Car insurance for semi-pro musicians

[Blink]

I would suggest that only need to inform the tax man when your earnings for the year exceed your expenses for the year. The tax is payable on the profit from your professional earnings not the income.

[fretmeister]

6 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

Still not sure refreshments count as payment. As an example, If someone was booked to give a talk for instance, no payment asked for or received but they get a cup of tea and a biscuit, that would count as payment under your system but I don’t think any reasonable evaluation of it would even come close to that. It’s no different if you play a couple of songs.

Probably right in that regard - but if you were booked to give a presumably professional talk - then insurers will view that as having a second place of work. That's the issue. That could be viewed as non-disclosure, particularly if it is a regular occurance. Why is the talk being given? Is it for fun? Or is it because you hope it will lead to business opportunities? Like a sales fair - or offering "Free" training in the hope of getting new customers?

 

As the insurer sets the terms of their own products they get to define what "non-disclosure" means. That also means that not all insurers have the same definition - it will be close but not exact. 

What is the point of risking it over a trivial extra amount? 

(Cue those saying it is not "trivial" while having the equivalent of 3 months mortgage payments on their pedal board)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fretmeister]

5 minutes ago, Blink said:

I would suggest that only need to inform the tax man when your earnings for the year exceed your expenses for the year. The tax is payable on the profit from your professional earnings not the income.

Not true.

 

My accountant took me through the details of this common misconception. However if you do submit a few years of loss showing accounts then the HMRC do sometimes tell you to stop bothering them with it. You have to show that the books aren't being cooked to look like a loss.

 

[T-Bay]

4 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Probably right in that regard - but if you were booked to give a presumably professional talk - then insurers will view that as having a second place of work. That's the issue. That could be viewed as non-disclosure, particularly if it is a regular occurance. Why is the talk being given? Is it for fun? Or is it because you hope it will lead to business opportunities? Like a sales fair - or offering "Free" training in the hope of getting new customers?

 

As the insurer sets the terms of their own products they get to define what "non-disclosure" means. That also means that not all insurers have the same definition - it will be close but not exact. 

What is the point of risking it over a trivial extra amount? 

(Cue those saying it is not "trivial" while having the equivalent of 3 months mortgage payments on their pedal board)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why presume it’s professional? I have given talks on subjects that are of great interest to me but I have no professional experience in. Similarly I have played gigs for free (all for charity bar one) but don’t count myself as a professional musician based on that. If no money is exchanged then it’s an amateur arrangement, if refreshments, or possibly even expenses are covered then I don’t see that shifts it over the threshold to be professional.

Edited December 11, 2017 by T-Bay

[ambient]

21 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Payment = job. Even if you make a loss, as no doubt most of us do. That is the only definition the insurers will care about. Not the "I do it for the love of it" or the "I'm just happy to cover the cost of a set of strings every now and again" type explanations.

 

The amount of hours you put in has no bearing on it at all. I only perform magic for a few hours per month. Nevertheless that involves travel to different venues and I get paid for it. Some years I make a little profit. Others I don't. It's still a job. The fact that I have a regular Mon-Fri job as well also has no bearing on whether the magic is a job. 

Musicians (and magicians) tend to perform in the evenings. Travel Time of day changes policy risks. Rush hour - higher risk. After 9am and before 4pm - lower risk. 5pm onwards - higher risk again etc.

Also - if you are travelling with others they want to know if the policy might be called upon to cover loss if earnings - not just for you, but anyone else you might damage. That all goes in the underwriting decision process.

 

While a forum poll would be interesting, all it would do is show the number of people putting themselves at risk of their insurers not paying out. It won't have any influence on policy terms or underwriters decision process. A far more useful poll would be to ask whether people actually check the policy terms before paying for the policy to see if it actually meets their needs. I'm betting most will buy on price alone and then complain later when it meet expectations.

You haven't yet learned to just materialise at the gig?

[fretmeister]

It's not just "is it professional" or "is it a hobby" etc. it is a combination of all factors. That is what the underwriting process is for. Financial journalists often don't get a policy loading because they sit in an office all day. Music journalists get shafted because they are expected to be out at gigs when thousands of drunk people are around.

 

Like I said - it's up to the insurer to decide if it's important. Not you. 

Either they will say they don't care, or they will tell you it is pertinent. You won't know if it is unless you ask them.

 

 

 

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, ambient said:

You haven't yet learned to just materialise at the gig?

Nice to hear that one again!

 

 

[FinnDave]

26 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

Why presume it’s professional? I have given talks on subjects that are of great interest to me but I have no professional experience in. Similarly I have played gigs for free (all for charity bar one) but don’t count myself as a professional musician based on that. If no money is exchanged then it’s an amateur arrangement, if refreshments, or possibly even expenses are covered then I don’t see that shifts it over the threshold to be professional.

The problem is that the insurer doesn't really care how you describe your musical activity, if they consider playing in public (even unpaid) to be an undeclared fact relevant to your claim, then they will fight tooth and nail to avoid having to pay out. Remember, they are looking for an excuse not to pay out, always!

Edited December 11, 2017 by FinnDave

[ratman]

46 minutes ago, Blink said:

If you use an insurer who understands musicians then there is no problem. I use Musicguard and they automatically include public liability insurance so they understand that you will be performing in public and they will insure gear left in cars (subject to you taking some entirely reasonable precautions). I am not a representative of Musicguard and I have yet to make a claim so I can't comment on their claims handling. Insurance problems seem to arise when you try to extend home contents cover to make it cover something that it was never intended cover.

 

N

I am insured with Musicguard and I had to make a claim earlier this year. They were very helpful and paid out without any problems.

[T-Bay]

6 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

The problem is that the insurer doesn't really care how you describe your musical activity, if they consider playing in public (even unpaid) to be an undeclared fact relevant to your claim, then they will fight tooth and nail to avoid having to pay out. Remember, they are looking for an excuse not pay out, always!

But if there is no payment then they have no leg to stand on. If it’s unpaid it is a hobby, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter whether that hobby is music, golf, photography or whatever, unless they specifically ask a question to which you have purposefully withheld information, or been ignorant in your declaration to the point it would not be considered reasonable in law, then it’s their problem not yours. It’s only an undeclared fact if they ask for it and you fail to declare, it’s not undeclared if it wasn’t asked for in the first place. Whilst I agree the insurers will avoid paying out if they can this can only be done within the framework of the law, they cannot illegally and if they do there are systems of recourse and heavy penalties for them if found at fault.

[BigRedX]

5 minutes ago, ratman said:

I am insured with Musicguard and I had to make a claim earlier this year. They were very helpful and paid out without any problems.

Was this for your car?

[Roger2611]

20 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Not true.

 

My accountant took me through the details of this common misconception. However if you do submit a few years of loss showing accounts then the HMRC do sometimes tell you to stop bothering them with it. You have to show that the books aren't being cooked to look like a loss.

 

I play in an originals band, trust me I make a total loss! To be honest I think this is a fair point, we make absolutely nothing out of 99% of the gigs we play and the 1% where we actually get paid it is usually a tenner for petrol, the money is put into a kitty and used for band incidentals so I can honestly state I don't get paid for any gigs I do! I am sure declaring myself as even a part time musician would guarentee a price increase? Fortunately I have a company car and my employer knows I use the car for gigs, I wonder if they have disclosed to their insurer the hobbies of it's staff with company vehicles?

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, T-Bay said:

But if there is no payment then they have no leg to stand on. If it’s unpaid it is a hobby, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter whether that hobby is music, golf, photography or whatever, unless they specifically ask a question to which you have purposefully withheld information, or been ignorant in your declaration to the point it would not be considered reasonable in law, then it’s their problem not yours. It’s only an undeclared fact if they ask for it and you fail to declare, it’s not undeclared if it wasn’t asked for in the first place. Whilst I agree the insurers will avoid paying out if they can this can only be done within the framework of the law, they cannot illegally and if they do there are systems of recourse and heavy penalties for them if found at fault.

Go read the policy terms and try again.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

 

Effectively if you do something which you *think* might be a pertinent / material fact then you must disclose. While there can be innocent non-disclosure do you, as a policyholder, really want to be dealing that sort of argument (which might eventually involve the Courts) while you are needing to claim on a policy?

 

The practicalities outweigh the technical arguments. If the insurer refuses to pay it may well take you months or years to get the Ombudsman or the Courts to find in your favour. 

[T-Bay]

19 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Go read the policy terms and try again.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

 

Effectively if you do something which you *think* might be a pertinent / material fact then you must disclose. While there can be innocent non-disclosure do you, as a policyholder, really want to be dealing that sort of argument (which might eventually involve the Courts) while you are needing to claim on a policy?

 

The practicalities outweigh the technical arguments. If the insurer refuses to pay it may well take you months or years to get the Ombudsman or the Courts to find in your favour. 

But I DON’T think it’s pertinent, YOU do, so you would need to declare, I wouldn’t. Simples ;-)

[FinnDave]

42 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

But if there is no payment then they have no leg to stand on. If it’s unpaid it is a hobby, plain and simple. It doesn’t matter whether that hobby is music, golf, photography or whatever, unless they specifically ask a question to which you have purposefully withheld information, or been ignorant in your declaration to the point it would not be considered reasonable in law, then it’s their problem not yours. It’s only an undeclared fact if they ask for it and you fail to declare, it’s not undeclared if it wasn’t asked for in the first place. Whilst I agree the insurers will avoid paying out if they can this can only be done within the framework of the law, they cannot illegally and if they do there are systems of recourse and heavy penalties for them if found at fault.

As I understand it, it is being in a place offering musical entertainment, and the factors associated with that (drunkenness, high spirits, etc) that constitute the risk, not the remuneration or otherwise that one receives. Again, as I understand it, if they ask you if there are any other things that need to be considered when taking out the vehicle insurance and you fail to mention that you sometimes play at live music venues, which may or may not involve travelling at unusual times, to venues which attract people likely to become intoxicated or generally excited,  then they can consider the cover void. I'm not on their side, far from it, just hate to think of fellow musos becoming victims of the sharp, but within the law, practises of the insurance industry.

Edited December 11, 2017 by FinnDave

[T-Bay]

12 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

As I understand it, it is being in a place offering musical entertainment, and the factors associated with that (drunkenness, high spirits, etc) that constitute the risk, not the remuneration or otherwise that one receives. Again, as I understand it, if they ask you if there are any other things that need to be considered when taking out the vehicle insurance and you fail to mention that you sometimes play at live music venues, which may or may not involve travelling at unusual times, to venues which attract people likely to become intoxicated or generally excited,  then they can consider the cover void. I'm not on their side, far from it, just hate to think of fellow musos becoming victims of the sharp, but within the law, practises of the insurance industry.

But surely the exact same risks would apply to anyone going to a pub? I never set foot in pubs unless I am playing but a lot of people are regular visitors. I have never heard anyone having to declare that they visit pubs to their insurance. I am not trying to be awkward, it just seems that there is an unnecessary fear of insurance, be honest, answer their questions and I can’t see how there can be any issues. 

[FinnDave]

9 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

But surely the exact same risks would apply to anyone going to a pub? I never set foot in pubs unless I am playing but a lot of people are regular visitors. I have never heard anyone having to declare that they visit pubs to their insurance. I am not trying to be awkward, it just seems that there is an unnecessary fear of insurance, be honest, answer their questions and I can’t see how there can be any issues. 

Yes, but playing at much places implies regular attendance, and that is sufficient to scare off the insurers. But honestly, mate, I have no axe to grind at all, just trying to help people avoid finding themselves without cover based on my own experience and that of my wife who works in the insurance industry. I'll bow out of this conversation now with the observation that if in doubt, talk to your insurance broker. If you feel that talking to them about it somehow allows them to rip you off (and I like paying for insurance no more than anyone else does!) then you might want to consider changing to a broker you feel you can trust.

[ambient]

My gear is insured through the MU, so there wouldn’t be a claim through my car insurance, plus I wouldn’t be stupid enough to leave it unattended in a car anyway.

When I did drive, I declared my main occupation on my insurance application. That was teaching music. The few times I did go down the road of getting a quote based on being a professional musician the premium was ridiculously more. My gigs weren’t enough to make that worthwhile, probably 30 or so a year, not all of them were ones that I’d have driven to anyway.

As with everything, it’s entirely up to each individual what they do.

[steantval]

2 minutes ago, FinnDave said:

Yes, but playing at much places implies regular attendance, and that is sufficient to scare off the insurers. But honestly, mate, I have no axe to grind at all, just trying to help people avoid finding themselves without cover based on my own experience and that of my wife who works in the insurance industry. I'll bow out of this conversation now with the observation that if in doubt, talk to your insurance broker. If you feel that talking to them about it somehow allows them to rip you off (and I like paying for insurance no more than anyone else does!) then you might want to consider changing to a broker you feel you can trust.

I cannot understand what the type of people in a venue effect my car insurance, the only thing I can think of is if my car is parked outside and some p*sshead decides to vandalise it, but that could also happen to any of the punters cars.

Car drivers go to football matches every weekend and there are definitely intoxicated and generally excited people in attendance at those venues, so the risk is just as great.

[ratman]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

Was this for your car?

For my van, yes.

[Dan Dare]

5 hours ago, steantval said:

I never mention it, it's not an occupation, it's a hobby.

That could cost you a lot of money one day. In practice, the premiums aren't that much greater. I get mine through the MU.

[Happy Jack]

For clarity, I assume that no one is suggesting that the MU offer car insurance?

If that assumption is right, then insuring your kit through the MU may well make sense, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you declare to your car insurer the purpose for which you are using your car.

As I understand it, that's the main point of this thread.

 

[leftybassman392]

IME the term 'semi-professional' is, for insurance purposes, pretty much a meaningless term. I've been out of the loop for around 7 years now though, so things might have changed in the meantime...

Just as a matter of interest, I'd be interested to know whether anybody has actually used that term when arranging their car insurance. If you did, how did they react? Serious question.

 

Just as a passing observation, having just read the entire thread I'm hearing hearing a lot of 'This is how the system works. No, really...' from one side and a lot of 'That can't be right, because...' from the other. Sweeping generalisation I know, but all the same...

Edited December 11, 2017 by leftybassman392

[LeftyP]

One thing to beware of is that an insurance company may not want to insure you because, as a gigging musician, you may be classed as high risk.  It happened to me with house insurance because I worked for the BBC as a local radio presenter!  Anything to do with "showbiz" and they assume you are into sex, drugs and sausage rolls!

 

The problem occurs when you approach another company and they ask "have you ever been refused insurance".  You may find it has a knock on affect on other areas of insurance.  Try the MU, who have all kinds of advice for the performing musician.

[T-Bay]

7 hours ago, LeftyP said:

One thing to beware of is that an insurance company may not want to insure you because, as a gigging musician, you may be classed as high risk.  It happened to me with house insurance because I worked for the BBC as a local radio presenter!  Anything to do with "showbiz" and they assume you are into sex, drugs and sausage rolls!

 

The problem occurs when you approach another company and they ask "have you ever been refused insurance".  You may find it has a knock on affect on other areas of insurance.  Try the MU, who have all kinds of advice for the performing musician.

I have often wondered about the ‘refused insurance’ question. If you go a comparison website quite often there will be companies that won’t insure you. And when I changed my car a couple of years ago I had to change my insurance company as the one I was with wouldn’t even quote for it (they have a cut off at 10 years old for some reason). Just wondering whether either of those would count as ‘refused insurance’.