Insurance
- Thread starter SamT
- Start date
al
Member
Kinder CC are all insured through DCA now. Two of our members were insured through BCRA, but found themselves rapidly becoming unsinsured two weeks ago. I think Pete Mellors has done a good job of keeping DCA member clubs informed.
If you want to go down Peak, Lathkill, JH - and quite a few others, you need to have this, or no access.
If you want to go down Peak, Lathkill, JH - and quite a few others, you need to have this, or no access.
SamT
Moderator
The Eldon are insured by DCA.
As I understand it, any clubs relaying on their affilation with either NCA or BCRA will no longer be covered.
Unless something is done the prices are going to rocket.
At our monthly the other day - someone muttered something about dwindling numbers of cavers. I reckon there are probably more active cavers about now. Its just that they dont join clubs and hence will be uninsured.
As I understand it, any clubs relaying on their affilation with either NCA or BCRA will no longer be covered.
Unless something is done the prices are going to rocket.
At our monthly the other day - someone muttered something about dwindling numbers of cavers. I reckon there are probably more active cavers about now. Its just that they dont join clubs and hence will be uninsured.
ian mckenzie
New member
No one in western Canada is insured at all in any way, with the exception of commercial cave guides.
H
Huw Groucutt
Guest
my club is/was BCRA so as of last Friday we're uninsured! No nicely timed to coincide with a camping trip in Darren Cilau!
SamT
Moderator
Thats because your all so bloody laid back 8) . If you accidently kick a block onto someone's bonce - you'd be like
"Dude - sorry man."
"Chill dude - I'll live"
Where's here (just like the states) - we'd probably have our arse's sued off.
Canada's a very nice country - I've been there.
ian mckenzie
New member
SamT, you must have been exposed to west-coast Canadians. We're a little more normal here in the Rockies.
E
eyecave
Guest
.......i remember the first few times i ever heard a caver talking to landowners about liability.......damn that word!...damn those cavers who introduced the idea of liability into the world of caving!!!.....in TAG we actively defend landowners who allow fools to go in caves and hurt themselves......so far we have kept lawsuits from being successfully prosecuted against landowners who allow access to their caves......
..........we also have the scci organization to help, it costs me 15 bucks a year to have access to 50 plus caves :twisted: ......... then we had hunting clubs.....good ole boys with guns interested in killing deer and such.......they closed vast areas...but; they are opening up to us now...20 years later.... :?: ......i have long proposed a very unpopular idea among TAG cavers......i think we should have a law passed that makes a stretch of exceptionable rock that affords climbing, or rafting in a set of rapids, or visiting a rare underground area should be a public right and landowners should not have the right to restrict access......there......see how unpopular that is........ :shock:
cap n chris
Well-known member
Down on Mendip it has become an issue - access, mostly. The present list of "out of bounds" caves includes: GB, Longwood, Charterhouse, Rhino Rift, St. Cuthbert's Swallet, Pen Park Hole, Fairy Quarry caves (Fairy, Withyhill, Hilliers, Hillwithy, Balch, W/L, Shatter etc.) and (although presently under consideration for possible re-opening) the CSCC padlocked caves (about 13 in all).
The GOOD news is that Swildon's Hole, Eastwater, Thrupe L.S., Stoke L.S. and Burrington Combe caves are among those which remain open. The showcaves (i.e. diving sites; Wookey Hole & Gough's) are off limits too, I believe.
The "closed" caves are also apparently presently closed to cavers with insurance cover; my understanding (which may be miles wrong!) is that it is the access agreements which require cover, not the cavers visiting the site(s).
Unpleasant memories of Foot & Mouth occasionally spring to mind. For latest details you'll need to track down CSCC bods (or check the website).
The GOOD news is that Swildon's Hole, Eastwater, Thrupe L.S., Stoke L.S. and Burrington Combe caves are among those which remain open. The showcaves (i.e. diving sites; Wookey Hole & Gough's) are off limits too, I believe.
The "closed" caves are also apparently presently closed to cavers with insurance cover; my understanding (which may be miles wrong!) is that it is the access agreements which require cover, not the cavers visiting the site(s).
Unpleasant memories of Foot & Mouth occasionally spring to mind. For latest details you'll need to track down CSCC bods (or check the website).
J
Jonathan T
Guest
This was posted on Rocktalk ( http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=63848 ) - is it true?
Topic - Cavers loose 90% of UK access - could happen to climbers too!!
by - Jules King on - 19:39 Fri
It was pointed out by someone at the BMC south east open meeting that the national caving society (forget the proper name) had just failed to negotiate renewing its third party liability insurance. Most caves are on private land and as a result OVER 90% OF ALL CAVES IN THE UK ARE NOW CLOSED!!
Topic - Cavers loose 90% of UK access - could happen to climbers too!!
by - Jules King on - 19:39 Fri
It was pointed out by someone at the BMC south east open meeting that the national caving society (forget the proper name) had just failed to negotiate renewing its third party liability insurance. Most caves are on private land and as a result OVER 90% OF ALL CAVES IN THE UK ARE NOW CLOSED!!
SamT
Moderator
All getting a bit out of perspective really. I know in theory someone could sue the diggers for opening the cave in the first place - but that would be like sueing the highways agency for building the road in the first place following a car accident. I dont think/hope it would ever get that far in court.
I hate the way we're all running scared these days of 'what if' - f*** it, why dont we all just stay in bed wrapped in fluffy cotton pillows - just in case
fucking blame n claim culture
(we need an 'utter rage' emoticon) so very mad will have to do
:evil:
I hate the way we're all running scared these days of 'what if' - f*** it, why dont we all just stay in bed wrapped in fluffy cotton pillows - just in case
fucking blame n claim culture
(we need an 'utter rage' emoticon) so very mad will have to do
:evil:
cap n chris
Well-known member
There's irony here. A caving buddy of mine has a similar attitude to the ambulance chasers - one of destest; also one of "Why do we need insurance anyway?".
A couple of months ago his elderly uncle and aunt suffered broken limbs in a car crash; on hearing the news from the son one night in the pub his immediate comment was "They should get a hefty compensation payout for their injuries".
A while later (out of decency and risk of a bloody nose at the time) I asked whether he considered his two views to be at odds with each other. His answer was inconsistent.
It has been said that it's not the injured party who you need to worry about, as far as bringing a case for compensation is concerned .... its the relatives you need to consider. You may be going on caving trips with someone solid, reliable and who'll never sue but if they break their neck or get brain damaged it'll be their family that wants your house, car and shirt off your back.
And the "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't happen" attitude is a dream world. OK, let's not get neurotic about the topic and let's continue to engage in best practice (i.e. lifelines on ladder pitches etc.) but don't for a moment think the topic is going to evaporate and "go back to the good old days".
A couple of months ago his elderly uncle and aunt suffered broken limbs in a car crash; on hearing the news from the son one night in the pub his immediate comment was "They should get a hefty compensation payout for their injuries".
A while later (out of decency and risk of a bloody nose at the time) I asked whether he considered his two views to be at odds with each other. His answer was inconsistent.
It has been said that it's not the injured party who you need to worry about, as far as bringing a case for compensation is concerned .... its the relatives you need to consider. You may be going on caving trips with someone solid, reliable and who'll never sue but if they break their neck or get brain damaged it'll be their family that wants your house, car and shirt off your back.
And the "It hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't happen" attitude is a dream world. OK, let's not get neurotic about the topic and let's continue to engage in best practice (i.e. lifelines on ladder pitches etc.) but don't for a moment think the topic is going to evaporate and "go back to the good old days".
SamT
Moderator
I know exactly what you mean - if someone crashed into me at the lights and I broke my leg, couldn't go caving - I'd be pissed off. Would I sue them??? I dont know. I'd like to think not. Life's too short, accidents happen - etc etc - and cash aint gonna fix my leg is it. And thats the bit I hate. So many people at work have put in (somewhat dubious) claims for whiplash. six months later they have £5000 for a nice new conservatory.
Its all just about the money - the insurance companies - the layers - the clients - monwy and greed. The whole system is rotten to the core.
If you've been wronged, then an appology should be offered, and accepted. or declined I suppose.
The knock on effect of peoples greed is now being felt everywhere. Putting people out of buisness who can't afford the premiums, Closing caves to cavers who arent insured to the hilt and proven to be using triple rope techinque on anchors that are inspected daily by highly qualified and insured anchor inspectors blah blah blah.
I know it aint ever going back to 'the way it was' but there needs to be some sort of backlash - bring on the revolution I say. :twisted:
Everybody Sue Everybody for Everything
That should give the insurance companies a wake up call
Right Bubba - this colour schemes given me migrane problems - I've got a dr's note to prove it - consider your ass sued.
Right - CSCC - the closing of your caves in medip has led to my clinical depression - check the post.
Erm - I dropped a boulder on my finger in our dig the other day - now I find typing a problem and cant work propery. DCA - you didnt put warning signs on the entrance to the cave about the potential hazards of digging - Im on the phone to my layer right now.
What next.....
Its all just about the money - the insurance companies - the layers - the clients - monwy and greed. The whole system is rotten to the core.
If you've been wronged, then an appology should be offered, and accepted. or declined I suppose.
The knock on effect of peoples greed is now being felt everywhere. Putting people out of buisness who can't afford the premiums, Closing caves to cavers who arent insured to the hilt and proven to be using triple rope techinque on anchors that are inspected daily by highly qualified and insured anchor inspectors blah blah blah.
I know it aint ever going back to 'the way it was' but there needs to be some sort of backlash - bring on the revolution I say. :twisted:
Everybody Sue Everybody for Everything
That should give the insurance companies a wake up call
Right Bubba - this colour schemes given me migrane problems - I've got a dr's note to prove it - consider your ass sued.
Right - CSCC - the closing of your caves in medip has led to my clinical depression - check the post.
Erm - I dropped a boulder on my finger in our dig the other day - now I find typing a problem and cant work propery. DCA - you didnt put warning signs on the entrance to the cave about the potential hazards of digging - Im on the phone to my layer right now.
What next.....
cap n chris
Well-known member
It has been suggested that, to some extent, cavers have not done themselves any favours over the years with regard to making the real risks of caving more clear. Perhaps the image of caving as "hard" and "dangerous", thereby implying that cavers are thrill-seekers, hard-as-nails and, by inference, "superhuman" was originally considered a feather in one's cap if one happened to be a caver; "Hey, look at me!".
The 21st Century caver has equipment, training and expertise which largely mitigates the majority of the risks experienced by the early caving fraternity (and sorority!). Ropes, descenders, jammers, lightweight ladders, neoprene coveralls, fast-wicking furry suits, grippy rubber soled wellies etc.. Injuries from falls and exposure to hypothermia have reduced massively (among "standard"/novice/beginners' trips).
While the risks have reduced considerably, the public image of caving as dangerous has not. This "hazardous" or "Extreme" (X-treme) pasttime has little publicity except when there's been an accident and the media bandwagon comes out to play. Mainly for reasons of Conservation, caving is specifically kept well away from the public eye... there are very few "good news stories" about caving.
There have been reports highlighting the relative danger/hazard posed by different sports and caving is far from top of the list. As an insurer (or underwriter trying to calculate the risk loading) you are bound to base your assumptions on the perceived nature of the sport and this is where we may need to shoulder some of the burden of responsibility for finding ourselves in the present situation.
Far more people die horseriding per year than in caving's worst year for accidents but little Suzie isn't dissuaded from pursuing this sport (nor are her parents, Quentin and Tamsin), perhaps because it has an excellent public image and is associated with fitness, wealth and good PR (TV and horses mix well). Would members of the public rate horseriding as more risky than climbing, paragliding, hang-gliding, caving and skydiving? Probably not.
In terms of personal injury (rather than fatal injuries) I read that Football and Rugby have the highest rates; but these are our "national games"; it would be interesting to see what the press and public make of a situation whereby local clubs shut shop because they no longer have insurance cover. In recent times it has been a requirement for them to have qualified first aiders in attendance... even so, perhaps it is only a matter of time before they start getting sued out of existence?...
Of all the activities I witness locally, the one I consider to be by far and away the most dangerous of all is Mountain Biking. As dangerous as skiing, if not more so.
So, do you think that as cavers we should "come clean" and say that, "No, really; caving isn't half as dangerous as people reckon - yes, there are hazards, like falling and breaking your leg (but you can do that on a trip to Tescos); you don't need to be `hard' or `macho' to go caving; in fact it can actually be quite a gentle pasttime... it depends on your attitude and objectives". Should we be more open about how easy it is to cave? People who eat quiche can discover new underworld realms, can't they?
The 21st Century caver has equipment, training and expertise which largely mitigates the majority of the risks experienced by the early caving fraternity (and sorority!). Ropes, descenders, jammers, lightweight ladders, neoprene coveralls, fast-wicking furry suits, grippy rubber soled wellies etc.. Injuries from falls and exposure to hypothermia have reduced massively (among "standard"/novice/beginners' trips).
While the risks have reduced considerably, the public image of caving as dangerous has not. This "hazardous" or "Extreme" (X-treme) pasttime has little publicity except when there's been an accident and the media bandwagon comes out to play. Mainly for reasons of Conservation, caving is specifically kept well away from the public eye... there are very few "good news stories" about caving.
There have been reports highlighting the relative danger/hazard posed by different sports and caving is far from top of the list. As an insurer (or underwriter trying to calculate the risk loading) you are bound to base your assumptions on the perceived nature of the sport and this is where we may need to shoulder some of the burden of responsibility for finding ourselves in the present situation.
Far more people die horseriding per year than in caving's worst year for accidents but little Suzie isn't dissuaded from pursuing this sport (nor are her parents, Quentin and Tamsin), perhaps because it has an excellent public image and is associated with fitness, wealth and good PR (TV and horses mix well). Would members of the public rate horseriding as more risky than climbing, paragliding, hang-gliding, caving and skydiving? Probably not.
In terms of personal injury (rather than fatal injuries) I read that Football and Rugby have the highest rates; but these are our "national games"; it would be interesting to see what the press and public make of a situation whereby local clubs shut shop because they no longer have insurance cover. In recent times it has been a requirement for them to have qualified first aiders in attendance... even so, perhaps it is only a matter of time before they start getting sued out of existence?...
Of all the activities I witness locally, the one I consider to be by far and away the most dangerous of all is Mountain Biking. As dangerous as skiing, if not more so.
So, do you think that as cavers we should "come clean" and say that, "No, really; caving isn't half as dangerous as people reckon - yes, there are hazards, like falling and breaking your leg (but you can do that on a trip to Tescos); you don't need to be `hard' or `macho' to go caving; in fact it can actually be quite a gentle pasttime... it depends on your attitude and objectives". Should we be more open about how easy it is to cave? People who eat quiche can discover new underworld realms, can't they?
Danger is a strange perception... Just because you or anyone else witnesses people being 'dangerous' doesn't mean that the activity is dangerous in itself..
And how many people do you know that go mountain biking are actually covered by insurance? - very few I would guess.. I go mountain biking occasionaly and I have no cover at all.... danger, risks? pah! They would have to catch me before they could sue me! :wink:
What and lose our hard image, never!!
and besides insurers are just greedy c**ts and wouldn't listen to what any of us had to say and would more than likely still make up their own minds and rob you blind...Dunc
SamT
Moderator
Ohhh - I love a good scrap.
I think your about spot an Capn Chris.
Your point about (can barely bring myself to type it) ...football is true. But then thats what I was trying to get to in the first place. Most football players just accept that bad tackles are a part of the game and wouldn't dream of sueing the culprit. Despite the fact its verging on malicous. Some 6ft 2 dunce in defence has made it his personal mission to break your anlke, and its all - 'dont worry mate - part of the game'.
Maybe the 'Accident Group' ambulance chasers should hang out at the sunday league grounds more often.
I've heard that most insurance companies are running at a loss - (suppose that doest mean they're not greedy) and hence the spiraling insurance costs.
As for layers - win win situation all the way to the bank for them.
loose the hard man image
going to find that one a bit tricky. - Im sure we've all tried to have quiet words with the insurance companies but as for public opinion - unless you run a headline on the front cover of the Sun, then you'll never change the publics opinion.[/quote]
I think your about spot an Capn Chris.
Your point about (can barely bring myself to type it) ...football is true. But then thats what I was trying to get to in the first place. Most football players just accept that bad tackles are a part of the game and wouldn't dream of sueing the culprit. Despite the fact its verging on malicous. Some 6ft 2 dunce in defence has made it his personal mission to break your anlke, and its all - 'dont worry mate - part of the game'.
Maybe the 'Accident Group' ambulance chasers should hang out at the sunday league grounds more often.
I've heard that most insurance companies are running at a loss - (suppose that doest mean they're not greedy) and hence the spiraling insurance costs.
As for layers - win win situation all the way to the bank for them.
loose the hard man image
going to find that one a bit tricky. - Im sure we've all tried to have quiet words with the insurance companies but as for public opinion - unless you run a headline on the front cover of the Sun, then you'll never change the publics opinion.[/quote]
I didn't realise they were running at a loss, just shows how much I take in about certain topics.. All good I say, if insurance costs keep spiralling in the way they are they'll find themselves without customers as people won't (or can't afford to) keep paying out ever increasing sums of money for 'no return' - then what..?
True, I was too busy thinking about insurers and forgot to mention that blame'n'claim lawyers are very high on my 'most hated' list too! :evil:
But anyway, thats deviating from the orginal topic/poll of insurance for cavers..
Do I have any (I used to do before anyone asks) - no, do I care - no, will it stop me caving - no, would I ever sue any caver/landowner - no.
Dunc
cap n chris
Well-known member
There has been some interesting debates about whether being insured actually makes you more likely to be sued; imagine you've only got a rented flat, knackered secondhand car and a few personal possessions - are you likely to be sued for a squillion smackeroonies by some irate parent if little Johnny sprains his ankle while you're running an adventure day or do you think they would give up pretty quickly once they realised there was no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or any likelihood of there being an out of court settlement? Not very reassuring, however, if you own a house (especially now that the average one bedroomed shed is worth £1,785,950,000 or thereabouts :shock: ).
Perhaps if it reaches a stage where so no-one can get insurance cover for (possibly) any outdoor pasttime the compensation culture will largely evaporate? :idea:
Also bear in mind that you are highly unlikely to get sued if you engage in best practice; to be successfully pursued through the courts the plaintiff apparently needs to establish:
1) You owed them a Duty of Care
2) You breached that Duty of Care (i.e. you were negligent) and..
3) As a direct result of that breach they suffered a provable loss.
OK, so it doesn't have to be proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt" (as in CPS cases) but only "on the balance of probability" but even so, if you don't engage in negligent behaviour and you help people rather than ignore them you won't go too far wrong.
The main issue, as I understand it, with the present insurance hiatus is that it affects access agreements and if you can't go caving then everything else is academic.
Perhaps if it reaches a stage where so no-one can get insurance cover for (possibly) any outdoor pasttime the compensation culture will largely evaporate? :idea:
Also bear in mind that you are highly unlikely to get sued if you engage in best practice; to be successfully pursued through the courts the plaintiff apparently needs to establish:
1) You owed them a Duty of Care
2) You breached that Duty of Care (i.e. you were negligent) and..
3) As a direct result of that breach they suffered a provable loss.
OK, so it doesn't have to be proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt" (as in CPS cases) but only "on the balance of probability" but even so, if you don't engage in negligent behaviour and you help people rather than ignore them you won't go too far wrong.
The main issue, as I understand it, with the present insurance hiatus is that it affects access agreements and if you can't go caving then everything else is academic.