A Matter of Concern ?

[ChrisB]

In relation to digging I was recently surprised just how unlikely it is that the BCA insurance cover would pay out a claim

Why do you say that? Public liability insurance indemnifies the insured parties against claims for damages. If a claim wouldn't stand up in court, the insurer isn't going to pay out. I'm only aware of a claim that was refused because there was no evidence that the digging had been done by BCA members or under an access agreement made by a BCA insured organisation.

I do wonder whether the BCA cover extends to digging activities 'on behalf of' a large statutory body or charity

I'd very much doubt it. It's intended to cover recreational caving and activities associated with it. Volunteer work on behalf of a caving club or RCC or just recreational cavers in general would be covered but work on behalf of another body is for that body to insure. I'd be surprised if they didn't have cover for their volunteers.

 

[Badlad]

Why do you say that? ........

In the Dales, the perception BCA members have of the cover has encouraged them to guide landowners to make claims against the insurance. Both claims involving digging that I know of have been rejected out of hand. Following on from that last claim you mention, my recent conversations with BCA about the circumstances in which a claim of that nature could be successful, drew a blank. There appeared to be no real circumstances where a claim made against insured diggers over livestock falling down a dig would be successful. This, with the exception of a claim where a specific legal access agreement made the diggers responsible for stockproofing their dig. I don't believe there are any access agreements of this nature across the whole Dales caving/digging areas. I'm at a loss to think of what circumstances a claim against diggers would actually be met, but I am willing to be educated

 

[mikem]

Hopefully when it involves a person rather than livestock

 

[andrewmcleod]

In the Dales, the perception BCA members have of the cover has encouraged them to guide landowners to make claims against the insurance. Both claims involving digging that I know of have been rejected out of hand.

As in - the diggers were successfully sued and the insurers refused to cover the costs?

 

[mikem]

Doesn't sound like it went any further than an enquiry

 

[spelfish]

In the Dales, the perception BCA members have of the cover has encouraged them to guide landowners to make claims against the insurance. Both claims involving digging that I know of have been rejected out of hand. Following on from that last claim you mention, my recent conversations with BCA about the circumstances in which a claim of that nature could be successful, drew a blank. There appeared to be no real circumstances where a claim made against insured diggers over livestock falling down a dig would be successful. This, with the exception of a claim where a specific legal access agreement made the diggers responsible for stockproofing their dig. I don't believe there are any access agreements of this nature across the whole Dales caving/digging areas. I'm at a loss to think of what circumstances a claim against diggers would actually be met, but I am willing to be educated

Doesn't this potentially discourage landlords from allowing digging? If there is no effective, equitable way to compensate landowners for accidents that result from digs, it's surprising that any digging is allowed at all. I assume most/all of those who post here are responsible and take precautions to make their digs stockproof (and fairly human proof) but it's easy to imagine someone pirating a dig and leaving it open to all sorts of catastrophes.

 

[andrewmcleod]

It's the responsibility of insurers to ensure that any claims against the insurance are robustly defended. I would hope that the insurers reject any attempt from a potential claimant (e.g. a landowner) against the insured (the BCA member) if they think the claim could be successfully defended. I would only expect an insurer to pay out if a claim either had to be settled (to reduce costs) or there was a judgement against the insured.

Equally, if a person voluntarily accepts liability they didn't have to, I wouldn't expect the insurance to pay that (because otherwise that's open to horrible abuse).

Otherwise, the insurance would get very expensive very quickly... it's in everyone's interest that the BCA insurance *doesn't* pay out until actually necessary.

 

[cap n chris]

Many times I've wondered whether cavers are insurable. Probably not, unless they keep schtuuum; if they didn't they almost certainly wouldn't be. "It'll be reet" isn't really a reassuring Work Method Statement, for example.

 

[ChrisB]

the perception BCA members have of the cover has encouraged them to guide landowners to make claims against the insurance

Landowners don't make claims against the BCA insurance (except in the limited situation where it covers them against claims from the public where they believe cavers were responsible). I'm not being pedantic, it's important to understanding how it works and correct any misunderstanding. The insurance covers BCA members against claims made against them, and it gives the insurer the right to take over the case. If the insurer feels that a claim could be successfully made in court, and they would have to pay out, they may decide to settle with the landowner. In the case I'm aware of, the insurer concluded that no claim could be awarded against any BCA member (because there was no evidence that any BCA members had been involved) so they said they wouldn't pay out. There might be other reasons why the insurers would consider that there was no valid claim against a BCA member. The important point is that if a landowner successfully sues a BCA member for damages, the insurance indemnifies the BCA member. The same applies if the insurer decides to settle out of court because they think they would lose the case.