Public liability insurance

[gedefaro]

Hi everyone,

Do you have any recommendarions for public or 3rd party liability insurance?

Are they the same thing? If my horse were to cause damages to the livery she‘s kept at, would that be covered?

I looked at BHS and was not sure if it only covers incidents that happen during riding..

 

[Prancerpoos]

Hi.

BHS insurance is not just for when you are riding and should cover what you need:

“BHS public liability insurance provides cover for any third-party injury or property damage that arises out of your legal liability or negligence as an owner, rider or keeper of horses for recreational purposes. Professional equestrian activities and some high-risk recreational activities are not covered, and you can find further details in the policy documents below.”

 

[criso]

Also worth looking at Harry Hall and WHW which also do public liability. BHS has crept up in price so no longer the best value.

 

[PeterNatt]

Please be aware that a Court Case demonstrated that Horse Owners should have Third Party Public liablity cover of no less than £20,000,000 (Twenty million pounds). The BHS Gold membership gives you £30,000,000 (Thirty Million) and not only that but you are also contributing towardes the good work that the BHS does.

 

[expanding_horizon]

Please be aware that a Court Case demonstrated that Horse Owners should have Third Party Public liablity cover of no less than £20,000,000 (Twenty million pounds). The BHS Gold membership gives you £30,000,000 (Thirty Million) and not only that but you are also contributing towardes the good work that the BHS does.

Interesting. |I have £10m with my BD membership (so no extra cost). Trec membership (Red level) £78 is 20 million. Blue level (no liablity) is £40. BHS is £85 for £30 million. What were the details of case where needed £20 million? Link?

 

[PeterNatt]

In the 2003 case of Mirvahedy vs Henley the House of Lords rules that the animals act 1971 imposed strict liability (without the need to prove negligence) on the keeper of any animal with known dangerous characteristics or with 'ordinary' behaviours that might cause harm.
Thus the Animals act 1971 Section 2 (2) as now interpreted by the highest court in the land (House of Lords) says that animal owners are liable. This is as a result of the Mirvahedy v Henley case
There, the law lords held that under section 2(2)(b) of the 1971 Act the keeper of a non-dangerous animal was strictly liable for damage or injury caused by it while it was behaving in a way that, although not normal behaviour generally for animals of that species, was nevertheless normal behaviour for the species in the particular circumstances, such as a horse bolting when sufficiently alarmed; and that, since the accident to the claimant had been caused by the defendants' horses behaving in an unusual way caused by their panic, they were liable to him.
In a nut shell in the case Mirvahedy v. Henley, Henley's three horses were spooked in their field, even thought the case for negligence was throw out, the field was very well fenced and secure, they smashed through the fence, a hedge and bracken, and ran in blind panic for over a mile .....the horses owners were found to be liable for the injures caused by them to Mr Mirvahedy, his injures were life changing and all he was doing was driving his car along a road......we all need to make sure our horses are covered for injures/damage caused to an innocent person should the worse happen........
Generally, the courts will seek to find an insured party to pay compensation where an animal causes death or injury. Strictly speaking, in the law of tort (which is appropriate to these situations)there is a 3 stage test - 1) Duty of Care 2) Failing to provide care to the standard of duty (negligence) and 3) Causing death, injury or damage. Recently, there have been more cases of the courts refusing to award damages on the basis that horses are inherently risky - but to have a chance of favourable judgment such as this you will have to have been very thorough in being able to provide evidence of meeting the duty of care. Most people will not manage this. The case in which loose horses on a road (despite good fencing) is famous as it provided new levels of liability being imposed where there has not really been any negligence. Similar liability has been imposed upon defendants even where, for example, thieves have released horses from their field. If you own horses (or dogs or other livestock) you have better make sure you have adequate public liability insurance to cover them, and also public liability to cover people who are on your property - whether invited or not! It is not a good thing to find yourself in court explaining to the judge why you don't. I have personally known of two commercial yards in my time (one here in the UK and one in the USA) which had to close and be sold because their owners did not have liability cover for the injuries caused by their buildings in the former and horses in the latter. Have yourself all kinds of Public Liability insurance - it need not cost much and could prevent you from losing everything you own.
It is therefore absolutely essential that horse owners have minimum third party public liability insurance to no less than 20 Million Pounds for each horse that they own.
Check your current insurance policy carefully as most do not provide this level of cover.

Owners insurance warning after £14m injury claim
Under the Animals Act 1971,"owners can be liable injury caused by horses that are not in their every day care. Owners must ensure they have the right public liability cover even for horses not in their care, or face losing everything".
Under the Animals Act 1971, "strict liability" for damage or injury caused by animals falls to their owners or keepers, both of whom could therefore face sizeable claims for compensation.
Glynn Linder found himself in this position when a rider suffered life-changing injuries in a fall from a racehorse he part-owned, and submitted a claim for £14m.
Mr Linder, who had only ever seen the horse once and was unaware there had been a fall until he was named in the claim, had public liability cover as part of his household insurance and the case settled out of court.
But he wants owners to be aware they could be liable, even if horses are not in their keeping.
"People are held responsible for an animal even if they have no involvement with it," he told HH. If you're the registered owner, you're leaving yourself open without insurance."
Mr Linder cited another case, of a part-owner who lost his house and was declared bankrupt after the racehorse he part-owned kicked an assistant trainer.
They took everything," he said.
I’m not involved with horses; I only see them run; it shows how easily-you can be liable."
Mr Linder pointed out that the same law would apply to horses on loan, and his case has made his friend Kristine Wilson reconsider.
Ms Wilson told HOH she had loaned her retired police horse to another force for public events.
I’ve asked the force if he's covered, and would they accept liability if there was an accident, because Glynn's incident rang alarm bells," she said He's now withdrawn from everything until I get written confirmation on the liability when he’s out.
"This is a real wake-up call to people who loan horses out."
Barrister Louis Weston, who specialises in the Act told HOH claimants do not have to prove there was negligent action on the owner's behalf if the have suffered injury. And while certain criteria have to be met such as whether the animal concerned was acting in a way likely owing to the species' nature, both owner and keeper may be held liable."This is a ludicrously badly drafted Act," he said.
Most sensible horses can spook or bolt in certain circumstances. but there's always a risk this Act might impose strict liability.
"HH readers need to know that if they own a horse, they don't escape liability by loaning it to someone."
Mr Weston said in the event of an accident, claimants will usually go for whoever has the animal in their possession. But if that person is uninsured, or insured for less than the claim, "the intelligent claimant will find out who the owner is and sue them; you want to follow the money".
Mr Weston added that claims for life-changing injuries can be vast, especially if the victim is young as care will be needed for a long time, so claimants may "sue as many people as they can to get more insurance money in the pot.
"If you loan a horse to someone, you need to make sure there's high cover," he added.

 

[criso]

Generally, the courts will seek to find an insured party to pay compensation where an animal causes death or injury.

But that says to me that by taking out public liability for huge sums we are enabling these big claims. If you're not insured and don't have much in the way of assets, what do they do?

 

[Sossigpoker]

But that says to me that by taking out public liability for huge sums we are enabling these big claims. If you're not insured and don't have much in the way of assets, what do they do?

They'll force you to go bankrupt I assume, claw it from earnings and send bailiffs around. I assume.

 

[criso]

They'll force you to go bankrupt I assume, claw it from earnings and send bailiffs around. I assume.e bsliffs

But if you don't own your own property and don't have a high paid job it could take decades on a percentage of earnings and assuming legal fees and court costs need paying, the claimant is unlikely to see much of that.

If we're talking millions not a couple of hundred pounds from the small claims court, I can't see there would be any value in pursuing a claim where at best you might get a few hundred if you sent the bailiffs round and a percentage of earnings from a low paid job.

 

[ycbm]

It is therefore absolutely essential that horse owners have minimum third party public liability insurance to no less than 20 Million Pounds for each horse that they own.

It may be advisable but it probably isn't essential, depending on your circumstances. If you don't own much in the way of assets and perhaps only a very modest house (I understand that you can't be made homeless by a claim of this sort, though you could be made to downsize) , then it simply wouldn't be worth anyone's effort to sue you, because you have no ability to pay them compensation. Lawyers won't agree to pursue a case where they clearly aren't going to get their fees paid.

ETA nobody should take this as a reason not to have it, £10m with WHW foot about £60 a year is worth every bit for the peace of mind and knowing you're helping horses too.

 

[Jambarissa]

But if you don't own your own property and don't have a high paid job it could take decades on a percentage of earnings and assuming legal fees and court costs need paying, the claimant is unlikely to see much of that.

If we're talking millions not a couple of hundred pounds from the small claims court, I can't see there would be any value in pursuing a claim where at best you might get a few hundred if you sent the bailiffs round and a percentage of earnings from a low paid job.

They can take everything you have of value that isn't essential for your work - your car and your horse for example. Also you may incur court costs defending yourself which would be covered too.

There's also a moral argument. It's not always some random stranger that gets hurt, it could be your best mate or your yard owners car. Wouldnt you want them to get compensation?

Peace of mind for £80 a year.

 

[Lois Lame]

Interesting. |I have £10m with my BD membership (so no extra cost). Trec membership (Red level) £78 is 20 million. Blue level (no liablity) is £40. BHS is £85 for £30 million. What were the details of case where needed £20 million? Link?

85 pounds for a year of insurance with BHS sounds like very good value to me.

 

[criso]

They can take everything you have of value that isn't essential for your work - your car and your horse for example. Also you may incur court costs defending yourself which would be covered too.

There's also a moral argument. It's not always some random stranger that gets hurt, it could be your best mate or your yard owners car. Wouldnt you want them to get compensation?

Peace of mind for £80 a year.

If there's no money for a payout, the court cost would have to come out of an earnings attachment too I have no car, my horse is valueless. The only thing in my flat which may have a resale value is my laptop but you're talking a couple of hundred at most as it's quite old now and it's used for work.

There is talk of 20 or 30 million needed! If there was a cap that of say 1 million on personal liability, then that's what would be claimed however with a growing pot, they ask for more.

I wouldn't quibble at a sensible payout but this thread has made me think we are seeing huge speculative lawsuits driven by insurance and actually made me want to drop out.

Btw BHS is £90 a year, you get £5 off the first year which is where the 85 came from, I cancelled mine as my horse insurance included it without the option to drop and wasn't going to double up.

 

[ycbm]

Only inept lawyers would start a suit against someone whose total assets won't even start to cover their own fees.
.

 

[Glitter's fun]

Only inept lawyers would start a suit against someone whose total assets won't even start to cover their own fees.
.

All insurance depends if you like to gamble. I wouldn't personally bet my house, horse, car & all other possessions on there being no inept lawyers around.

 

[Polos Mum]

There is talk of 20 or 30 million needed! If there was a cap that of say 1 million on personal liability, then that's what would be claimed however with a growing pot, they ask for more.

If a family of 4 crashes into a stone wall avoiding my loose horse running down the road and 2 orphan kids are in wheelchairs for life then £1m would go nowhere to cover the costs of looking after them for 50+ years.

Yes there are some greedy lawyers but actually if my horse accidentally injured someone properly for the sake of £90 I'd rather they got the care they needed.

 

[ycbm]

All insurance depends if you like to gamble. I wouldn't personally bet my house, horse, car & all other possessions on there being no inept lawyers around.

Me to, but we were talking about people who don't have those things.
.

 

[Goldenstar]

Its socially responsible thing to do ,making sure that you have cover particularly as in a set of circumstances ( narrow admittedly) you can be found responsible for damages without any negligence involved is also self interest .
It protects you in worse case scenarios. In the case PN mentions the owner was on holiday he left a suitable in charge that person discharged their care properly but if I remember it right over night thieves stole the post and rail fencing and the horses got onto a dual carriageway.

 

[Mouse19]

I have read people saying that the BHS have been awkward to deal with when claiming and they are effectively last resort insurance and will insist on you claiming through any other cover you may have - house, BD etc.

 

[criso]

If a family of 4 crashes into a stone wall avoiding my loose horse running down the road and 2 orphan kids are in wheelchairs for life then £1m would go nowhere to cover the costs of looking after them for 50+ years

Medical costs should be covered by the NHS which we all pay taxes for and I also strongly believe that the benefit system should adequately support anyone that needs it. After all not everyone will be in a wheelchair through an incident that can be sued for.

So we come to loss of earnings.

14 million which was the case quoted by PN over 50 years is 280000 per year and that's without the income that sum would generate if invested.

That supported the idea of having to have the BHS one which is 30 million as opposed to the Harry Hall one which is cheaper but only has 10 million.

I've always had public liability but this thread has made me question it and am I just creating a system for greedy lawyers? I'd rather pay more in tax to support everyone equally.

It's also made me realise that I don't really have anything with much of a resale value. If YCBM is right and they can't make you homeless , then my small mortgaged flat wouldn't be of use as no option to downsize.

 

[Polos Mum]

Criso, you are right that in those circumstances people SHOULD be looked after. My observation on the NHS and welfare state is that there are not enough funds to enable that to happen properly. Not the fault of the wonderful people who do their best in benefits / NHS - but those organisations are wholly broken and can't be relied upon. I promise the amount required from all of us to fully fund the NHS in our taxes is a lot more than £90 each.

I don't have masses but I wouldn't want to loose what I have. Nor would I want to feel guilty that an injured person is getting very basic care when they could be getting top quality care. It's a personal choice.

In the grand scheme of owning horses £90 (a set of shoes or a couple of lessons sort of money) is worth it for me. I appreciate it might not be for everyone. Everyone is different and that is OK.

 

[criso]

In the grand scheme of owning horses £90 (a set of shoes or a couple of lessons sort of money) is worth it for me. I appreciate it might not be for everyone. Everyone is different and that is OK.

£49 per year would get you 10 million from Harry Hall

It's just the whole thing has made me think about public liability and I've realised I'm uncomfortable with a two tier system where whether you get help depends on someone to sue and awards that may well exceed the actual costs but are driven by greedy lawyers on a percentage. What would have happened to the example you gave of the orphan children in wheelchairs if the accident had happened because the car slipped on a patch of ice or swerved to avoid a deer or rabbit?

 

[moosea]

£49 per year would get you 10 million from Harry Hall

It's just the whole thing has made me think about public liability and I've realised I'm uncomfortable with a two tier system where whether you get help depends on someone to sue and awards that may well exceed the actual costs but are driven by greedy lawyers on a percentage. What would have happened to the example you gave of the orphan children in wheelchairs if the accident had happened because the car slipped on a patch of ice or swerved to avoid a deer or rabbit?

If it is your horse that caused the accident why shouldn't they claim against you?

It is not just looking after that person while they recover, it is adapting their home, paying for life l9ng care and replacing their earnings. Why should I ( through my taxes which pay for NHS and benefits ) pay because you choose not to insure your horse?

 

[ycbm]

I have read people saying that the BHS have been awkward to deal with when claiming and they are effectively last resort insurance and will insist on you claiming through any other cover you may have - house, BD etc.

They don't claim they are effectively last resort, they state it openly in their literature. They ARE last resort, as are the others, HH and WHW. If they weren't, it wouldn't be affordable like it is.
.

 

[expanding_horizon]

They don't claim they are effectively last resort, they state it openly in their literature. They ARE last resort, as are the others, HH and WHW. If they weren't, it wouldn't be affordable like it is.
.

Exactly, if there is a liability claim and none of your other insurance will pay, they will. Seems reasonable to me.

I wonder if had liablity with BD and BHS, both of which are last resort insurance, how they would agree who paid out? Or if they'd pay half each>?

 

[expanding_horizon]

I 100% think all horse owners should have third party liability insurance.

Morally even if you arent asset rich, if your horse caused someone else life changing injuries, I think morally a payout to support their diminished circumstances is reasonable.

What I am not clear is whether 10 million is broadly sufficient or not.

It would cost me an extra £90 a year to increase from 10 to 30 million.

I am not sure if it is truly necessary to have 30 million.

 

[ycbm]

Exactly, if there is a liability claim and none of your other insurance will pay, they will. Seems reasonable to me.

I wonder if had liablity with BD and BHS, both of which are last resort insurance, how they would agree who paid out? Or if they'd pay half each>?

Date the first was activated, I suspect, but since they're are probably underwritten by the same insurance company it probably wouldn't be an issue.
.

 

[criso]

If it is your horse that caused the accident why shouldn't they claim against you?

It is not just looking after that person while they recover, it is adapting their home, paying for life l9ng care and replacing their earnings. Why should I ( through my taxes which pay for NHS and benefits ) pay because you choose not to insure your horse?

Because sometimes accidents just happen.

We are talking about no negligence in the examples quoted and one mentioned that thieves had broken a fence letting horses out but the owner was liable. Clearly the owner was not the one at fault here but got sued.

And the high award that was quoted was 14 million which over 50 years is 280000 per year. Assuming the award is paid out as a lump sum, it will also generate revenue beyond the yearly amount.

There's a point at which these numbers go beyond what is needed and if we keep upping the amount covered, they keep going up.

ETA I think what's happened is I've made a connection between taking out ever higher public liability and the cold calls wanting to talk to me about my "accident", there isn't one and those adverts that start " been involved in an accident that wasn't your fault".

 

[expanding_horizon]

Because sometimes accidents just happen.

We are talking about no negligence in the examples quoted and one mentioned that thieves had broken a fence letting horses out but the owner was liable. Clearly the owner was not the one at fault here but got sued.

There is clear precedent that if theives break fence or a car demolishes fence in night, and horses get on road and cause accident, the horse owner can be held liable for damages. Same if someone falls off a horse and it causes an accident loose (irrespective of why rider fell off).

Whether fair or not, this legal precedence is clearly established and is why ALL horse owners need liability insurance.

 

[criso]

There is clear precedent that if theives break fence or a car demolishes fence in night, and horses get on road and cause accident, the horse owner can be held liable for damages. Same if someone falls off a horse and it causes an accident loose (irrespective of why rider fell off).

Whether fair or not, this legal precedence is clearly established and is why ALL horse owners need liability insurance.

That was my point, horse owners are being punished for other peoples behaviour when it's not their fault and insuring enables this as it gives a pot of money to go for.

It doesn't make me want to insure, it makes me want to drop my public liability and step aside from the whole system. I can't atm as it's bundled into my horse's veteran policy.