Insurance companies are in business to make money for their stockholders.
I don't believe you will find this in any insurance company's mission statement as it is quite obviously a conflict of interest.
Companies that profit by providing less service should not be in business.
I also believe that the onus should be on the insured to educate the provider as to what the risks are.
By nature insurance is meant to spread the cost of claims over a broad subscribership, and the premium is based on some average number, but in this case, it seems like all OW events have been rated as per the most extreme.
For workers comp, some states have allowed private trusts to self insure. The subscribers may actually receive refunds at the end of each fiscal year that sees less than average claims.... don't know if something like this is an option as they may not be approved by every state.
I, for one, feel like its time to move on from this thread and will start another that doesn't have "stupid people" in its title for the purpose of suggestions/recommendations on how to move forward. I trust that the Task Force, OW Committee, and BOD will give it the attention it deserves even if it lacks fireworks.
I, for one, feel like its time to move on from this thread and will start another that doesn't have "stupid people" in its title for the purpose of suggestions/recommendations on how to move forward.
I object to lawyers being singled out. If you are giving stupid people a pass, you have to do the same for stupid lawyers.
I haven't participated in either of your events but from everything I've heard you and Ron are outstanding race directors. Still, I imagine Mike and others have been lambasted by race directors who thought this was a capricious decision. My wife is our LMSC's sanction chair and has also been on the receiving end of tirades. Some race directors simply want a sanction rubber-stamped to get insurance and event exposure, and then want USMS to get out of the way. One local race director bristles at the suggestion that a safety plan is even necessary at all. If we think of this as a pendulum, prior to the Maui incident USMS may have granted sanctions to easily. Race directors might have looked at it as cheap insurance so why not get there race sanctioned. The insurance underwriter likely did a poor risk analysis. The pendulum was too far to the left. Now it's too far too the right, I'm guessing to a certain extent the Insurance firm may have priced for USMS to go away or eliminate these races with one size fits take it or leave it proposition, that again doesn't truly assess the risks.
In an earlier post I divided open water races into three categories based primarily on what kind of water craft were escorting the swimmers and the role of those water craft in the event. I would have placed the Maui Channel swim in Category 3, where the swimmers are primarily escorted by motorized water craft. But a further analysis would assess the risk far greater in the Maui event then a Catalina Island solo crossing. A typical Maui has 50 teams, six swimmers each and prior to the incident solo swimmers as well. That's at least 50 props. If some teams have relatively the same speed they may both be navigating a similar line etc. How many of the pilots for Maui channel swim were weekend warriors as opposed to professional boat captains? A Catalina swim will be escorted by recommended veteran professional pilot in additional there will be an observer and generally a crew all with eyes on the swimmer. Real requirements for real risks, yea maybe prop guards were needed for the Maui Channel swim but for many other swims there not needed. One size fits all just won't work.
So how does USMS move forward? do they want to move forward? Those representing USMS on this board haven't even proposed researching new solutions for the 2014 season and beyond. At the very least and as a USMS member what I'd like a hear from my organization is a formal apology, especially to those groups that really did work hard but lost there sanction. An acknowledgment that as it stands now is unacceptable for USMS open water swimming and finally that work is now in progress to bring smarter, safer (not imagined liability) and affordable solutions for the future.
Many ideas have been floated in this forum including OW swimmers carrying supplemental insurance like the DAN network for Scuba Divers. For categories 2 events there could be web based certification courses created for motorized boat pilots for what there roles are, swimmer awareness possibly a requirement for an safety observer in the boat in lieu of the expensive prop guards and additional insurance etc. Will USMS at least try?
Sometimes all it takes is one claim to raise a red flag, causing an underwriter do a reassessment. If no one has ever been injured by a power boat in 25 years of OW events, the risk would be considered low and the premium would reflect that. However, once you have an injury the underwriter may decide it was a risk he failed to identifiy and it was mere chance that it hadn't happened sooner. (An accident waiting to happen?)
In the case of the incident that led to the reassessment, I think that's exactly what it was - an accident waiting to happen. 50+ swimmers, 50+ power boats, all jostling for position in the same space... ugh. What's surprising is that it happened at the end of the race, not the leadoff leg when everyone is bunched together.
The level of risk in a large OW relay race with individual power boat escorts seems categorically different than just about any other situation in OWS. It raises the question of how this event was ever sanctioned in the first place? Somebody wasn't doing their homework. Too bad now all the other, safer categories of OW events are suffering as a result.
In the case of the incident that led to the reassessment in this case, I think that's exactly what it was - an accident waiting to happen. 50+ swimmers, 50+ power boats, all jostling for position in the same space... ugh. What's surprising is that it happened at the end of the race, not the leadoff leg when everyone is bunched together.
The level of risk in a large OW relay race with individual power boat escorts seems categorically different than just about any other situation in OWS. It raises the question of how this event was ever sanctioned in the first place? Somebody wasn't doing their homework. Too bad now all the other, safer categories of OW events are suffering as a result.
I find it interesting that the event directors eliminated the solo category from the Maui channel race after this accident. What is the logic behind that? Was this at the request of their insurance provider?
.. I don't understand how the Maui Swim disaster would have made the USMS rates go up.
Because it was not the only major claim in the last three years. It is, however, the largest.
This is a quote from a former commissioner of the South End Rowing Club on the Marathon Swimmers Forum (I added the bold typeface):
www.marathonswimmers.org/.../5062
In 2010 when I was swimming commissioner at the South End Rowing Club, I got in touch with USMS to find out what insurance they actually provided and how the South End, a USMS team, was covered. The USMS office put me in touch with the insurance underwriters because they weren't able to answer many of my questions.
It became clear to me through my conversations with the insurance agent USMS worked with at that time that USMS insurance wasn't adequate insurance for the open water swims we put on for members of our club. It was a fine supplemental insurance, it could help to keep our primary insurance rates low. But it didn't insure against most of the major things that open water swimmers in San Francisco face - boats, for example. The USMS insurance specifically stated that it didn't offer any protection to swimmers struck by boats or to boaters operating vessels for swim support.
The information I was given was that USMS insurance basically covers injuries between USMS swimmers who are both insured. It could also serve as insurance if someone had an injury/illness that took place while swimming such as a torn rotator cuff or a heart attack. The rates were based on the idea that the insurance would be secondary insurance for most people, with people's personal health insurance being their primary insurance.
The documentation that I saw clearly stated that accidents and injuries related to water craft of any type were not covered in any way. They also stated that for races, the race director needed to be in a position to oversee the entire course the entire time. To my knowledge nothing had changed since 2010. They also required specific buoys along the race courses - buoys we couldn't exactly plunk down in the shipping channel.
Based on this information, the South End always purchased event-specific insurance for our public events. We used the USMS insurance as a supplemental insurance for our member-only Club Swims, Nutcracker swims, and piloted Sunriser swims with the understanding that these could not be treated as USMS sanctioned open water events and would be considered "coached workouts". Club members going out for a swim on their own in Aquatic Park were not covered in any way as there were no USMS members/coaches overseeing them as they swam.
My personal opinion is that every race director or organization needs to asses the risks of their particular swim and to purchase adequate insurance to protect themselves and the event's participants. I'm shocked to hear that so many people were relying on USMS insurance as the sole insurance for their open water events. I'm even more shocked that USMS didn't seem to look into this further until a huge accident occurred. It is unbelievable to me that they had put their stamp of approval on events when those events didn't meet the criteria set forth by their insurers.
If that's true, I don't understand how the Maui Swim disaster would have made the USMS rates go up.
Because it was not the only major claim in the last three years. It is, however, the largest.
Would it not serve the membership to disclose at least some of the facts regarding these claims? I do understand that certain information may not be available if cases are open.
So?.........
Because it was not the only major claim in the last three years. It is, however, the largest.
Did the other 2 major claims arise from something that occurred during an open water event? If so, did they occur in the water or on land?
So, if the Maui Channel accident is the only open-water claim and there are at least 2 other claims against USMS that have nothing to do with open-water events, why are open-water events carrying the burden of the premium increase?
OW events represent by far, the most liability exposure to USMS, despite the comparatively tiny number of splashes. For 35 years, they have gotten a pass on representative premiums. Not any longer.
So we are supposed to just accept this as fact while kept in the dark about non OW claims details?
I haven’t seen any risk assessment identifying the probability of occurrence of known or unknown incidents. So at this point, I don’t believe there is a quantifiable answer to this question.
Based on this discussion, it seems I was under a mistaken impression from the outset. USMS decided to levy a surcharge on OW events, which may put some of these events out of business, because.... in the opinion of USMS leadership, "OW events represent by far, the most liability exposure to USMS." This opinion is apparently not supported by any quantitative risk analysis, or specific directive from an underwriter.
Did I get that right?
