That insurance thing....

[Nick G]

It would be nice if this issue was resolved, once and for all, It's been going on to long, something like once or twice a year, over the past three years.

Ombudsman now that sounds interesting, their very good at sorting out things like this.

[axelant]

lloydg01 don't panic too much. There's a lot of issues over the BBC thing but the odds are in your favour they would pay up. You do need to consider the negligence angle, so make sure you abide by the BBC Risk Assessment because if you are found to have not followed the rules in there I suspect you would not be covered.

 

A little thing I found out that doesn't seem to be widely known

[songalolo1]

I've read it all as well, start to finish and it makes no sense... Although I think I know one thing... I don't think we covered at all.

 

3 scenario's I'm thinking of.

 

1) jogger running on the outside of our field is hit and taken out by a kite which got away from a pilot, or pulled lose from a ground stake... He must be able to claim because he was injured through no fault of his own... but the pilot, had done everything as he should... so the jogger can not claim negligence on the pilot's part... now what... I'm pretty sure the jogger has a case, but the insurance by the definitions above will not cover the pilot... so now... or have I misunderstood everything...?

 

2) A dog walker who always walks through the field and is well aware of the kiters who use the field insists on getting in the way and walking directly in the path ofthe kiters, forcing them to avoid him/her... accident bound to happen here... and it does, kiter done all he can to avoid this but to no avail. Now who's at vault? in my mind the dog walker... you don't walk onto a sports pitch in the middle of a football/rugby game cause you bound to get hurt...?

 

3) I'm stand still with the kite at the zennith and a freak wind picks me up and flys me across the field and drops me on an old lady walking her dog "fiffie"... again done all I can but as it was a freak wind... is this not considered "act of God", for which many insurers do not cover either... so now what?

 

If I got it all wrong, oh well, see you down the field later...and if I have a point.. how the hell did I manage that....

[axelant]

songalololololol....

 

1) No negligence therefore the BBC policy stands and you are covered no problem.

2) Kiter is still covered as there is no negligence however there would probably be a court case to decide on fault to see whether the kiter's insurance should be paying out

3) Good point, not sure about acts of God. That's where sight of the policy/schedule would be handy!

[Nicolli]

songalololololol....

 

1) No negligence therefore the BBC policy stands and you are covered no problem.

2) Kiter is still covered as there is no negligence however there would probably be a court case to decide on fault to see whether the kiter's insurance should be paying out

3) Good point, not sure about acts of God. That's where sight of the policy/schedule would be handy!

 

 

How can you possibly answer those three questions when you clearly no nothing about insurance ???????????????????????????????????????????

 

1) The claim would succeed and you would be covered on you policy, however YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT. If you were not negligent then the claim would fail.

 

2) The claim would succeed however your insurer could argue contributory negligence against the claimant as he has put himself in harms way, again YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT. If you were not negligent then the claim would fail.

 

3) The claim would succeed and you would be covered on you policy, however YOU WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEGLIGENT. There is no such thing as an act of god in insurance terms. It is an old and outdated term that you will never see on any current insurance policy booklet.

 

Look at the back of your car policy booklet, check out the exceptions, it states stuff like -

 

Your policy does not cover the following -

 

Earthquakes

Riot or civil unrest

Loss or damage caused by ionising radiation, radioactive contamination

ETC, ETC.

[axelant]

You are quite right I am not an insurance professional, however I've spent the best part of a year arguing with insurance companies and these very points have been mentioned a number of times.

 

I have said before there is a difference between negligence and liability. I have had long discussions with a number of insurers offering these policies and they have all said that you are covered as long as you are not found to be negligent.

 

The BBC's insurers have been supplied with a Risk Assessment in order to help the insurer define what is negligent and what is reasonable care.

 

How can you say the kiter is negligent when the words "kiter done all he can to avoid this"? That would be a contradiction. Negligence is the act of failng to take precautions to avert a forseeable outcome. If the person takes these precautions they cant be failing to take the precautions can they?

 

You may well be right about the words Acts of God being outdated. If you read my reply I say I don't know what the position is here. However the flier is not negligent because they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the incident did not occur. It happened because of extraordinary circumstances they could not have reasonably forseen (acts of god to the rest of us).

[songalolo1]

bump to keep this at the top.... come on BBC and BBC sort it out!

[bulletmagnet]

It's all gone quiet, the silence is deafening.

 

Mike, Mell and Monkey any comments yet?

[Kiteboyza]

BBC = Big Bloody Con pmsl

[Roger Melly]

I think you've got to wait until 4th Aug before mell comes online again. Even when he does I can't see you getting a response......

[Neil aka KC]

What i think is out of order is... you have a genuine consern by a lot of members, whether its true or not. Mell is more than aware of this thread i'm sure. And by not responding in any form what so ever he is in fact deglecting is role within the BBC, and letting us all down.

 

Maybe someone should write a letter and have it sent to the BBC with a window to respond in. The problem i can see is if this is true and someone does have a problem claiming then i think that bbc member would be then able to claim direct against the BBC for neglect of responsibilties.

[muffy]

pmslol; oh man this looks so bad, classic! (about the timing of my other thread)

 

note to self : never create a topical thread!

 

Go on then: somebody post a link to his original thread - I can't seem to find it. Or is it another one of those mysterious disappearing threads?

[tttonyyy1599968643]

Bump to the top.

 

Has anyone renewed BBC insurance recently and got a cover note stating that you're insured for kite traction sports?

 

Surely if it says it on the cover note then you're insured to do it?

[stonemonkey]

Has anyone actually seen this mythical insurance policy ???

 

if you request it , from mell or the bbc I thought they would by law have to supply it to you ,

 

like companys have to show their liability insurance to the employees ( usually by posting it up somewhere )

 

so in that case

Mell I would like you to post or mail me a copy of the insurance cover note for me to see please ???

[tttonyyy1599968643]

I was under the impression you get a cover note of some sort with BBC insurance though? That should have the basic terms on it, surely?

[makka]

3 scenario's I'm thinking of.

 

1) jogger running on the outside of our field is hit and taken out by a kite which got away from a pilot, or pulled lose from a ground stake... He must be able to claim because he was injured through no fault of his own... but the pilot, had done everything as he should... so the jogger can not claim negligence on the pilot's part... now what... I'm pretty sure the jogger has a case, but the insurance by the definitions above will not cover the pilot... so now... or have I misunderstood everything...?

 

2) A dog walker who always walks through the field and is well aware of the kiters who use the field insists on getting in the way and walking directly in the path ofthe kiters, forcing them to avoid him/her... accident bound to happen here... and it does, kiter done all he can to avoid this but to no avail. Now who's at vault? in my mind the dog walker... you don't walk onto a sports pitch in the middle of a football/rugby game cause you bound to get hurt...?

 

3) I'm stand still with the kite at the zennith and a freak wind picks me up and flys me across the field and drops me on an old lady walking her dog "fiffie"... again done all I can but as it was a freak wind... is this not considered "act of God", for which many insurers do not cover either... so now what?

 

If I got it all wrong, oh well, see you down the field later...and if I have a point.. how the hell did I manage that....

 

Very interesting thread, just read through the whole thing (not much happening at work!)

 

Just a few comments to make.

 

With your sccenarios:-

 

1. Negligence could be proved if you had not sufficiently secured the kite to prevent it becoming loose. i.e. Nothing to stop the handles / bar from becoming detatched from the ground spike, not using kite killers or depower system that keeps you connected to the kite. In this case you may not be covered by the insurance.

 

2. A precident was set here by the events at Lytham St. Annes, although it was an organised event, and the track was marked out, when someone walked into the path of a land yacht the yacht pilot ended up in court.

 

3. Possibly negligent as you were not in control of the kite, not using any means of stopping the event happening.

 

On the general subject of insurance:-

 

Many general insurance companies will cover you for accidents, and third party liability as part of their usual policies, however their may be some exclusions. These usually cover sports where you are likely to injure yourself and thus generate a claim.

 

On Clubs and insurance:-

 

If a club owns a site, or leases it they may be able to take out public liability insurance (PLI) to protect members of the public present at any events, or injured as a result of an accident whilst on the premises. If a club uses a site owned by another party they should ideally seek to gain cover on the owners PLI, possibly offering to cover any increased cost. (This is why councils don't like organised clubs on their land as it could possibly push the cost of the PLI up) If the site is for example a farmers field, then they probably would have to seek agreement with the farmer to gain PLI insurance for that field as the farmers insurance probably wouldn't cover third party liability for club kite activities.

 

On risk assessments:-

 

Anyone can carry out a risk assessment, absolutely anyone! HOWEVER, if there is subsequently an accident, and the risk assessment is deemed to be inadequate by the enforcing authority (HSE or Environmental Health) both the owner of that risk assessment (the club) and the person that undertook the risk assessment can be held liable for not taking all practicable measures to ensure the incident was preventable (negligence). If this were the case the insurance company would probably not cover the liability.

Risk assessments for activities in areas that involve a degree of risk to the general public should be undertaken by a suitably trained person, ideally that person should be a safety professional, and should have registered as a Safety Practitioner. All registered safety practitioners have liability insurance, this means if there is a claim due to an incident and the risk assessment is used in evidence in a court they are covered against any liability arising from deficeincies found in the risk assessment. In addition where a site is covered by a risk assessment individuals undertaking activities referred to in that risk assessment should undertake a local risk assessment before starting any activity (This means check and note down if you feel it is safe to do what you are about to do, what the prevailing conditions are, etc, etc.) If on doing this you then decide to continue with the activity and an accident occrs this can be produced as a way of proving you were not being negligent in your actions.

 

I only know this as I am working towards becoming a safety practitioner!

 

On Clubs and insurance:-

 

With the advent of regional clubs such as SEKA, GECK-O, SWATK, why don't these organisations get together as a loose association and enquire about insurance for their members? I wouldn't advise going down the route that leads to PKSF insurance but trying some of the companies that cover Paragliding, Handgliding, Rock Climbing etc, etc.

 

On focussing the minds of those that currently offer insurance to our sport:-

 

Perhaps if we all looked at what cover we already have for liability on our house, accident, and other insurances, or sought cover through other means then avoided events and organisations that insisted we have only one particular policy it might focus peoples minds somewhat.... For example a MW without powerkites, X-zone with no powerkites, I think minds would soon be focussed on addressing issues people have. This is just a suggestion of course, I am at pains to say that I have no arguement with any individual, event, or organisation, as I don't go to Wallop anymore, and I can't get to X-zone this time around!

 

Sorry about the huge post but I just wanted to pass comment on a lot of what has been said in the thread. If anything here is subjudacy or incorrect I will happily amend.

[SandMonster]

2. A precident was set here by the events at Lytham St. Annes, .....the yacht pilot was found liable,

I don't think this is actually true...AFAIK the civil case to sort out liability has not happened yet...

...if it is can you provide evidence for what you say?

 

Also if you are a qualified, recognised insurance expert, can you state in what capacity you are giving this 'opinion'...?

[ZoMbooLio]

Just a simple question from me... I have BBC insurance, I am not part of a club or anything like that (just a bunch of people who turn up at a beach around the same time), but I am going to X-Zone, so will I need anything else to fly there, or will my BBC be ok (I am not competing or anything silly like that)?

[GaRRy]

I don't think this is actually true...AFAIK the civil case to sort out liability has not happened yet...

...if it is can you provide evidence for what you say?

 

Also if you are a qualified, recognised insurance expert, can you state in what capacity you are giving this 'opinion'...?

 

 

Correct this is still on going. Only case so far was the police prosecution of pilot who was found not guilty of gross negligence.

 

Sorry for legal reasons cant say more

[makka]

Correct this is still on going. Only case so far was the police prosecution of pilot who was found not guilty of gross negligence.

 

 

Sorry for legal reasons cant say more

 

Fair comment, I stand suitably corrected, posting amended to something more accurate.

 

I am no insurance expert, however I regularly have to seek legal opinion on aspects of liability, negligence, and insurance from my companies lawers.

 

I also have to undertake regular risk assessment reviews, and other risk assessment activities which are then reviewed by both our Safety Practitioner, and our legal department before being put into policy. I have asked the question about RA's in varying situations, and the answers I received were related in my post.

[Offshore]

I have read this thread and others! I have concerns about BBC insurance that has led me to look elsewhere for cover (BKSA).

 

My concerns with BBC are that:

There appears to be an inability to answer set questions by BBC (I have posed Qs before via here)

They (the BBC) do not appear to show a copy of the schedule of cover on their site

They (the BBC) do not appear to state who their broker is

They (the BBC) do not appear to state who their insurer is

 

Added to which insurance is regulated by the FSA - the BBC are selling insurance (if a Vet sells insurance for your cat via Pet Plan he has to be an appointed rep of the insurer and is regulated!!). I cannot find any reference on the new BBC site!!!

 

Here is a link to the FSA register http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/

 

I'd like to know the answer perhaps somebody to advise thick old me!

[makka]

This is a very ticklish area, are they (the BBC) acting as brokers for the PKSF, or the insurer. If it is the PKSF, then are they acting as brokers for the insurer.

 

When you take out insurance through a broker they are supposed to be regulated, I think they are also supposed to state what their commision is!

 

No if I get this all correctly we pay £15 to the broker (the BBC) they pay £14 to the PKSF, on theit figure of 4600 members that's £4600 ino the BBC's coffers, fair enough they provide a service.

From a posting on this thread the PKSF pay the insurer £4.50 per person. If that is correct then that is a lot of money in the PKSF bank account for doing what I feel is not a lot.

However who are the PKSF? Isn't it the BBC, the BKSA...... So more money for them!

[Chivalry]

? just stumbled across this? after reading through much of the thread,, im commin to the conclusion that i havent a clue wtf most people are talking about ;0(

 

can somebody.... in plain english , please explain if i have insurance or not? im seeing posts saying if i fly static im not insured....,, if i go to any non BBC event and fly im not insured...... can anyone jusy tell me in english what im actualy coverd for with my BBC insurance .. :0(

[rayens]

The only person who can answer your questions is Mell ..........................I think most people are still waiting for an answer

[Offshore]

In Kitesurf Mag the BKSA advert states the policy brokers are Perkins Slade and underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance!

 

Just looked at the message board there and seems getting cover takes an age there - so what are the alternatives????????