View Full Version : UK insureres not interested!
OK,
after someone started a thing in one of the other threads about insurnce I've spent two weeks researching and here's the results:
1) The only company that really covers campers is Dogtag. So long as you are abraod, not camping in the UK. In the UK you are only covered for 3 nights in a hotel...
2) NO compnay is prepared to actually consider a giving bushcrafters any form of liability insurance. If someone else burns the wood down, Dogtag will cover you ABROAD to the tune of £1M, but if the landowner sues you for any damage - you're screwed!
Any of our US brethren know of any more enlightened companies in the US?
I'm sure there must be with the number of comapanies out there and the (possibly wrong) image that the US has for sueing anybody for anything (no offence meant, TV and newspapers distort the fabric of reality beyond breaking point!).
Totally depressed at the current state of affairs and the unwillingness of any UK company being prepared to put it's 'uncaring' money where its ''caring' mouth is...
Maybe you want to ask some of the instructors and teachers on here how they get insurance, or were you talking about personal insurance?
We have our land and classrooms insured (public liability etc etc) which covers everything we need, but thats done through the local education authoratory, and they cover me as a 'teacher/tutor'
:-)
Ed
Personal liability.
A few people were saying that they can't get permission to use a landowner's land for practicing bushcraft unless they have cover in case they damage crops/burn the wood down.
Whilst we all obviously hope we'll never need anything like that, I was hoping to find something that will cover us when we're not out with the likes of you, Gary, Feathers etc.
I know from personal experience that personal kit is normally covered for damage/theft/loss in your hime and contents policy, but bearing in mind the obstrepolous attitude of some landowners, getting some sort of personal liablity cover seems the only way to get legal access to ideal sites that are not common camping areas.
Squidders
24-08-2004, 00:21
Totally depressed at the current state of affairs and the unwillingness of any UK company being prepared to put it's 'uncaring' money where its ''caring' mouth is...
I found this site (http://www.uk-insurance-pages.co.uk/insurance/motorhomeinsurance.html) that has listed specifically insurance for motorhomes.
I have also tried invian to contact several insurerd loooking for public liability insurance and have had no joy. Seems the market maybe too small or the risk is preceived as too high. I would like to approach more land owners to gain access to land. having insurance makes it more likely the dor will be opened.
I dont know if these 2 will be of any help:
http://www.activesure.co.uk/default.asp?RefID=6000
http://www.eventsinsurance.co.uk/
Having been in a very long lost in time an incarnation of a Lloyds broker (all for 6 months - it was sooooooo dull!!) the best recommendation is to try and find a broker who offsets risk in the Lloyds market. The high street insurers are more bound by pigeon holing everyone and are not really able to 'think out of the box' as they have to tick this, tick that etc. A lloyds underwriter is able to take each issue on merit and decide if it is worth the risk rather than saying that you dont come under a particular heading, some will create the heading for you!
I still have a couple of contacts in the market, so if you PM me what you are actually looking for in terms of overall coverage (and please be specific) I can fir them off an email to see what their thoughts are (if any!).
so if you PM me what you are actually looking for in terms of overall coverage (and please be specific) I can fir them off an email to see what their thoughts are (if any!).
We could disscuss the ideas of what we coverage need in a general bushcraft policy first, most of us probably want the same sort of thing don't you think.....??
Jamie, I'tll probably also save you and your contacts 700 odd pm's and emails from us aswell.... Jamie your a star ;-)
:-)
Ed
Well I cant guarantee anything but will certainly have a go! You know what I am like mate!
Perhaps if people put down their wish list here and we can then compile it and go from there.............
Great Pebble
24-08-2004, 21:04
In a sense we have ourselves (as in the general population) to blame for this, we've become litigious to a ridiculous degree, you only have to watch daytime TV and pick up on all those "claim for free" ads.
I may have mentioned before (I'd be surprised if I didn't) that another of my hobbies is the restoration of old military vehicles, it's now just about impossible for individuals or groups to get 3rd party cover for any kind of public display of this sort. The only way it can be done is through a larger body who have general 3rd party cover. A council for example - Who may let you display at a motor museum in their care, or a large commercial concern. The level of cover required is so astronomical, to cover any potential claim that could be made that underwriters will either plain refuse to look at you or charge premiums so exorbitant that it's impossible to meet them.
And much as I would like to blame the insurance companies, I spent an "interesting" few minutes listening to two "spides" (NI speak for chavs) debating which of them was going to "accidently catch" his fingers in the door of a Saracen earlier this year. They were fighting over whose "turn" it was to get the injury. Up against folk like that i doubt I'd want to offer cover for anything "unusual" either.
Hi all.
The sort of insurance cover I am looking for would cover accidental injury to myself and others. It would be nice to be covered if i smack myself in the shin with my axe or drop a branch on someones head. Third party cover generally to the tune of say a million to cover burning a farmers field or coppice. I'm not sure what other cover I really need. I may take the odd non fee paying student with me. Not sure if that needs a different cover.
You level headed business types will know more about it than poor little me.
bushbasher
25-08-2004, 09:42
Has anyone tried the British Mountaineering Society. Expensive, but their policies seem to cover most activities.
Could be worth try.
jamesdevine
25-08-2004, 10:17
You beat me to it Bushbasher. I was also say the scouts they may not cover individuals but someone might be able to find what the policy covers and does the covering and work form there.
Doing as group looking for the same cover (all do indiviually insured) might be better then everyone ask going a individuals.
Just my thoughts.
James
Well, perhaps if we come up with a comprehensive list of risks and the coverage that we require/need to cover as many eventualities as possible then I can put this forward to my contacts in the Lloyds market and see if they can get a standardised coverage based on xx amount of people signing up to it.......
bothyman
25-08-2004, 10:31
Hi all.
The sort of insurance cover I am looking for would cover accidental injury to myself and others. It would be nice to be covered if i smack myself in the shin with my axe or drop a branch on someones head.
I can remember the days when you put that sort of thing down to experience,
maybe you would be better off saying out of the woods.
That is one of the reasons no one can get insurance everybody seems to be out to blame someone else for their own stupidity or trying to get compensation out of others who they think should take the blame, instead of putting it down to experience and learning from it. :nono:
Ouch. Is that meant to sound so confrontational? I'm not sure Wayne deserved that.
SquirrelBoy
25-08-2004, 12:01
I think having cover for yourself might be a bit difficult to get but its a great idea to have third party cover. The only thing close to `self insurence` is `life insurence` and I dont want to test that policy out :o):
I used to fly model air planes and we HAVE to have third party insurence. I think it was to the tune of 1 million. This was arranged by the BMFA (british model flying association) and is required to fly in public but allowed places.
Having some proper insurence would I think, get us more recognised as a proper `hobby` and perhaps allowed to use more sites ! Scout sites etc?!
Great Pebble
25-08-2004, 12:09
Dunno that I want to be recognised as part of a "proper hobby" with access to whatever.
I don't want forest rangers asking me if my insurance is in order before they'll let me walk in woods.
Personally I find the lack of organisations, insurance and the rest one of the attractions to getting into the trees.
bothyman
25-08-2004, 12:13
Ouch. Is that meant to sound so confrontational? I'm not sure Wayne deserved that.
No it wasn't, apologies if it was taken that way.
Its just the simple fact you should be responsible for your own actions.
If you are stood under a tree and someone drops a branch on your head , why did you stand there in the first place :?:
If you hit yourself with an axe do you sue the axe maker because he made the axe too sharp :roll:
If some dozey sod hurts you through his actions should you have been with him, maybe you should have left earlier when you realised how dozey he was :cry:
If you get poked in the eye with a stick, do you blame the person who owns the wood, then wonder why they won't let you play there anymore??
:roll:
You could go on forever blaming everyone else for your misfortunes
:wave:
jamesdevine
25-08-2004, 12:49
Very interesting thought this. As bushcrafter's should we really need to be insurance in case we burn down someones wood. There is enough info in all the books, from the TV and from here on how to do it safely if can't or you arent confident in your ability then don't do it. Therefore why should you require insurance.
I don't have access to an area of woodland but in all my enquires so far no has asked me for insurance even here in country not far behind the US in claims rightly or wrongly.
My thoughts
James
As bushcrafter's should we really need to be insurance in case we burn down someones wood. There is enough info in all the books, from the TV and from here on how to do it safely if can't or you arent confident in your ability then don't do it. Therefore why should you require insurance.
It allays the fears of the landowner.... nothing more... Just because you've read the books and seen the TV shows doesn't mean the landowner knows that you yourself are competant. It puts their minds at ease that if something did go wrong then you are covered for it and they will not be out of pocket chasing you through the courts.
:-)
Ed
jamesdevine
25-08-2004, 14:04
Thanks Ed I think I missed my own point here.
If we are to have insurance for Bushcrafting which would be open to anyone in theory who wished to play in the woods what ever their level of experience.Are we asking for trouble or would be one more step towards regulation.
For instance I signed up and paid my insurance it was excepted by a landower and that weekend i burnt wood down damaged his property. They insurance wood cover it but as this happens the premium goes up and suddendly someone that has years of experience can't afford the cost and losses there access.
I am playing devils advocate here but then shouldn't some standard of training or experience go hand in hand with the insurance. I think having insurance at least 3rd party is a good idea. But is it enough just to say I can pay for it if I break it.
These are my thoughts nothing else.
James
Hi Bothyman.
No offense taken. i don't think i explained myself too well. i totally agree that you have to take personal responsibility for our own actions. I once spent 4-5 days in Hospital after climbing with a guide from an enforced benightment. the crys from the masses were why haven't you sued. a life without some risk is a life without colour and texture. However an insurance policy that would cover my loss of earning if i was Stupid enough to wack myself in the leg would be nice.
it would also be nice to know i was covered if from no fault of my own somebody managed to hurt themselves whilst under my care. when teaching martial arts i have to constantly remind myself that most people have no idea of self preservation and no common sense. knowing that i am not too blame for any incidents that could occur would be of small comfort if i was to be faced with a law suit and the resultant costs and stress such a case would bring. if i can offset that risk with a generalised insurance policy that i could present to local estates to reduce some of their fears about allowing me to enter their land so much to better. the landowners have a right to expect that i have a base level of competence and commitment to proper stewardship of their livelihoods.
i was suprised my earlier post caused such criticism. If you don't want insurance then fine. i cannot see how myself and a few others seeking to offset a theoretical risk is going to set a precedent.
all land in the UK is owned by someone. i am just trying to give myself any aid to gaining access to it. i am simply a member of joe public with a passion for the outdoors i can't use past assiocation with big companies to help gain access.
I hope that clarifies my position on insurance.
oh and Womble thanks for the support :-)
Great Pebble
26-08-2004, 00:43
There's no harm whatever in you,or anyone else, seeking personal insurance for whatever activity takes your fancy. Assuming of course you can find it.
There was however some suggestion that that having a recognised form of "bushcraft insurance" could bring about entitlements and/or recogniction as a "proper hobby". It was also mentioned that paticipants in other "proper hoobies" are compelled to have some form of 3rd party cover. A situation which I distinctly don't wish to see arising.
On the question of precedent, it is to an underwriters advantage to generate precedent, for as long as individuals involved in...lets say, an "extreme sport" (which is probably how they view what we call bushcraft) approach companies seeking specialist policies on an individual basis, the insurance companies, statistically, are probably on a loser. From their point of view, anyone looking for such cover must consider themselves at risk. They are therefor the last people that the company is likely to want to insure. Hence the difficulty in obtaining cover as stands. If significant numbers of applicants come forward, particularly as a group, though, the company may take the view that at least a proportion of these will be inactive within the sport and hence present a lesser risk, so policies may be offered at reasonable rates, so reasonable that it becomes almost silly not to have it, just in case. You may find that companies, other than insurance brokers offer discounts to policy holders, financed by quid pro quo agreements. There may be exclusive events for those holding policies. Landowners and other bodies/individuals may be encouraged through garnishing of their own insurance coverage to offer access only to those insured.
Insurance cover can quickly go from being desirable, to being advatageous, to near mandatory very, very quickly. In the most extreme case it becomes compulsory for certain pursuits. Round about the time it slips from 'advantageous' to 'near mandatory' the premiums can start to work their way up again. And once they start going up, they don't tend to come back down.
Far fetched? Ask a field sports enthusiast of cetain age.
I do not wish to see a slippery slope towards a compulsary insurance scheme. The press has often cried for such a scheme for mountaineering to cover the cost of search and rescue etc. I have as a member of the BMC always strongly opposed this. You state that some landowners may offer access to those only with insurance. here in sussex i have difficulty finding anywhere to legimately practise bushcraft. i am generally opposed to clandestine bushcraft. This can lead to confrontations with countryside rangers landowners etc. i for one would not want some unknown person lighting fires in my garden.
i think we have a duty to promote bushcraft in a positive open manner. the new TV series will no doubt bring Bushcrafters further into the public domain. not all of this added interest will be from people who wish to adopt a best practise approach. lets face it any yob can light a petrol bomb starting a fire is not difficult. Walking softly through nature is. the discussion about the pros and cons of formalising bushcraft is well discussed on other threads.
I had tried to start a debate for those wishing insurance to consider what kind of policy people wanted. Then Jamie could propose the idea to his industry contacts.
Great Pebble
26-08-2004, 04:28
Well you certainly got a lively debate with a range of different views......
Like Wayne, I don't condone 'black-ops' bushcrafting as it only takes one :***: wit to ruin it for all of us.
I'm in no way saying that such cover should be compulsory, it does show a mature, and considered approach.
Ok, some landowners will not allow any camping with or without insurance, some only will if you have cover, some couldn't care, but at least it shows that we are adopting a responsible and sensible attitude towards this resource.
The sort of cover I would like, and envisage, would primarily be liability cover in case of ACCIDENTAL damage, some sort of cover for persoanl kit (although many household insurance policies already cover this), and maybe some form of personal accident cover in case you break your leg and can't work.
Anyone got any other points that would be included in the ideal 'outdoors person' policy?
(If Mr Howard is reading this, yes I AM being PC! :wink: )
Great Pebble
26-08-2004, 15:37
None of us want insurance to be mandatory, I wasn't suggesting that anyone here did.
What I was pointing out is, that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, if they are going to provide such policies at all, and frankly, it is a high risk scenario in terms of potential damage. It is in their interest to try and engineer a situation in which said insurance becomes, if not mandatory, at least highly desirable. It ensures that they can lift premiums from those with perhaps only a passing or occasional interest, who are unlikely to make claims. It covers their costs and makes the risk acceptable.
One would be inclined to "disengineer" such a possibility arising.
Sorry if I gave the impression that you were saying 'it would have to be mandatory'. I didn't mean to imply that.
As for 'disengineering' the insurance, that is why I specifically said 'outdoors person' rather than bushcrafter, as that way it could cover bushcrafters, ramblers, hillwalkers, weekend campers, basically anyone that uses the countryside for recreational purposes.
It could even include such users as fishermen (sorry, had enough of being PC), who represent one of the biggest users of the countryside in this country (its one of the top 3(?) hobbies IIRC).
Being an ex-matchman I know that we can get loads of insurance to cover our rods etc, but I've never seen anything to cover what several of us are looking for, liability cover + add ons.
I personally feel that such a policy could be of benefit to potentially a few million people in Britain alone.
Great Pebble
26-08-2004, 16:14
I understand that nobody wants to instigate a system of mandatory 3rd party cover for outdoorsmen of whatever kidney.
All I'm trying (poorly) to get across is that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, offering 3rd party protection only to those who want it makes no sense. As the only people who will pay for it through choice are those who feel they may need it. The last person an insurance company wants to sell a policy to is anyone who's actually likely to claim off it.
So you either will be refused cover, charged an exorbitant premium or offered a policy so restrictive that it is effectively worthless....All of those are fine by me.
The final possibility is that an underwriter may attempt, through any means available to make life very difficult for anyone involved in the activity in question to continue the pursuit without insurance.
This last is only likely if a significant number of people seek the same cover. I wouldn't be particularly happy to see that happening.
Since you bring it up, I'd also be interested in whether or not weekend campers, fishermen, ramblers, hill walkers and bushcrafters would be likely to agree that they all share the same level of risk, or present a similar risk to 3rd parties.
Buckshot
26-08-2004, 16:47
All I'm trying (poorly) to get across is that from the point of view of an insurance underwriter, offering 3rd party protection only to those who want it makes no sense. As the only people who will pay for it through choice are those who feel they may need it. The last person an insurance company wants to sell a policy to is anyone who's actually likely to claim off it.
So you either will be refused cover, charged an exorbitant premium or offered a policy so restrictive that it is effectively worthless....All of those are fine by me.
The final possibility is that an underwriter may attempt, through any means available to make life very difficult for anyone involved in the activity in question to continue the pursuit without insurance.
This last is only likely if a significant number of people seek the same cover. I wouldn't be particularly happy to see that happening.
Since you bring it up, I'd also be interested in whether or not weekend campers, fishermen, ramblers, hill walkers and bushcrafters would be likely to agree that they all share the same level of risk, or present a similar risk to 3rd parties.
I'm not sure I agree GP.
The other type of person that may like insurance is someone wanting to be responsible.
If the majority are interested in taking out a policy that in itself will bring the premium down. Not all will claim because of the shear numbers of insured.
Take shooting for example, all the shooting organisations provide insurance as standard in thier membership package, normally £5M 3rd party.
BASC has several hundred thousand memebrs alone not counting the other organisations. Alot of people are members of more than one organisation meaning if they want to claim they can only do it on one policy, not 2 or 3.
Because there are so many people who have cover the premium is very little. I have no idea what the organisations pay but yearly membership to these orgaisations is normally £40ish, and that covers all their other costs as well so the insurance part must be pence. Strength in numbers...
If someone wants to claim on their insurance, because the number of policies is so large it doesn't make a difference to the premiums as a whole.
Is insurance such a bad thing, surely it's just being responsible?
Cheers
Mark
Great Pebble
26-08-2004, 17:02
The situation with regard to shooting is exactly what I want to prevent happening to other areas of outdoor activity. That's my entire point.
Buckshot
27-08-2004, 09:18
The situation with regard to shooting is exactly what I want to prevent happening to other areas of outdoor activity. That's my entire point.
Why :?:
I understand what your saying, but not why
Cheers
Mark
Great Pebble
27-08-2004, 11:20
I'm starting to wonder myself :-)
I suppose I just don't want to be in anyone's "gang" and don't want any "gangs" tramping about the place placing the blame for anything they don't like or can't be bothered to sort out on the "hooligans" who won't do things their way. IMHO that is very much the case with field sports today and one of the principle attractions of the "clubs" is the cheap insurance. I have had a similar experience with motor sport.
I have a feeling the point is kind of moot anyway, but you never know.
Nick, no-one is saying, or even trying to imply, anything about 'gangs' and blaming anything on others- quiet the opposite!
What we are trying to show, as far as I'm concerned, is that we are considerate, mature and above all responsible people who care about what we do and the image that we present. Yes, in any group you wil get idiots, be they fishermen, politicans or what-have-you that marr the whole sport/industry/etc., by not considering their actions or causing trouble either deliberatly or just because they don't care, but we are trying to show that we are not like that and by trying to get liability cover we are attempting to show that we take our responsibilities seriously and are prepared to take responsibility for our actions. That's all.
Great Pebble
27-08-2004, 12:09
I know, but what you want and what you get aren't always the same thing.
Once the insurance industry gets its claws into any hobby/passtime, it suffers. And there are implications for everyone involved.
I think that the long and short of this debate is that there are problems with both sides.
On the one hand, many landowners will not allow us on their land at the best of times, but the more forward thinking who do will inevitably want at some point to ensure that their land and livelihoods are protected from what should only ever be an accident (and these do happen to the best bushcrafters I am sure) - and when I say accident I dont mean to the individual holding the insurance.
This will ultimately mean that at some point a 'standardised' format for people wishing to go out and do what we do will be an inevitability- for good or bad - and perhaps there is a point to this in that we as a group try to create the format ourselves rather than rely on a suit in an office who's only ever experience of bushcraft was haviung picked up Mears' latest DVD at HMV to come up with a format that does not suit anybody at all.
Question ...
The BASC (among other organizations) provide insurance ... but, anyone know anyone who has successfully claimed off it? See, my point being that third-party liability is one thing but it is worthless if you get buried under legal paperwork and you got bust because of legal fees. It seems to me that if you were to get outdoor insurance then legal protection would be vital.
Take this (unlikley) scenario ...
You are in a woods with permission and a fire happens. If you caused it and stuck your hand up and owned up to it, does it end there or will there be legal wranglings as to whether it was deliberate or not, carelessness etc? Also, what if there was a fire and you didn't cause it but were the only insured party?
Seems to me that a million quid would be good protection in the even of injuring or killing someone accidently (in the UK, I doubt it would be in the in the US) but in legal terms might not be much at all.
Just random thoughts ...
Great Pebble
27-08-2004, 13:48
Good summation Jaime.... And never the twain shall meet, I fear.
Adi, put a lot of the points I was trying to make a lot better.
No matter what level of cover you have for any given situation, the expected legal and compensation costs for that situation will exapand to meet and indeed, exceed it. I'd also be inclined to believe that were "bushcraft insurance" to be mooted, £1million would be inadequate. It's a less controlled activity than sport shooting, and the potential risks are greater.
Before I'm corrected, I know that the original suggestion was for general outdoor insurance rather than specific bushcraft insurance, but again, looking at it from the point of view of an underwriter, the two major differences between "bushcraft" and "camping" are blade work and fire, the two potentially most dangerous activities in our passtime. (I'm not even going to touch on trapping or expedient archery).
Makes you wonder how we've managed to practise the 'craft at all in the past.