Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

When was the last claim against YOUR insurance?


Happy Jack
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm talking about your PLI (public liability) as a performing musician, not your home or car insurance.

There must be plenty of Basschatters who have PLI, either through the MU or direct with an insurance company. Many agencies demand it as part of registration with them (along with PAT).

How often have you faced actual, real-life, honest-to-God claims against that policy?

Please note that I'm NOT interested in anecdotal accounts of what someone else told you had happened to a mate. I'm talking to current Basschatters, and asking you if YOU have ever had a claim against your PLI.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played in bands for the last 34 years. The last 18 months have been the only time we've actually had public liability insurance afaik. Then, it's not exactly that expensive - about 1 hour's worth of gig money per year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Touch wood, I've never had to. There have been couple of occasions in two different bands where it was looking that we might, but didn't in the end.

The cynical amongst us might think there are lot of people making a lot of money out of PLI for doing feck all 😂

You say that but you do get a lot of cover for very little money. 

How badly do you need to screw up to need £10,000,000 worth of cover!? 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gs_triumph said:

You say that but you do get a lot of cover for very little money. 

How badly do you need to screw up to need £10,000,000 worth of cover!? 😁

You would need to cause catastrophic life changing injuries to someone who would still live a normal life expectancy.

24 hour nursing care (an easy £100K per year every year maybe for 50 years)  / future surgery / 40 years of loss of earnings / etc etc

 

I used to work out stuff like that for a living.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the OPs question

 

I'm in Equity and I've had PLI for about 15 years. Never a claim made against me - despite my magic shows having a fair bit of pyro. (Actually far too much pyro, but it's fun!)

But then again I haven't had a claim against my car insurance or my house insurance in that time either.

 

But I haven't got the funds to pay someone if through my actions they need a couple of months off work so I'm more than happy to continue to buy the cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

You would need to cause catastrophic life changing injuries to someone who would still live a normal life expectancy.

24 hour nursing care (an easy £100K per year every year maybe for 50 years)  / future surgery / 40 years of loss of earnings / etc etc

 

I used to work out stuff like that for a living.

You forgot the £9.9 million divided up between the legal eagles! 

Edited by stingrayPete1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to know is in what circumstances would somebody claim on the band's PLI, rather than that you would expect the promoter / venue to have??

Perhaps if you have pyro as part of your show, but apart from that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, peteb said:

What I would like to know is in what circumstances would somebody claim on the band's PLI, rather than that you would expect the promoter / venue to have??

Perhaps if you have pyro as part of your show, but apart from that...

Maybe if your PA speaker/stand fell over, or gets knocked over onto someone? Or someone trips over a cable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, peteb said:

What I would like to know is in what circumstances would somebody claim on the band's PLI, rather than that you would expect the promoter / venue to have??

Perhaps if you have pyro as part of your show, but apart from that...

Your amp shocks someone.

 

Your PA system falls on someone. One of your bandmates throws a guitar in the air and pink torpedos up the catch and it hits someone in the mouth.

Someone trips on a cable you put there.

Someone trips on a cable you say the Venue put there but the Venue say you put there!

 

Seriously - the opportunities for a flip up are endless!

 

The Venue is only liable for their own negligence - not yours as well. And they will try to make any problem your problem. Or rather the insurers of the Venue will try to blame shift to the band if they can. If you both have insurance the insurers will carve it up between them to avoid a fight.

 

There is also something REALLY scary now. It's called Qualified One Way Costs Shifting, or QOCS.

 

If you sue someone for an injury and you win the opponent pays a lot of your legal fees. Not all, hence the percentage deduction that a law firm can make from your award.

 

Now flip it - you are the band. Someone claims you have injured them. You are the defendant instead. The claimant sues you. You do not have insurance so you have to pay for a lawyer yourself...

 

You manage to win. You don't owe the claimant a penny.

 

You'd think the claimant would then have to pay your legal fees, wouldn't you? After all, you won. You successfully defended the claim.

 

Not anymore. QOCS means that even if you have bankrupted yourself defending the claim the losing claimant does not have to make any contribution to your legal fees.

 

You might have spent £25,000 defending a reasonably heavy claim. And you won't get a penny back. It's gone.

There are some VERY limited exceptions of course, but generally speaking if you successfully defend an injury claim you don't get your legal fees back. 

 

So don't think "I will never cause injury to a punter" - think "Even though it won't be my fault if a punter is injured, can I afford to defend a claim properly?"

 

And don't think about "No win, no fee" for DEFENDING a claim. The lawyers don't offer it, because due to QOCS there is no other party to get their fees from even when successfully defending an injury claim. So you'll get billed monthly like any regular client.

 

If you ever get a letter of claim for an injury (QOCS doesn't apply to non-injury claims) and you are not insured you are effectively forced into working out whether it's cheaper to settle quickly compared to the fees you could pay defending the action.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, good information, but actually a little off topic. QOCS would equally apply is someone lodged a PI claim against me because my rubbish bins were on the pavement and they tripped over them. I'm not about to take out insurance cover against that though. (I suppose it's possible that my household insurance already covers me for this, but I bet it doesn't apply if the bins aren't on my property.)

When I bought some woodlands a few years ago, I was strongly advised to take out PI insurance against claims arising from intruders wandering through my property, injuring themselves (how, exactly?), and then suing me for negligence in allowing them to intrude unlawfully onto my property. Seriously. On principle, I refused.

QOCS makes dealing with a PI claim more painful. Does it make a PI claim more likely?

My question wasn't, how much has settling PI claims cost you as a musician. It was, have you, as a musician, actually faced any claims at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QOCS can make a claim more likely if a claimant knows the potential defendant is uninsured.

 

I have seen a couple of formal Letters of Claim that do the usual "Pass this to your insurers to deal with. If you haven't got insurers then you may not be aware that even if you defend this claim you will still have to pay your own legal fees due to QOCS..." then going on to explain what QOCS is.

 

It adds pressure on defendants to settle when perhaps they shouldn't on the facts of the case.

 

I have no doubt there will be a few claimants out there trying it on precisely because the risks to them are now smaller - with a bit of an exception that if a claimant is found to be "fundamentally dishonest" in making the claim or part of the claim then the QOCS protection can be removed by a Judge. But that's a tough thing to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pli would only be a scam if they didn't pay out when they should. 

Like in many trades I think these things help to some extent, the dinosaurs with ratty old kit that won't have PAT testing done or take out public liability or think buying the stickers off eBay will do the job generally don't get the better gigs and certainly not the better paying ones! Long may it continue. 

I do the PAT testing and a years insurance costs each band member about ten quid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of this QOCS but will certainly be looking into it further.

As a freelance tech (touring and events) I have to have PLI and no production company will hire without proof of such. Some stipulate a minimum amount of cover, e.g., £2M or £5M, depending on areas working in and disciplines covered. And you don't have to be the cause of an accident to accused of it: if you're anywhere near it, or in that discipline, you'll be carpeted and face proceedings until proven innocent or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hhmmm...QOCS only went onto the statute books up here in Scotland last year but further amendments to the legislation are expected. On teh face of it, it appears to attempt to make the costs system fair for both parties but some of the examples I've read this morning suggest otherwise, given the rulings by some judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NikNik said:

Hhmmm...QOCS only went onto the statute books up here in Scotland last year but further amendments to the legislation are expected. On teh face of it, it appears to attempt to make the costs system fair for both parties but some of the examples I've read this morning suggest otherwise, given the rulings by some judges.

I'm really not convinced. By removing (most of) the down side of a failed PI claim, in an environment of no-win-no-fee litigation (ambulance chaserz are uz) it must surely encourage frivolous claims to be made on the basis of "well, what have I got to lose?".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

I'm really not convinced. By removing (most of) the down side of a failed PI claim, in an environment of no-win-no-fee litigation (ambulance chaserz are uz) it must surely encourage frivolous claims to be made on the basis of "well, what have I got to lose?".

 

Agreed and I saw examples of that, but also some that didn't pan out as expect for the claimant. If you've got the time, check this out:-

QOCS Cases

Additionally, there may be unique aspects in the Scottish legislation as the law up here differs occasionally from that of England and Wales.

Edited by NikNik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...