fretmeister

There you go then! It could happen to anyone.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504108554' post='3362740'] I'm in the lucky position of having virtually no assets of marketable value; even to the point of owning duff kidneys and poor eyesight. Good luck squeezing pips out of this lemon..! Despite this vulnerability, my conscience prevents me from being wilfully negligent and causing harm to others, so claims for responsibility would not arise. An accident, on the other hand, is just that: an accident, and should not be the subject of a claim for anything. To paraphrase: 'stuff' happens. That's Life, and should not become fodder for leeches. I have the same outlook concerning 'stuff' that I suffer. If it's someone's fault, redress could be due. If it's not, then it's not. That's Life. [/quote] Wilfully negligence and not-wilfully negligent is still negligence. The common thought that all claimants and defendants in these situations have is identical: "It won't happen to me" And yet it does. To tens of thousands of people every year. And in 99% of those the person causing it was not "wilfully negligent" in the slightest. Just normally negligent. You are effectively claiming that those people were "wilfully" negligent and that is nonsense. The vast majority of them are just people getting on with their lives when they do something or fail to do something that results in injury and losses to someone else. It's not wilful, it's not criminal, it's not culpable (and all those things are different) it is just poor decisions by humans. Your position seems to suggest you believe yourself to be infallible. Perhaps you do have a greater ability than all other humans. Perhaps your ability to judge a situation is the greatest any human has ever managed. But would you claim that ability was fully functional 24 hour per day, every day. Irrespective of mood, illness, amount of sleep, simple distraction etc etc? Never made a bad decision about anything in your life? Everyone has.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504105867' post='3362726'] If you're the insurance company and you win the claim, what's the point if the defendant has no insurance. You still have to pay the person you insured and you won't get your £1m back. [/quote] The insurance company does not make the claim. They defend claims from others. The claimant makes the claim. The defendant defends the claim. If there is an insurance company for the defendant then they will pay out on the claim. Or they will successfully defend it at their cost. The lay defendant (the poor bass player) doesn't have to dip into his pocket for anything more than an excess. Sometimes claims are made against defendants who don't have insurance because it is still worth it. Perhaps they have a house. Or a nice car. An asset search will be done to see if there is anything worth going for.. Sometimes even a heavily mortgaged house means it is still worth making a claim - because mortgage payments will still be made, the debt can be attached to the property. So when there is enough equity in the house, then the sale of the house can be forced. Mortgage company gets their bit first to pay that off. Then the attached debts get paid off. The balance goes to the house owner. Or sometimes there is nothing left for the house owner. Or maybe it is someone who rents but has a good job. Then you get a garnishee order and a payment plan. The damages will be deducted at source - it won't go to the defendant to then send a bit per month onwards - the employer will be ordered to remove the amount set by the court before the defendant ever gets it. Assets will be assessed next to the likely spend to win the action. If that looks do-able then the claim will continue.

I was amazed - it was instantly noticeable when I picked it up. It's a bit concerning really - I was going to get the routs in my Marleaux enlarged a little bit so I could fit a pair of EMG soapbars in. But I might weigh one of the existing Delanos first to see. I don't want that bass getting any heavier.

I knew a guy who found out he had been replaced in that sort of way in reverse He was told a gig had been cancelled. He happened to go to the pub for a drink and saw the posters were still up and discovered the gig was still on. He then looked at their facebook page and noted the photos were the same, but they had been cropped to remove him. In one instance he was in the middle, so someone had used MS Paint to draw a pillar where he was! I probably shouldn't have laughed!

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504104478' post='3362713'] In a 4 piece band you're looking at another £120 a year. Not a great deal I suppose. The thing is, it does make you easier to sue and it give some the venue an opportunity to side step its responsibilities. No doubt the request that you have insurance is from the venues insurer who realise that a bunch of penniless musicians is going to be impossible to recover money from or even if they have money but no insurance will end up in a protracted legal battle where they can only recover £200k at most. [/quote] It does not make it easier to sue in the slightest. It might make recovery after suing easier but it does not make it easier to win the claim in the first place. When I see (sorry but I must) bollocks like that the person saying it has never heard of QOCS either. Qualified One Way Costs Shifting. In the good old days if you successfully DEFENDED a claim for injury then the claimant would be ordered to pay your costs back. They lost, they pay the costs. Sounds quite fair. For injury work that does not exist anymore So someone comes after you. You defend the claim. You don't have insurance so you get a local solicitor involved. He does a good job and you win. Since 2013 your opponent DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS BACK. So you've spent 3 years defending it and probably paid £20,000 in fees WINNING the action. Tough. you don't get it back. And there's no legal aid for injury work anymore. You've won and still £20,000 out of pocket. If you've got PL then they will pay the costs of defending it. Win or lose.

That's the way I look at it. It's also what I don't understand sometimes with attitudes to policies. None of us like buying insurance and we all bitch about the cost. But we can easily be on the other end of it - and the economic reality is a choice: do I want an insurance policy that is £10 cheaper? Or do I want policies that would properly compensate me if I happened to be the injured person?

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504098832' post='3362670'] So when the drummer punches someone, you're all responsible? Where is the line? [/quote] Nope. That's not negligent. It's criminal, but not negligent.

Wedding gigs can be like that. Especially the posh ones.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504092265' post='3362594'] No, that's my point and position. That's the Law, not Justice. If I did no wrong, then I refuse to be held responsible. As to the 'ambulance chasers', of course the victim(s) of another person's fault should be compensated. Why is that even in doubt..? The daft part is when folks put in spurious claims, not because they're just, but because the Law allows it. [/quote] Myth buster alert. Spurious claims hardly ever happen. In fact the reason why they hardly ever happen is because the lawyers won't get paid.Those claims do however appear in the press every time one does happen because the insurance industry use it as an excuse to increase premiums with someone to blame.Those claims make up less than 6% of all claims made and yet they get 100% of the press coverage. In fact there is even a thing called "Fundamental Dishonesty" Example. You have a car accident. You break a leg and need 6 months off work. You have physiotherapy and other stuff. Within the small bits you claim for taxi rides to your physiotherapy treatment. You can't climb on a bus with the cast on and you can't drive. so you use a taxi. nothing wrong with that. Except you claim for 20 taxi rides round trips and your physiotherapist confirms you only had 10 appointments. This was easy for you to check. You might not have all the receipts, and some cabbies won't give receipts. But you remember always using a taxi for physio visits. You could have called the physio to ask how many visits you had, and then claim for the same number of taxi round trips. But you don't. You don't even try. You claim for 20 because you want to. In the old days when the claim reached court, or the other side discovered only 10 physio appointments you would lose the extra 10 taxi fares and not recover them. Now - it is deemed to be "Fundamental Dishonesty" and it causes your claim to fail. Not just £100 for the taxi rides you didn;t have - but for the whole lot. Even the stuff that can't be argued about. your loss of earnings and the fact that your leg was broken. Doesn;t matter. You get nothing. you took the piss so you get nothing, and you pay the costs of the other side insurance company for trying to take the piss. Admiral Insurance broke ranks a year or 2 ago and really pissed off their fellow insurers. They admitted that over 50% of their turnover was NOT generated by the sales in of insurance products, but was generated by selling claims referrals. Referral Fees are now banned. Admiral admitted that insurance policy costs would have to increase because they can no longer sell the information. So when you see an insurer complaining about ambulance chasers, it was them that set up the first Claims Management Companies, and it was them who argued against Claims Management Companies being regulated. They are now, and they get shut down fast for breaking the law. Don't confuse the Claims Management Companies with those who actually represent the parties (either side) - they are not the same thing. The "arguments" trotted out in the press are not new. They are the same as they have been since 2000. Point is - the entirely valid concerns at the time were addressed in 2003 with fixed fees for many low value claims. Then again by increasing the max claim size that would have limited fees. And then again. And then the type of low value claim was expanded to include public liability, employers liability, occupiers etc etc. And yet the same arguments from 2000 are still used. The insurers have no choice of course - they exist for the benefit of their shareholders and must find new ways to both increase prices and profit margin by lowering payouts. But they don't need new arguments because the old ones still work. Recently a thing called the "Discount Rate" was adjusted. It was in the paper. Basically if you have a catastrophic injury and get all of your future earnings as a lump sum, that sum is subjected to a discount because you got it all at once and you are supposed to invest it to make it last.The amount of discount is set by law - worked out to move with inflation and investment strengths and that sort of thing. The government, with lobbying by the insurance industry, decided not to adjust the Discount Rate for about 10 years, even though the discount should have been lowered (injured person gets a bit more money). Despite that being the Law, the govt(both sides of the house) "never got round to it." Recently they did. The rate is linked in law to various financial factors. It's an easy calculation. Investment is currently negative so the "discount" is actually negative. So If you were going to get £1000, now you get £1100. This recognises the sh*te economy. The rate should have been adjusted 10 years ago. But it was in favour of the insurers so they kept very quiet. Now it has been adjusted accurately they are complaining about it hurting their profit levels. They haven't once mentioned that for 10 years every person who had a catastrophic injury (doesn't affect small claims) has been Under Compensated - quite possibly by millions for birth brain damage cases. Not a single mention of that.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504090874' post='3362576'] Eloquently exposed, and doubtless pretty accurate, but I'm afraid I don't subscribe. I agree with the premise that he, her or those responsible for damage, loss or injury should take that responsibility on their shoulders (mine, if I was that person...). Where I do not agree is that someone who has committed no fault should pay, either directly nor indirectly. In your fictitious example, the hapless bass player, tucked up in bed when his luckless (or clumsy...) bandmate caused grave injury looses his home. This may be the law, but I'm not concerned so much by the law as by justice. Is it just that he be penalised for the actions of others..? I say 'No', and refuse to walk that path. I'll take full responsibility for my own actions; I'll not shoulder the burden of someone else's negligence. Solidarity, in the sense of paying NH insurance for the cover of all the population against misfortune is fine by me; 'betting' that I don't fall foul of an incident in which I have no part is not fair, and I won't (and don't...) do it. If I was the bass player in your story, I'd do my very best to not be implicated; if I was the perpetrator of the incident, I'd face the consequences, whatever they may be. I realise that Life (Reality, Pragmatics; call it what you will...) are against me in this stance, but I can be very stubborn when principles such as Justice (as seen through my eyes...) are at stake. It's only that folks go down the 'safe' route that these ambulance-chasers get a foot in the door, and the insurance industry relies on the law, rather than Justice, to even exist, in my view. I hold them in very dim esteem, as can be guessed from the above. [/quote] "I'll not shoulder the burden of someone else's negligence" - the point is, it IS your negligence if the negligence was the fault of the partners of the band. Partners are all in it together so you did have a part in it. Just like when a delivery driver driving a company vehicle crashes into to another vehicle, it is the company insurance that pays out - effectively the the owner of the company is paying out for the actions of his employees. And the reason for that joint liability (and vicarious liability in regard to employers and employees) is that far too many people attempted to avoid their obligations in the past. Whenever I see an "ambulance chasing" type argument I am always appalled yet not surprised at the complete disregard for the person who has been hurt. EDIT - another way to look at PL cover is that it protects you, the individual, from the actions of your partners in the band.

[quote name='fftc' timestamp='1504076901' post='3362449'] Would things like that not be covered by the venues insurance? Unless it was a specific act of negligence by the band? [/quote] The venue will deny liability if it was caused by the band or equipment owned by the band. Ignoring the finer points for a mo - if it was caused by anything the band did, or anything the band bought with them, OR anything the band did / altered / changed to the venue itself, then the band will find themselves in the firing line. Even if the band didn't do any of that the venue's insurers will try to pass the blame down the line. A band cannot afford to retain specialist insurance lawyers to resist. Could be something simple - moving something at the venue without the venue's permission. For example the table layout might have been subject to a Risk Assessment for footfalls and access to emergency exits. Band moves table to a place that the Risk Assessment shows must remain clear - then you might have problems. Not to mention the fact the staff will deny they gave the band permission to move anything, even if they did! Band members often don't realise that a Band is a legal partnership (unless it's actually been set up as a limited company) and so if the Guitarists amp falls on someone, the injured person can come after the entire band. The venue did not book 5 individuals - they booked the band as a unit. Let's say the guitarist's gear did cause the nasty event. And let's say he has zero money. Rents a house. Cheap gear. 15 year old car. Earning minimum wage. Not really worth suing him. Now let's say the bassist has a house with some equity in it, a nice car, and a bit of cash because he is handsome and successful. The injured person can ignore the guitarist and come after the band as a whole - the award will be for joint and several liability. Meaning that even if only the bassist owns a house, the injured person will be able to sell that house from under him to recover his damages award - it's not really just against the bassist, it is against the band partnership. It just happens that only the bassist has any money. Even if the bassist has been his usual responsible self and at the end of the show has packed up and gone home and is already in his bed when the nasty event happens - he is still a partner in the band and that means he is in the poo for the actions of his band mates. And just for a bit of info... Punter with broken wrist. Will be deemed a public liability claim. Say about £3000 for the injury as per the Judicial College Guide for the Assessment of Personal injury damages Then say he has a manual job and needs 2 months off work - call that another £2000 after tax. Then the legal costs - for simple injury claims with a value of under £25,000 the legal costs that can be recovered from the bad guys are now very much limited - but after the compulsory independent medical expert report and other bits will still be about £6000 That's a total outlay of about £11,000 for a simple broken wrist. If you haven't got insurance you'll also be paying your own lawyers to deal with the negotiations on top of that - and that is not subject to any fixed fee scheme. And you cannot get "no-win no-fee" for defending a claim as you've already lost by causing the nasty event. Now lets look at the other end. Same punter. Paralysed, neck down. Aged 30 Has 2 kids aged under 10. Was earning £30,000. Injury payment - not actually a lot in the scheme of things - about £600,000 Loss of earnings until retirement at 70. That's 40 years at £30,000 - £1,200,000 Alterations to the home - maybe having to buy a bungalow or putting a lift in. Say £250,000 Nursing care for 24 hour care. That is 3 specialist private nurses doing 8 hours each with salaries of £30,000. So 1 year would be £90,000 x 40 years £3,600,000. (And no the NHS does not have to provide it when there is a negligent party with adequate means to pay for it.) We are well over £5.5 million and we haven't looked at future surgery needs, or simple inflation on the loss of earnings and nursing case, or the legal fees. In a paralysis case the claim will last between 5 and 10 years - simply because it takes that long for the Doctors to confirm the final status of the patient - so they can say whether there is hope for improvement or it is as good as it gets. The legal fees will be an easy £750,000 on top of that. The wrist break is obviously far more common that the paralysis (thankfully!) - but the point is - can most bands even afford to deal with the wrist break? I'd say no. There's also another issue - even Wrist Break Man has to pay his rent and eat. He's not been able to. He may well lose his house because of the actions of others. Why should he? From personal experience I know many people complain that someone has the audacity to come after them. "Ambulance chasing scum" etc - I have no sympathy whatsoever. What about the "scum" who won't help people they have hurt, and refuse to accept they might be responsible? If someone breaks your amp, you'd want them to replace it - putting you back into the same position as before. Chances are they could get the credit card out and replace it. If you break their arm then all they want is for you to put them back in the same position as before as well.

I've been experimenting with cleaner sounds with it - just a bit of grit. 100% wet blend and then just fiddling with the drive knob. That knob really does have a massive range - pretty much all the way down to zero drive. About 11 o clock, with the bass cut a little and the mids boosted a little is lovely. Tight sound with plenty of mids to cut, never boomy and just a little grit coming through. Something interesting I noticed - how hard I hit the front of the AO doesn't change the drive that much - it does a bit of course, but nothing like many other drive pedals I've had where I've really slammed the front with a compressor or flat EQ with signal increase to get it to drive the way I want it to. Makes me wonder if there is a bit of level control going on in there at the input.

Blimey. Am I really going to have to be the one to ask? Have you shagged her yet?

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504018165' post='3362144'] Most home insurance will cover PLI as long as it's not for your business, trade or profession. So it's worth talking to you insurers exactly what that means if you are not technically running a business. Then get it in writing. [/quote] This is true - although I've seen a few decide "paid hobby" is excluded too. So even if you make a loss, or the income only covers strings etc, it may well be excluded.

Don't "produce" your own - they'll want something they can check. Get 3 quotes too. I know of (but never used) Gareth Lewis in Cardiff. Supposed to be good.

[quote name='fftc' timestamp='1504015969' post='3362127'] What kind of disasters are you foreseeing that requires public liability insurance to be compulsory? [/quote] PA falls onto a punter. Punter gets brain damage. Band will be liable for his 24 hour care / loss of earnings etc from that point until the day he dies - and perhaps beyond if there are dependants. Or even at the bottom end - cable makes punter trip and break wrist and can't work for 2 months. I calculate losses like that for a living. And for anything other than a broken finger or two, 99% of bands couldn't afford to deal with the fallout. PL cover is cheap as chips precisely because it is hardly ever needed. It's also worth every penny.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1504013504' post='3362111'] If you're taking £7k+ worth of gear to a gig, that's a different question entirely. Especially when your cheapest single item is worth more than all my gear put together. You really have all your eggs in one basket. My gear isn't even a 5th of yours. [/quote] It's all relative though. If I had a million in the bank maybe I would't worry about insuring £1500 of gig rig. But if I only had £500 in disposable to replace that gear then I think I'd be more likely to insure it. That's the approach I take (aside from public liability insurance which I think should be compulsory) - if the gear I'm taking out could not be replaced from my "fun" money without credit / loans / whatever then either it gets insured or I don't take it.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1504011561' post='3362097'] It's only stuff, after all. A hassle if nicked or damaged, but not life-threatening in any way. Insurance is just betting, really; so far, by luck and diligence, I've never had any occasion to win such a bet. It could happen, of course, but in the meantime I'm not concerned by looking for insurers, comparing rates, having to renew (and fork out, naturally...). I can safely say that I've never lost a bet in my life, so far, and for good reason; I never bet. [/quote] Going out to gig with nice gear is the bet. Your gear is the stake. Without a policy your best result is to break even.

I insure my gear with Allianz. It comes with PL cover as part of the policy. I wouldn't gig without proper cover even if the venue didn't demand it.

Looks like I'll have to save up more than I wanted then! ta.

I'm amazed anyone gigs without insurance. Not only for their own gear, but most gear policies cover public liability insurance as well.

Anyone played both the Jap and Mex Geddy Lee jazz? Are the necks the same, or like the US version, has the Mex one put on some neck thickness? ta

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1503952735' post='3361839'] How much are your cars worth though? [/quote] With or without a full tank of petrol?

Stupid upside down picture!