caving clubs insurance

[andymorgan]

I know what you mean, if the landowner wants us to wear pink tutus as an access condition then they are within their rights. If they want people to have insurance to access their land then I think that is fair.
I was playing Devil's Advocate by wondering if there were double standards for different outdoor activities....

 

[cap n chris]

OK. Certainly with Mountain Biking you'll find there are many restrictions on where people can go (certainly around Cheddar Gorge there are restricted areas) and climbers need insurance for access in some locations (again this will be down to landowners' wishes); I'm not sure about walking as this would be a bit over the top but I wouldn't be surprised if fell walkers or mountain walkers can buy a policy!

I suppose one way of looking at the tutus argument is this: if someone is prepared to go to the effort of doing something which a landowner asks, then the landowner will think "Hey, they're keen and respectful of my wishes" and extend a welcome as a result. I suppose it could be a simple way of filtering out people who can't be bothered.. and if they can't be bothered perhaps they're a bit cavalier?....

 

[Hughie]

I'll check out my own Public/Products Liability insurance when I get the chance - and see if I can make any sense of it.

My current understanding is this:- My (landowner) PL insurance would pay out should my cattle/sheep/poodle savage you whilst crossing my land. Your (caver) insurance would pay out should you savage my cattle/sheep/poodle, or damage my property etc.
As you (the caver) descend the cave, your insurance offers you some cover should one of your chums (or their relatives) sue you after you kick them off an unlifelined ladder. This shouldn't have any bearing on the Landowners insurance - although lawyers will actively seek out who has the greatest pot of gold (insurance cover) and try to nail liability to them. My cover is £5million - yours is only £2million. I wonder who's arse they'll attempt to fry first
As far as Access Management Committees go - I have no idea - that seems very grey. I will, in the near future, try and find out from my trusty NFU insurance man - my premiums are due very shortly, so he's bound to be around soon.
Sorry this is a bit "tongue in cheek", and I may have it wrong.

PS I don't have a poodle! (Or any caves, come to think of it!)

 

[martinr]

Come to think of it I think the only caves that insist on liablity insurance are show caves

Not so. I can give examples (but not here due to sensitivity of the landowners) of caves on Mendip where my club is digging and where the landowner (in one case a Local Authority and in another a charity that holds huge tracts of land and stately homes in trust for the nation) insists we indemnify them against any potential third party claim. People can diss insurance as much as they like. But until clubs like mine dig the caves in the first place, they cant get down them, with or without insurance.

The bottom line is that the landowner sets the access conditions and we have to comply.

I dislike paying for insurance as much as the next caver. I also dislike Road Tax, but I cant drive to Mendip if I dont have Road Tax for my car. And I cant dig caves without insurance if the landowner insists on being indemnified.

Just a thought - in place of an insurance scheme, perhaps those who belive insurance is unneccessary would like to indemnify me instead? £2 millon would do.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

although lawyers will actively seek out who has the greatest pot of gold (insurance cover) and try to nail liability to them.

I wonder how true this is. I am not a lawyer but I have been employed as an expert witness on several occasions. As expert witness I get sent the bundle of correspondence that includes every letter that has gone backwards or forwards, and this gives me a pretty good overview for the whole litigation process.

When the litigation process begins lawyers have no idea who is or isn't insured. Their objective is to identify where responsibility lies - who has failed in their duty of care. I'm not sure they can really get away with shifting their sights depending upon who is most likely to pay. If they did this it would be apparent to the court and the judge or jury would take a pretty dim view. Remember that judges and juries don't like greedy trying-it-on claims.

Maybe I'm being naive about this, maybe I'm wrong. Does anyone out there have any real evidence to support Hugh's assertion? Real evidence please! Not just speculative opinion.

 

[andymorgan]

Cheers for the landowners legal point of view Hugie.

N.B. Don't anybody get me wrong, I think the BCRA insurance is good value and don't mind having it. It wasn't until recently (after reading somewhere on this board) that I was aware that it covered you if you accidently killed your caving partner as well as cover if you killed a sheep or something, which gives me a bit extra peace of mind.

 

[Andy Sparrow]

Come to think of it I think the only caves that insist on liablity insurance are show caves

(in one case a Local Authority and in another a charity that holds huge tracts of land and stately homes in trust for the nation) insists we indemnify them against any potential third party claim.

One of the problems with this issue is that it is so misunderstood, even by the those who make demands upon us for insurance. I appreciate we have to do what they want us to do even if it's complete nonsense but there are some very basic questions we should not ignore. Does the landowner have a duty of care or not? If they do our third party insurance cannot 'indemnify' them. If they have a liability they need public liability insurance and our insured or otherwise status is irrelevant.

 

[graham]

Everybody who ventures underground with me accepts this (and on the whole are in full agreement) and recognises the risks involved are entirely volutary and your own responsibilty. To the extent that if I'm going underground with somebody I have not been with before I make my position perfectly clear before we go under.

And that will stop their dependants suing you how? (If they believe that you have been negligent, that is.)

 

[graham]

Come to think of it I think the only caves that insist on liablity insurance are show caves

(in one case a Local Authority and in another a charity that holds huge tracts of land and stately homes in trust for the nation) insists we indemnify them against any potential third party claim.

One of the problems with this issue is that it is so misunderstood, even by the those who make demands upon us for insurance. I appreciate we have to do what they want us to do even if it's complete nonsense but there are some very basic questions we should not ignore. Does the landowner have a duty of care or not? If they do our third party insurance cannot 'indemnify' them. If they have a liability they need public liability insurance and our insured or otherwise status is irrelevant.

Andy, some poor use of terminology has confused you, here. In this context, "Indemnify" means we take out an insurance policy which covers the landowner for the caving-related liabilites. i.e. if there is a gate left open & a child wanders in & gets damaged, whose fault is that:

1 The lazy caver who did not lock the gate. But he cannot be identified so it passes to:

2 The landowner who allowed cavers to dig open a hole on his land &, instead of filling it in to make it safe once more, put a gate on it.

It is to cover circumstances like this that access agreements frequently require what is loosley referred to as "landowner indemnity" but is more correctly "a policy taken out by the caving access group in the landowner's name".

OK?

 

[Jagman]

Everybody who ventures underground with me accepts this (and on the whole are in full agreement) and recognises the risks involved are entirely volutary and your own responsibilty. To the extent that if I'm going underground with somebody I have not been with before I make my position perfectly clear before we go under.

And that will stop their dependants suing you how? (If they believe that you have been negligent, that is.)

Your absolutely right Graham, if I kill somebody their relatives may choose to sue me, however giving them a pot of money would not make me feel better, nor would it return the deceased to the land of the living.

Insurance or the lack of it does not compensate for proper equipment and good practice. The only requests I have ever had for insurance are from caving clubs, never a landowner. I accept that if I choose not to insure then that excludes me from some visits, just as club membership and insurance excludes you from some activities.

Duty of care extends to us all, insurance does not change that.

Landowners are entitled to ask for insurance if they so choose of course, but in the majority of cases the power of suggestion by Caving Clubs wishing to administer access themselves has a serious impact
Seems to me that one of the biggest benefits of insurance is as a negotiating tool (for implied future problems, real or hypothetical)

I have no issue with those wishing to insure themselves, its non of my concern just as I have the right to choose not to....

 

[graham]

Your absolutely right Graham, if I kill somebody their relatives may choose to sue me, however giving them a pot of money would not make me feel better, nor would it return the deceased to the land of the living.

Indeed it would do neither of those things. It will however, allow those dependants to live a reasonable life themselves after you have deprived them of their breadwinner.

Insurance or the lack of it does not compensate for proper equipment and good practice.

Actually, compensate is exactly what insurance does. If you have been negligent then your insurance company will pay the recipients of your negligence appropriate compensation

The only requests I have ever had for insurance are from caving clubs, never a landowner.

Never been down Dan yr Ogof then? Actually you are probably wrong about this. If a club has asked for insurance details it is because the landowner with whom they have made an agreement has insisted on it. Very few clubs actually own caves themselves in this country.

I accept that if I choose not to insure then that excludes me from some visits, just as club membership and insurance excludes you from some activities.

Interesting statement. What activities does my membership of a caving club actually exclude me from?

Duty of care extends to us all, insurance does not change that.

Indeed it does. Can you certain that you will never be negligent, however?

Landowners are entitled to ask for insurance if they so choose of course, but in the majority of cases the power of suggestion by Caving Clubs wishing to administer access themselves has a serious impact
Seems to me that one of the biggest benefits of insurance is as a negotiating tool (for implied future problems, real or hypothetical)

It is a negotiating tool yes. But you miss the point as to why. Over the years cavers have had to come to terms with a lot of different landowners, many being large corporations or public bodies, who are completely used to the requirements of PI insurance in all their activities, not just dealing with a few hairy arsed lunatics who wish to kill themselves under their property.

I have no issue with those wishing to insure themselves, its none of my concern just as I have the right to choose not to....

Indeed you do have that right - except when driving a car, of course.

 

[martinr]

I have no issue with those wishing to insure themselves,

Does that extend to landowners? In which case, I assume you will be happy to comply with their wishes by taking out PLI through BCA?

 

[andymorgan]

Does it neccessarily have to BCA PL insurance? The example I'm thinking of is university insurance. Although I'm not entirely sure about what the cover entails, and it will vary between universitites; if the cover includes you for the right liabilties then surely there should be no problem in allowing uni clubs access. I imagine the cover they provide is quite substantial as Universities are large organisations and are likely to be the target for legal action if something goes wrong with one of their members on an official trip. University insurance also has the advantages that you are covered to and from the cave so if anything happens en-route or during your stay then there is cover.
I will try and find what typical uni insurance covers, unless anybody else can give us some examples..

 

[martinr]

Does it neccessarily have to be BCA PL insurance?

It needn't be BCA. It is just that, for many cavers, the BCA scheme is the only PL insurance available now.

The FAQ pages http://insurance.british-caving.org.uk/faq3.htm on the BCA website state:

Q: We are a university caving club. Do we need to have BCA cover?

BCA cover is optional and you can join BCA as individual members without insurance if your university provides adequate alternative cover. However, if your university does not provide cover for caving then you would be advised to join the BCA scheme, and this will be a requirement for booking trips in certain caves.

Q: Our (non-university) club has members who are members of a university club which is insured by the university. Is this cover an adequate alternative to the BCA individual caving cover?

No, the university cover will only insure its members when they are participating in university trips. All your club members who go caving as part of your club activities must be insured through either the BCA or DCA schemes.

 

[Jagman]

If someone wishes to cover the possibility of injury or death underground then life insurance is a far more appropriate protection
There is an abundance of cases where the first mention of insurance is Caving Clubs suggesting it to landowners as the only way to protect themselves.

I have also dealt with numerous landowners who will never entertain a formal access agreement with anyone whilst quite content to allow quiet visitors, infact I know several who would chase you away if you mentioned being a member of a club. I know one who is sitting ontop (literally) of a truely spectacular underground chamber who will not acknowledge the existance of it or allow access in case "caving clubs and heritage trusts" get to hear of it.

As an aside, everything I visit underground is man made, so I guess I'm a mine explorer rather than a caver.

If I should one day be negligent and cause an injury or death (and I sincerely hope I dont) then BCA insurance will not replace what I have broken.
I am entirely responsible for my own actions, I know the risks of venturing underground and accept them, anything that happens to me down there is my own responsibility as I chose to take that risk, just as we all do

 

[cap n chris]

I know one who is sitting ontop (literally) of a truely spectacular underground chamber who will not acknowledge the existance of it or allow access in case "caving clubs and heritage trusts" get to hear of it

Can anyone acknowledge the existence of this magical place; who IS allowed to visit it - flower arrangers?

 

[cap n chris]

If I should one day be negligent and cause an injury or death (and I sincerely hope I dont) then BCA insurance will not replace what I have broken.

We're going over old ground here. BCA insurance will help mitigate the financial hardship suffered by anyone who is injured as a result of your actions or their next of kin (if you are momentarily negligant and an accident occurs as a result, for example).

I know the risks of venturing underground and accept them, anything that happens to me down there is my own responsibility as I chose to take that risk, just as we all do

... but do you tell anyone who accompanies you underground that if they break their neck and need £2million to buy 24hr care and have a bungalow built to accommodate their wheelchair they may have a chance of gaining such compensation by pursuing your insurers?... or will you be providing the 24hr care (for life) and selling all your possessions to scrape together whatever meagre compensation you can? (sorry about this presumption.. I suppose there is always the chance that you are a millionaire who could manage to provide ample compensation directly via your own assets or portfolio).

 

[Jagman]

I can access part of this "magical site" but not all

and you're right cap'n chris we are covering old ground :?

If an inidividual wishes to cover himself then he/she can insure against all eventualities, that is their own choice and there own responsibility rather than assuming somebody elses BCA insurance will protect them.

And no Chris, it is absolutely clear to all that I have no insurance cover, if someone desires thet protection then they can insure themselves or not venture undergound in my company

my contention is that ot each persons responsiblity to be responsible for their own future in the event of a disaster. The presumption that BCA insurance will cure all is false, personnal cover is of far more relevance.

Insurance is fine in principle but in reality this cover is grossely inadequate, I do appreciate the efforts those concerned with the administartion of this policy go to but if you are concerned, get yourelf life/health cover.

Most irritating of all is the assumption that BCA insurance makes you a safer and more responsible caver

Sadly I will probably have to insure at some point, I will continue to avoid it as long as I can but thanks to the efforts of Caving Clubs etc inevitably it will become unavoidable. Thanks for nothing

 

[graham]

Jagman, you will probably never be required to take out PI insurance unless you choose to descend any of the (actually fairly few) caves for which it is a requirement.

In the mean time, those of us who have spent many years negotiating and maintaining access arrangements with landowners for the benefit of all UK cavers and not just those elitists who like to keep their secrets (myths?) to themselves will continue to put the effort in.

 

[martinr]

my contention is that ot each persons responsiblity to be responsible for their own future in the event of a disaster

Once again, Jagman misses the point by a country mile.

We would probably all be happy to cave without PL insurance, After all, this is what we all did before BCRA PLI and its successor BCA PLI.

The problem is, IT IS OTHER PEOPLE who are insisting we have insurance.

If a landowner says I have to have PLI insurance to go onto his land, what does Jagman say the answer is? Tell the landowner he is wrong? Perhaps Jagman can arrange to have some little green cards made up explaining this, and I will present it to the next landowner who says insurance is needed

Caving PLI is comparable to third-party car insurance. You dont have to have car insurance, until you want to drive on road where insurance is deemed necessary. Caving PLI isnt compulsory. If Jaman doesnt want it, he doesnt have to have it, unless he chooses to cave or mine in a location where the landowner insists on PLI.

thanks to the efforts of Caving Clubs etc inevitably it will become unavoidable. Thanks for nothing

You completely misunderstand why PLI exisits. It is not because of the efforts of caving clubs. My club was finacially much better off before BCA PLI came into being, so we would hardly campaign for someting that is hurting is financially, would we? A few years ago we were paying only £100 a year, and that was because we needed PLI insurance for our hut. This was arranged through Eagle Star, who eventually choose not to offer us cover any more, forcing us down the BCRA/BCA route which now costs us £1800 per annum for 100 members, £100 because we have a hut, £more because we have been asked by a landowner to hold a key, thereby becoming an "access organisation" (and this so that he doesnt get the hassle of people calling on him to ask for a key), £yet more so we can use explosives and go cave diving.

As for his "thanks for nothing", that annoys me. My club is a charity, we promote caving for the benefit of the public. Why should the trustees be left open to a claim against them in the event of something going wrong? Why shouldnt we be insured if that is what is needed?