Sugar_and_Spice
Well-Known Member
Maree_t the British Horse Society provides limited personal accident and third party liability insurance cover to its members, so the disabled child could join and get that cover. But that doesn't mean the people will do as advised and maree_t their insurance doesn't cover you if for some reason they decide to try to sue you. You could insure the horse yourself and include personal injury cover, naming the disabled child and the mother on the insurance to make sure they're covered too. I know that if you as the horses owner took out BHS membership yourself, it would also cover the child and mother under the third party liability section but I don't know whether it would cover them under the personal injury section.
The bit I don't really understand about this thread is how anybody can claim on a share horses third party insurance. I'm not an insurance expert, but my understanding of it would be that *if* the owners insurance covered the sharer, it would cover them in such a way as to give the sharer the same cover as the owner... ie with regards to third party liability that would mean the sharer would be covered against the horse damaging a third party or their property, in the event of a claim, just as the owner is.
Whether the owners insurance covers the sharer or not, I don't see how the sharer could be considered to be a 'third party' for the purposes of a claim. My understanding of it would be that the sharer could claim for personal injury *if* they were covered by the owners insurance and *if* the owner had personal injury cover as part of their insurance. The owner does not have personal injury cover so there could be no claim IMO. I'm really surprised there has been a 6 page thread discussing it.
Claiming against a riding school etc is different because they're a business hiring out horses. Sharers don't pay per ride, they pay towards the cost of the horses upkeep and in return they get to care for and ride the horse. It's an arrangement between friends rather than purchasing a service (hire of horse/instruction) as a business arrangement.
The only exception I can possibly see causing grounds for sueing the owner is if the sharer had not been told of the horses ridden or behavioural issue applicable to the accident/injury before agreeing to the share.
The bit I don't really understand about this thread is how anybody can claim on a share horses third party insurance. I'm not an insurance expert, but my understanding of it would be that *if* the owners insurance covered the sharer, it would cover them in such a way as to give the sharer the same cover as the owner... ie with regards to third party liability that would mean the sharer would be covered against the horse damaging a third party or their property, in the event of a claim, just as the owner is.
Whether the owners insurance covers the sharer or not, I don't see how the sharer could be considered to be a 'third party' for the purposes of a claim. My understanding of it would be that the sharer could claim for personal injury *if* they were covered by the owners insurance and *if* the owner had personal injury cover as part of their insurance. The owner does not have personal injury cover so there could be no claim IMO. I'm really surprised there has been a 6 page thread discussing it.
Claiming against a riding school etc is different because they're a business hiring out horses. Sharers don't pay per ride, they pay towards the cost of the horses upkeep and in return they get to care for and ride the horse. It's an arrangement between friends rather than purchasing a service (hire of horse/instruction) as a business arrangement.
The only exception I can possibly see causing grounds for sueing the owner is if the sharer had not been told of the horses ridden or behavioural issue applicable to the accident/injury before agreeing to the share.