During my time as CNCC access officer and together with Nick Williams, the BCA insurance manager, we agreed the following statement with the insurers which was confirmed valid through 2016 & 2018 at least.
"BCA's insurers have confirmed that landowner indemnity will apply wherever a landowner gives cavers and mine explorers permission to access to sites on their land. The access agreement can be formal or informal. Cover for the landowner extends to incidents arising from all visitors whose objective of their visit is the cave or abandoned mine, not just those who are members of BCA."
Last year there was some further discussions with the insurers as enquiries suggested they no longer supported this statement. Howard Jones, BCA current insurance manager has reported to CNCC that effectively the previous understanding is now restored.
In addition on CRoW access land the landowner liability is strictly limited to the lowest in law. Any claim made against a landowner due to a caving incident is extremely unlikely to succeed. However, very rarely landowner may find themselves defending a claim.
Therefore there is no reason for the landowner to insist that cavers visiting the caves of Gaping Gill have liability insurance. This was clarified across many meetings i had with them and other landowners in the Dales.
However this situation is different. It is the Craven Pothole Club (a limited company I believe) who is holding an event and inviting members of the public to it. Normally in this sort of event the organisers would hold there own PLI. Perhaps it is because they do not have appropriate event insurance that they are covering themselves by expecting those who do attend to have there own insurance as cover for their own club. It is probably as simple as that.
The two issues I raised above were that it is questionable to claim exclusive access to the caves whilst restricting access to those who hold insurance and more importantly to ensure that there is no return to the old thinking with the landowner requesting insurance cover for recreational caving.
I hope this will be discussed at CNCC level and resolved, otherwise I applaud the CPC for their efforts in holding such an event.
"BCA's insurers have confirmed that landowner indemnity will apply wherever a landowner gives cavers and mine explorers permission to access to sites on their land. The access agreement can be formal or informal. Cover for the landowner extends to incidents arising from all visitors whose objective of their visit is the cave or abandoned mine, not just those who are members of BCA."
Last year there was some further discussions with the insurers as enquiries suggested they no longer supported this statement. Howard Jones, BCA current insurance manager has reported to CNCC that effectively the previous understanding is now restored.
In addition on CRoW access land the landowner liability is strictly limited to the lowest in law. Any claim made against a landowner due to a caving incident is extremely unlikely to succeed. However, very rarely landowner may find themselves defending a claim.
Therefore there is no reason for the landowner to insist that cavers visiting the caves of Gaping Gill have liability insurance. This was clarified across many meetings i had with them and other landowners in the Dales.
However this situation is different. It is the Craven Pothole Club (a limited company I believe) who is holding an event and inviting members of the public to it. Normally in this sort of event the organisers would hold there own PLI. Perhaps it is because they do not have appropriate event insurance that they are covering themselves by expecting those who do attend to have there own insurance as cover for their own club. It is probably as simple as that.
The two issues I raised above were that it is questionable to claim exclusive access to the caves whilst restricting access to those who hold insurance and more importantly to ensure that there is no return to the old thinking with the landowner requesting insurance cover for recreational caving.
I hope this will be discussed at CNCC level and resolved, otherwise I applaud the CPC for their efforts in holding such an event.
