"Paul Lydon" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:27:58 +0000, Allan Gould <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just seen my BMC sub rise again to £25 this year. In the last couple of years, it seems to have
> >gone up significantly.
> [snip]
> >I have a hunch this might just be due to increased costs of the included insurance.
>
> Insurance premiums probably has got something to do with it. I am also a very active caver and
> like most cavers have Third-Party Liability insurance arranged through the caving equivalent of
> the BMC.
>
> Not only have premiums have greatly increased in the last couple of years (despite there never
> having been any claims made), we (cavers) also had fun and games with previous Insurers refusing
> to renew policies and making stipulations on numbers insured, etc. The numbers involved (~6,000
> cavers) mean that income from premiums is not all that great when compared to a possible single
> payout in the hundreds of thousand if not millions. The BMC has much more clout in this respect as
> it has probably 10 times as many paid up members as does the equivalent caving organisation.
>
> What did come out of all the chaos of trying to get TPL re-arranged when it expired the end of
> last year was just how it did indeed matter.
>
> Access to most caves in one caving area was withdrawn. Committees of National organisations had to
> resign officially in case of any uninsured litigation.
>
> Unlike walking on Public Footpaths where you have a right of access, access to caves usually
> involves an access agreement with the landowner and many insist on TPL cover.
>
> It is not immediately obvious where TPL insurance affects walkers. One area where it may impinge
> on walkers is in the case of Clubs where there is always a TPL aspect and Club Officers may need
> TLP insurance. There my be other areas where TPL insurance matters even for walkers.
>
> Or it maybe that walkers and rock climbers are lumped together in the BMC scheme?
>
> Anybody else know?
>
> Just my 0.02p's worth.
At MCofS , where the situation is probably identical to BMC, we had a long dicuscussion on this
topic at the last AGM. The cost of providing insurance has certainly been increased by the insurers.
To avoid doubt anong anyone reading this who's not sure, we're not talking holiday/travel insurance
here, but insurance against third party claims. Also, I'm writing this as an individual MCofS
member/volunteer helper, I'm not an office bearer in any capacity.
The insurers who provide cover to the governing bodies of sport have increased the premiums over the
last year or two to governing bodies of sport generally. This is in the light of the Diane Modhal
case over a disputed drugs misuse accusation which bankrupted the UK Athletics Association, and an
earlier case by a boxer whose name I forget now, who suffered brain damage over insufficient medical
provision provided by event organisers when somebody kept punching his head.
In the light of the UKAA case it would be lunacy for any organisation not to obtain insurance cover
to protect themselves.
There are 2 main classes of membership at MCofS and presumably also BMC, individual and club.
Affiliated clubs are covered for their activites under the insurance scheme. I feel that the clubs
who are charged a per capita rate of insurance the same as the individual members) gain much more
benefit than the individual members from the insurance. The clubs could be sued by (eg) persons
injured during their outings, whereas individuals walking or climbing are probably just at risk of
causing a rock to fall onto somebody else. For reasons mainly of practicality however, the premiums
are spread evenly over the whole membership. Climbers, walkers and cross country skiers all have to
pay the same.
There's a little more background in the artice at www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/nl/55f.html#a3
My attitude is that the membership fee is a price which has to be paid to have an effective
representative body for our interests, and the insurance part of it is sadly vital in this
increasingly litigious society.
I could finish by pointing out that by joining the MCofS you get practically identical benefits to
the BMC, but at a lower membership fee, and that particularly applies to all those BMC members in
Scotland whos interests are better served by MCofS, but obviously I won't as this isn't the forum
for such blatant advertising.
--
Duncan Gray
homepage - www.duncolm.co.uk also www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk The Mountaineering Council
of Scotland
