Warning, BHS and public liability

[Luci07]

As having read various recommendations I looked into joining the BHS to have this cover. Just to point out that if any money changes hands for the use of your horse, you are not covered. So if you are sharing you would not be covered. Shame as that counts my mare out!

 

[Jnhuk]

Can't your sharer join BHS gold membership so they are covered themselves?

 

[L&M]

My sharer was told the same so went with Pet Plan - crazy when plenty of people share horses and make a financial contribution....

 

[criso]

I have a feeling it applies to most insurance policies.

It's like horsebox insurance though, I am fine to help friends out and give them lifts, I think we can share fuel costs but if they give me cash then it becomes hire and reward and invalidates insurance.

Same with my horse, I can let whoever I like handle or ride him but if they pay me money for it then I am not covered.

Need an insurance expert here but I think contributing to costs is slightly different and may be OK.

 

[Silvermiyazawa]

Watching with interest.

 

[JustKickOn]

I'm registered as BHS gold member, and pay towards a horse, pretty sure I am still covered as a BHS instructor rexommended this as insurance cover KNOWING I would be exchanging money.

 

[Pedantic]

Been told by someone they don't pay out if you have "other" insurance such as "house" insurance.

 

[dieseldog]

Been told by someone they don't pay out if you have "other" insurance such as "house" insurance.

That bit is true as I asked them. If they can get someone else to cover the loss then they won't pay out. The attraction for me with BHS was that it had no excess, however if they make me claim of my house insurance then I would have an excess to pay. Seems rubbish to be paying for cover that I then can't use.

 

[Goldenstar]

I'm registered as BHS gold member, and pay towards a horse, pretty sure I am still covered as a BHS instructor rexommended this as insurance cover KNOWING I would be exchanging money.

You will have third party cover if you where riding the horse and damage was caused but I think the issue is if the sharer was damaged by the horse and sought to sue OP as the horses owner OP would not be covered.

 

[Nickijem]

I am currently trying to persue a claim with BHS on my public liability as my horse escaped from his paddock and damaged a neighboring garden. The garden owner is sueing me for the damage but BHS are so far refusing to pay. I am more than a little disappointed as i thought thats what i had public liability cover for.
I haven't given up yet though - I
am still hoping they will pay up.

 

[kateo]

I thought that Bhs pl cover was an insurance of last resort, didn't think it should be relied on as your only policy?

 

[Goldenstar]

I am currently trying to persue a claim with BHS on my public liability as my horse escaped from his paddock and damaged a neighboring garden. The garden owner is sueing me for the damage but BHS are so far refusing to pay. I am more than a little disappointed as i thought thats what i had public liability cover for.
I haven't given up yet though - I
am still hoping they will pay up.

Why are they refusing ?

 

[Sugar_and_Spice]

AFAIK BHS will only pay out if owner is proved negligent. It's not like car insurance where you can admit liability and they'll pay. Last time I read the BHS terms, the insurance was invalidated if you admitted liability. So its not as simple as an escaped horse damaging property and the BHS will pay.

The thing about a sharer suing the owner for damages makes sense too. Both owner and sharer are covered for public liability on the owners BHS membership, but of course the sharer can't then claim for their own injury against the owner on that same policy. How can the sharer expect to be both covered by the policy for public liability and also be able to put in a public liability claim against it? That's crazy if people are expecting that. If the sharer has their own BHS membership it comes with personal accident cover.

The hire and reward thing doesn't apply to sharers, the payment is not to hire the horse per hour its a payment to contribute towards the cost of the horses care. If the sharer payment was seen as hire and reward, all horse owners with a sharer would need a riding school license, even if they only owned one horse. Which is another crazy idea!

 

[mon]

Need to claim off a persons dog PL insurance as it attacked my horse on bridleway how do I go about it farrier expense broke reins horse not rideable for week don't know about how she will be hacking out on own again so could be loss of use, do I have to inform my insurance..

 

[Goldenstar]

AFAIK BHS will only pay out if owner is proved negligent. It's not like car insurance where you can admit liability and they'll pay. Last time I read the BHS terms, the insurance was invalidated if you admitted liability. So its not as simple as an escaped horse damaging property and the BHS will pay.

The thing about a sharer suing the owner for damages makes sense too. Both owner and sharer are covered for public liability on the owners BHS membership, but of course the sharer can't then claim for their own injury against the owner on that same policy. How can the sharer expect to be both covered by the policy for public liability and also be able to put in a public liability claim against it? That's crazy if people are expecting that. If the sharer has their own BHS membership it comes with personal accident cover.

The hire and reward thing doesn't apply to sharers, the payment is not to hire the horse per hour its a payment to contribute towards the cost of the horses care. If the sharer payment was seen as hire and reward, all horse owners with a sharer would need a riding school license, even if they only owned one horse. Which is another crazy idea!

The money changing hands thing is exactly why OP can't depend on on BHS gold insurance for her liability between the sharer and the sharer family money is changing hands but it is not joint ownership.
The point about the riding school may seem I good one but if you think about the terms that govern the licensing of riding schools ( where the local authority is in charge ) are clearly not operating in the case of a sharer .
This a very difficult one if OP was letting her friend ride the horse she would be covered ( with the provision that the BHS is the insurer of last resort).
This must be not be insoluble if I where her I would contacting some of the big insurance companies and perhaps local brokers and explaining clearly the arrangement and and see what they quote.
In a nutshell they both need liability against the horse damaging stuff/ people and the owner of the horse needs cover for her liability to the sharer as the horses owner.

 

[Goldenstar]

I am currently trying to persue a claim with BHS on my public liability as my horse escaped from his paddock and damaged a neighboring garden. The garden owner is sueing me for the damage but BHS are so far refusing to pay. I am more than a little disappointed as i thought thats what i had public liability cover for.
I haven't given up yet though - I
am still hoping they will pay up.

Are you covered on your house insurance ?
And is it a case where as a owner you might be held to have strict liability ie it was your fault even if you wherenot negligent.
There is an insurance ombudsman who investigates disputes between the insurer and customner don't hesitate to contact them if you are not happy you need to have complained ( in writing to the company ) and have exhausted all there complaints procedure.
Keep written records of all conversations with the insurer.
My friends claim (it was over a car) took time to set out but the ombudsman found against the insurer and they had to pay with interest the claim .
Also it would be useful to post your experiance on here the BHS makes much of what your gold membership offers you if they give you a lot of unpleasant hassle when you are in trouble both myself and others may well revisit the desision to be a member.

 

[Thistle]

Surely this could be solved by the sharer paying some of the bill s direct, rather than paying the owner?

 

[Skib]

I and my OH joined the BHS expressly to have back up third party cover when hacking from riding schools and sharing. My share has always been paid for per ride.
Is it now against the law for to have a pay per ride share with an individual owner? When both horse and rider are elderly, one can never guarantee that either horse or rider will be fit for riding on any particular day. It is much better to be flexible. The payments made are a contribution to the keep and shoeing of the horse.

 

[grandmaweloveyou]

Petplan told me 'any person contributing financially or physically to the care of the horse is covered'. Makes sense.as how would say, each family member be covered?

 

[criso]

Contact the insurance company if you gave any concerns, i did when i was a sharer and was alerted to this by someone on another forum who worked for an insurance company and found alot of them would not cover me if there was a financial arrangement.

It's not against the law but is a grey area as far as insurance is concerned. Take the examples below.


I don't know how common it is but I know of 2 small scale riding schools and some dealers who take on sharers who pay so some per day and the horse is effectively theirs.
So you could have 3 set Ups
Person A pays £10 per day for a horse owned privately
Person B pays the same for a horse owned by the riding school.
Person C pays the same but in this case horse is owned by the instructor but horse is regularly used on the riding school.

The sharer has the same arrangement in all cases but only A is it genuinely a case of helping out rather than an arrangement to make money.

Or from an owner pov. I have a sharer who is leading my horse to turn it out. Horse gets loose and injures a third party who sues for damages. Is my insurance invalid because they are paying me?

 

[Goldenstar]

I and my OH joined the BHS expressly to have back up third party cover when hacking from riding schools and sharing. My share has always been paid for per ride.
Is it now against the law for to have a pay per ride share with an individual owner? When both horse and rider are elderly, one can never guarantee that either horse or rider will be fit for riding on any particular day. It is much better to be flexible. The payments made are a contribution to the keep and shoeing of the horse.

This not about the law it's about the insurance terms and conditions.
OP must have protection against a claim from her sharer just in case.
The Pet Plan wording sounds sensible, but OP would still have to check she was covered for her liability to the sharer.
Good thread thought provoking.

 

[JustKickOn]

You will have third party cover if you where riding the horse and damage was caused but I think the issue is if the sharer was damaged by the horse and sought to sue OP as the horses owner OP would not be covered.

Oh I see, that's probably why it was recommended, I wouldn't dream of suing the person I loan from as they're a friend! It's mainly for when hacking or out and about at shows etc.
Interesting they won't pay out I there are other forms of insurance though. Bad BHS!

 

[Goldenstar]

Oh I see, that's probably why it was recommended, I wouldn't dream of suing the person I loan from as they're a friend! It's mainly for when hacking or out and about at shows etc.
Interesting they won't pay out I there are other forms of insurance though. Bad BHS!

Yes but RiderLizzie think if a sharer where killed and the family where grief stricken bitter and angry you can see how it might happen its almost unthinkable but it could happen this could be disastrous for the horses owner even if no liability was found the stress of it all could ruin your life .

 

[Skib]

The BHS website now makes clear that the insurance is not valid in any situation where there is a financial transaction involved. Yet the same web site, referring to share or loan, recommends that both owner and sharer have liability cover.

I think the problem arises because the BHS possibly still sees itself in the framework of horse ownership. Their membership offers horse owners a freeby of insuring any rider they permit to ride their horse. But in this day and age many members do not own their own horses, and we were silly enough to think that "rider only" insurance as it was called in those days, meant insurance intended for people who did not own a horse and have horse insurance.

It wasnt just me that got it wrong - the person I spoke to at the BHS did too. And lucky BHS then got me and later OH to sign up for life membership believing that we were getting cover which never existed.

 

[conkers]

Seems to make a mockery of the BHS marketing the £10m PL benefits of Gold membership when you can't actually use it because you happen to have insurance elsewhere. Could understand if you had additional equine insurance but house insurance - really?
Not too impressed by this BHS.

 

[PandorasJar]

Oh I see, that's probably why it was recommended, I wouldn't dream of suing the person I loan from as they're a friend! It's mainly for when hacking or out and about at shows etc.
Interesting they won't pay out I there are other forms of insurance though. Bad BHS!

Not really. The reason they can supply it so cheap is probably because they don't have to pay out in all cases. I'd be more than happy knowing I've got a back up for £50 if all else fails.

I can also understand why they wouldn't want to be involved in one party suing another if money changing hands too.

 

[Luci07]

Thought there might be questions. So, I insure both my horses with NFU. One horse has sharers. My public liability is to cover me personally for any damage my horses cause, be it my fault or not. However, if my sharer or ANY other rider sustains an injury riding my horse - there is NO cover for this. Therefore I insist on my sharers taking out their own riding insurance (which is not expensive) and of course my YO has her own anyway. I looked at BHS PL as this costs me 150 a year with NFU for my 2. However, on reading the small print, as I do take money from my sharers for my old mare, this insurance would not be valid so am staying with NFU as have checked with them and I am covered.

So for anyone who either rides or allows another person to ride their horse, it is worth carefully reading your policy and do not assume that public liability automatically includes injury to a 3rd party rider. And check about money changing hands too!

 

[Skib]

I have not requested a quote but please note that the NFU site states that:

NFU Horse Rider insurance is specifically designed to offer riders of all ages (5-70 years) who do not own a horse the very best . . .

"All ages", they say?" Not true. A brief look on line suggests that veteran horses and their veteran riders may not be eligible for standard policies.

 

[natalia]

Also, I would hasten to add that anyone looking for "rider insurance" think again before going to PETPLAN. I have a lot of sales horses and so thought it sensible to take out rider insurance for personal accident and public liability. Last winter I was out on a livery horse when it fly kicked a car. Denting it. On ringing PETPLAN because I owned some of the horses, irrespective of the fact the horse that I was on at the time not being mine, they wouldn't cover me for anything!! Madness. The claim is still unsettled as to be honest, it wasn't my horse, was uninsured and the driver did come to close. I do think that most of these public liability covers aren't worth the paper they are written on. If only everyone just chilled out about sueing everyone!

 

[Goldenstar]

Seems to make a mockery of the BHS marketing the £10m PL benefits of Gold membership when you can't actually use it because you happen to have insurance elsewhere. Could understand if you had additional equine insurance but house insurance - really?
Not too impressed by this BHS.

It's logic if you think about it not all house insurances cover you my NFU house /contents insurance does but many people don't own their own homes or live in lodgings or cottages with jobs that sort of thing BHS insurance is agreat deal for them that's why it's not expensive the risk to the insurer is small for the number of covered.