INSURANCE PEOPLE!! high viz and insurance, difinitive answer needed

J

jen1

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 July 2006
Messages
872
Location
Herts
Visit site
There's been a lot on here today about wearing high viz on the roads, personally I do and I think everyone should but hey that's only my opinion, anyway I phoned a well known insurance company earlier and they said that yes they would pay out in the case of an accident but it may be a lesser payment if the person and or horse was not wearing high viz.

If there's anyone out there that works for an insurance company, can they get a definitive answer on this one? Have also emailed BHS to see if they can come up with an answer. If you know any more please post!!
 
Yes I know but there's been a lot of posts on here suggesting that you would not get paid out if you did have an accident not wearing high viz, so I want to find out if this is just a rumour that someone has started or indeed a fact!

Oh also just thought maybe the fact that you are not wearing high viz means that you were not taking all possible measures to avoid an accident??????? Maybe that's where they would stipulate the need to wear it, or if a driver said they did not see someone e.g. case of a dark horse and rider in dark clothing?/ hmmmm just thinking out loud!
 
Not an insurance insider, so can't help with that, but just want to say that I think the lower payments thing actually makes quite a bit of sense - at least in limited circumstances.

After all, insurance isn't there to cover your a** so you can do whatever you like with impunity - people are still obliged to mitigate the risks they take. So, if wearing hi-viz means that you have taken steps to avoid being hit by a car then you are mitigating the risks you (and your insurance company) are exposed to, and should rightly be rewarded for that. But, I think it would be quite wrong to apply it as a blanket factor. For example, I don't think that not wearing high-viz on a bright sunny day on a pale horse should have any bearing on insurance pay-outs. It should be a case of rewarding good sense, is all.
 
[ QUOTE ]
As it is not the law to wear Hi Fiz, I really don't see how the insurance company can make a statement like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the law to wear a hat either but if you fell off and suffer a head injury and you hadn't been wearing a hat I'm sure the insurance company would tell you to go sing for your injury claim!

I was told when taking out BHS Gold membership (specifically for the 3rd party liability cover) that I would be required to wear a yellow vest at all times, the BHS insurance underwriter do not cover you causing an accident when not wearing high viz.
 
To further complicate matters, I wonder what would happen if you were involved in an RTA out hunting? I have hunting named as one of the activities covered on my insurance, therefore pay a higher premium, and you don't wear hi-viz then, but you do ride on the road, so would a company give a lower pay out? Given that it's specifically covered and they could not reasonably expect you to wear hi-viz for hunting.
confused.gif
 
If you where involved in an accident and claimed from insurers they may well not pay out the full amount if you where not wearing Hi-Viz to the appropriate PPE British Standard.

However this is more likely to occur if you where to go to court and claim from the other parties insurers (for instance a motorist that hit you). The judge may well reduce the amount the insurers have to pay out because you where not wearing Hi Viz to the appropriate British Standard.

This would also include an accident occuring while out hunting on a public highway or right of way.

This is why it is so important that if you or your yard employs someone to ride a horse out of your yard that you provide them with Hi-Viz to the appropriate British Standard.

You should also carry out a written Health and Safety Risk assesment.
 
You have to read the smallprint! It depends on the weather conditions and road conditions, time of day etc. My company state that not wearing high vis could invalidate a claim. It does indicate that weather and road conditions would be taken into account, but surely not worth the risk.
 
I would say they are incorrect. If the Insurance Co were defending a claim on behalf of a motorist that hit you, they may try and allege contributory negligence due to the fact you were not wearing hi- viz, however, it is highly unlikely this would stand up at trial. They would have to show that it significantly contributed to your injuries (ie the lack of hi-viz).

Even in serious motor claims, where people have been ejected from the vehicle and suffered paralysis as a result, the most that gets deducted for not wearing a seat belt is 25%. And that is in cases where the injuries could have been avoided in their entirety.

Interestingly, I also doubt there would be much of a deduction if you were not wearing a hat. There have been cases involving cyclists who have not worn a helmet and there has been no deduction as there is no hard 'proof' that they make a huge difference. There are no current cases, however in the case ofA(a child) vs Shorrock, at the High Court, Newcastle on 19th March 2001. Judge Brown QBD, made it clear this his failure to wear a cycle helmet did not amount to contributory negligence.

Where there is no statutory duty for people to wear helmets, the prospects of a deduction for contrib are slim.

This is in the case of liability cases, not where you are claiming from your own insurance company for personal injury. Even then though, Im sure they would have to prove the lack of safety equipment increased the severity of the injury.
 
Going off the thread a little I have often wondered how Parelli people stand if they are in an RTA and horse has not been wearing a "proper" bridle - or any other equine related accident come to think of it! Anyone got any idea on this? My OH always worries like mad when he sees our local Parelli team out and about on the road sans bridles riding in just a headcollar and a rope!
 
Some Insurance Companies make it part of their Policy, but it is not something they readily bring to your attention. As said, check the smallprint. If it is in the small print, then it is legal.

Other than that, every accident is a one-off. All circumstances are taken into account with every accident, and any payment can be reduced for what is deemed as inadequate care (however they word that!)
 
I doubt the insurance cos contrib negligence could stand up, after all, a horse and rider are a bigger (ie easier to see) thing than a pedestrian and yet peds in roads with no footpaths are not forced to wear hi viz. I would certainly challlenge their approach.Drivers should be driving at a speed which means they can avoid a child running out into the road, let alone a great plodding beastie.

However it does help drivers to get away with the 'I didnt see them excuse, which might mean that they get away with not being found liable at all.....so I always wear mine, but since I have an orange Haflinger and none of my riding gear matches, I reckon we are fairly visible (esp with her natty purple bridle :-))
 
As far as insurance is concerned they cannot stipulate what you should wear when riding horse as they cannot say what is a correct and 'proper' way to control a horse when you are riding or out on the public highway. Until there is a law that says all riders MUST wear high viz at all times on a public highway or MUST wear a hat then it is very difficult for an insurance company to refuse to pay out should there be a RTA where a horserider without any high viz was involved.

However, all insurance companies have their own wordings and you should always read what you are and are not covered for.

At the end of the day though they could argue you had not taken all necessary and sensible precautions for instance in certain weather conditions (ie poor light / fog etc).

All I would advise is check your policy, if it says you are not covered if you're not wearing high viz then WEAR HIGH VIZ!

Personally we do not stipulate that our insured's wear high viz as it is assumed the people we insure have common sense and would not intentionally put themselves at an increased risk and therefore would take necessary precautions. But yes, maybe our premiums will be slightly more than certain companies who do underwrite on these terms.
 
[ QUOTE ]
To further complicate matters, I wonder what would happen if you were involved in an RTA out hunting? I have hunting named as one of the activities covered on my insurance, therefore pay a higher premium, and you don't wear hi-viz then, but you do ride on the road, so would a company give a lower pay out? Given that it's specifically covered and they could not reasonably expect you to wear hi-viz for hunting.
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
As you hunt you will be a member of the Countryside Alliance (or should be) and as such are cover 3rd party for any incidents whether hunting or hacking
 
I'm covered 3rd party on my horse insurance, it specifically names hunting as an activity, as is hackinh, but my point is; if you could be paid a lower premium for hacking without hi-viz, would this apply to hunting, as you can reasonably be expected to wear it hacking but not hunting, if that makes sense?
 
Thanks for the reply, personally I think it should be mandatory for everyone to wear high viz but hey it's a free country! Then what about the tabbards that say caution young horse? there's been posts on here saying that they shouldn't be worn as you are admitting to the fact that the horse may be a liability on the roads?? Hmmmmm maybe I will put a new post on about this too!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Going off the thread a little I have often wondered how Parelli people stand if they are in an RTA and horse has not been wearing a "proper" bridle - or any other equine related accident come to think of it! Anyone got any idea on this? My OH always worries like mad when he sees our local Parelli team out and about on the road sans bridles riding in just a headcollar and a rope!

[/ QUOTE ] I rode my youngster in a rope hackamore to start with as I found I had far more control than with a bit in his mouth. I cleared it with my ins company first though and they took the samt view as me - you really think that you can stop a horse with a bit of metal in its mouth if said horse wants to go or is really frightened? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top