ all they want to do is fly for cheap?"

[Eclipse]

I sort of baited the site with my initial post BUT....  I think that members volunteering to drive a CAP vehicle are not getting ANY personal benefit from this...

No wear and tear on their personal vehicle, and you are assuming the driver is the one paying the bills, an invalid assumption at best.  If, for example, its a special activity or encampment, the drivers can be and are reimbursed on the spot.  Also, in many cases those being driven pool a few dollars each towards gas, fill up and everyone moves on with their lives.

Further, my wing turns around WBP checks in a week.  If yours doesn't look there, and if its a hardship, don't assume the liability for the expense.

As far as aircraft flying the Cessna 182's rate per hour in some instances is more than renting a Cessna 172 from a local FBO, so members flying the CAP aircraft at personal expense are basically to remain proficient so they can participate in missions versus just plain pleasure of flying an aircraft!!!

First, let's at least compare apples to apples - a 182 does not equal a 172 anywhere from a cost perspective, CAP or elsewhere.  Second, CAP service is about more than $100 hamburger runs that most GA pilots spend their money on. If you aren't interested in that, move on.

And if you're getting a 172 for anywhere near CAP rental rates, the odds are it is not in anywhere near the condition that the CAP plane is in.

Again, it seems that the current rule, will basically penalize the member up to $500.00 for simple negligence when property damage occurs.  IF there's personal injury involved, than all bets are off on what is really going to happen (because the other regulation basically says that CAP legal department has to be consulted even before the formal accident report is submitted -- so you know right from the start that the spin will be on to protect the corporation & not necessarily the "volunteer" member).

Another invalid assumption.

BUT the member will likely have to report the potential liability to his/her insurance carrier.

Another one - there isn't even a requirement that a member have car insurance.  I know plenty of city-bound members that don't even own personal vehicles.  Obviously an accident you may have as the driver of any vehicle will go into the public records and could work against you in states with point systems, but that is hardly financial liability.

If the risk / reward quotient is too high, don't fly, don't drive a POV, and maybe it'd be better for all concerned if you found a different outlet for public service, but there's also plenty you can do in, and for, CAP that entails very little cost, and no assumption of risk for corporate assets.

I also love the end-game argument about how this will ultimately cost us membership when the risks become too high.

This entire post is a whole pile of steaming nonsense, being argued by people who obviously don't understand the regs, the full situation, or even how liability insurance works.  Want to have some fun?  Actually read your insurance policies, health insurance (especially supplemental carriers like AFLAC), and discuss this with your HR department.  Many of you will be very unpleasantly surprised what you are actually not allowed to do and not covered for, without a mention of CAP.

If your wing can't reimburse its members, is bent on making their lives unpleasant, and in general picks the worst, most oppressive stance in every single case, address the fixes, or accept its not going to change, but quit assuming that every corner of CAP is like that.

Some of us actually enjoy our time spent, have not been run into financial ruin, and work together to make things better.  We don't always get along, don't always agree, and don't always do the 100% right thing, but if the picture of CAP opertions were actually as bleak as a few vocal members here make it seem, there'd be zero members anywhere.

[Timbo]

So if NHQ did hit you up for $$, couldn't you counter-sue for "injuries sustained that only presented after the fact"?? 

There are many dishonest individuals in this world, so NHQ can face court costs and a litigation that could go on for a year...maybe longer, or waive the $500.00 deduction they were going to make you pay.

PLUS.....how do they know what insurance carrier I have, I would have to give it to them, and at the scene of an accident in a CAP vehicle, I present the CAP insurance card, not mine. 

They can send bills to a members house, but for amounts up to $500.00, is it really worth going after on the part of CAP?? 

[RADIOMAN015]

[If the risk / reward quotient is too high, don't fly, don't drive a POV, and maybe it'd be better for all concerned if you found a different outlet for public service, but there's also plenty you can do in, and for, CAP that entails very little cost, and no assumption of risk for corporate assets.

COMMENT: I do agree with you on this, again it's a member's individual choice as to their involvement in aspect of the CAP program. On the ES actual mission side, I find that it basically is the same people involved throughout the wing

I also love the end-game argument about how this will ultimately cost us membership when the risks become too high.

COMMENT:  Didn't intend on implying that.  HOWEVER, is a legitimate reseach question, on how other non profit organization treat their volunteers who drive vehicles, and have an accident.  Remember that right up front CAP is being punitive against a member if there's an accident.

This entire post is a whole pile of steaming nonsense, being argued by people who obviously don't understand the regs, the full situation, or even how liability insurance works.  Want to have some fun?  Actually read your insurance policies, health insurance (especially supplemental carriers like AFLAC), and discuss this with your HR department.  Many of you will be very unpleasantly surprised what you are actually not allowed to do and not covered for, without a mention of CAP.

COMMENT:  It's fantasy to believe that CAP's insurance carrier or CAP for that matter would not try to go against a member's insurance carrier.  It's called subrogation, and it's typical in the entire insurance industry.  Everyone likes those premium dollars coming in but no one likes to pay out and will investigate very carefully IF they can get the money from another insurance company or individual.

Some of us actually enjoy our time spent, have not been run into financial ruin, and work together to make things better.  We don't always get along, don't always agree, and don't always do the 100% right thing, but if the picture of CAP opertions were actually as bleak as a few vocal members here make it seem, there'd be zero members anywhere.

COMMENT: Well I renewed for another year (18 months total service currently to CAP), so I guess I enjoy the weekly meetings, the exercises, the radio nets, and the actual missions (especially those that start in the evening & go to the wee hours of the next morning)   Again though, I'm just getting additional information and I'll admit "baiting" the group a bit, so that I can make a final determination of IF I will get a CAP driver's license, and IF so WHAT personal limitations I will impose on volunteering (to drive) for certain activities -- and I will be right up front with my commander on it, because that is the right thing to do -- So there will no assumptions on anyones part.

Thanks for your comments should be interesting to see subsequent events that may occur after the new insurance/member liability regulation is published.

RM

[desertengineer1]

Good God.  I don't know why I'm even replying to this again, but I'm in an airport and a little bored...

Any accident will be assigned an investigation officer who, in-turn, will make a report of findings to the Wing Commander.  If there were any shenanigans, they'll pretty much surface then.

If the member feels they have been unfairly treated, there are additional protections for elevation up the chain. 

I say AGAIN, that if the accident was someone elses fault and the member wasn't doing something stupid, they will be fine.  There's no CAP morality police waiting to make claims against CAP members' personal insurance.  We can't even find enough people to keep the rudementary positions filled, less hover at the ready to serve a member's personal insurance company.  Insurance companies have whole teams of high-priced lawyers waiting to defend them from these. 

Personal opinion - if you have even a small thought that CAP is a free vehicle club, or that you can afford to be stupid and hide under an ill-conceived notion that the CAP corporateness will hide your idiocy - I don't want you anywhere near CAP.  If you do something stupid, and cause an accident, there's a significant probability you (or your unit) will be held responsible for damages.

I can't spell it out any better than this.  If you don't like it, you can always stop being a member. 

 

[FW]

Gentlemen,
CAP is entitled to collect assessed costs for damages as per the current regulations however, the process needs to be better laid out.  NHQ is taking care of this now and, with the coordination with CAP-USAF, it shall be done.  
I'm not worried about the way things will turn out.  I understand I am accountable for my actions and, if I need to pay for a mistake, I'll pay it.   To me it is just part of the core values that make up my  personality.   IMHO, it's just not a problem.

[ZigZag911]

My observation has been that virtually all region & wing CCs bend over backwards to be fair about assessing for damages; they are not looking to make a buck for CAP, but rather to discourage gross negligence, unsafe vehicle aircraft operation, and the like.

However, I have avoided driving CAP vans for close to ten years now; the fleet is ridiculously old, and I don't feel very well maintained.

[Eclipse]

...I don't feel very well maintained.

Maybe its your diet - try some Bran Flakes in the morning! 

[arajca]

However, I have avoided driving CAP vans for close to ten years now; the fleet is ridiculously old, and I don't feel very well maintained.

That varies from wing to wing. You're wing LGT should be requesting replacements for old and unsafe vehicles, however, some wings don't bother with that.

[ZigZag911]

We did get some new vans now and again, which were usually distributed to the other end of the wing.

[RiverAux]

They just posted a Memo from the national commander on eservices that lays out the details of how assessments will be made.  Basically, the Regional Commander makes the decision based on the recommendation of the Wing Commander and the assessment can be appealed to the National Commander.

If you've got an Assessment against you, your membership is flagged at national and you won't be allowed to renew unless you pay it. 

No mention of any further action besides membership non-renewal if you don't pay. 

[RADIOMAN015]

They just posted a Memo from the national commander on eservices that lays out the details of how assessments will be made.  Basically, the Regional Commander makes the decision based on the recommendation of the Wing Commander and the assessment can be appealed to the National Commander.

Actually the policy is specifically towards aircraft damage rather than vehicle damage.
RM

[RiverAux]

Yes, but we were talking about both vehicle and air assessments in this thread and it is logical to ASSume that they would follow the same protocol for ground vehicles.

[arajca]

You're trying to apply logic to a CAP policy. You know better...


I'm dispatching the black vans. Stay put and no one will get seriously hurt.