BECTU Insurance Cover issues

[Pete McCrea]

I have had several emails today from various Sub Contractors that we use outlining a case where a Sub Contractor has been left with a potential bill of 5 Figures, due to the cover from the BECTU Policy have specific exclusions that have left them un-insured.

 

I have seen a statement from the company I understand to have suffered the loss, and a statement from The PSA. As I was not one of the original intended recipients of either document, I'm not too keen on posting them in an open forum. PM me if wish to see them. I'm also under the impression that they have also circulated to other rental companies.

 

Essentially the main issues seems to be around two clauses:

1) "Section 2 of the Policy does not apply to liability caused by or arising from work done in partnership with any party who is not a member of the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union". As I understand it, the Sub Contractor ('Covered' by BECTU) was working for a non BECTU member company, and therefore wasn't insured.

 

2) Another section which doesn't cover Damage to Property under the Sub Contractors Direct Control or Custody - I understand from the details that where the Sub Contractor had the Clients Property under their control, they weren't covered.

 

Food for thought...

[The Seedage]

Highly recommend www.crewcover.com - born out of the concerns on the bectu policy

[kerry davies]

Sorry Paul, not true.

 

Precision Broking is run by an industry stalwart and is a continuation of his career in Events Staff and Company insurance broking, I can never remember if it was his big brother or his Dad insured me 20 plus years back. It is a 'new' company but has nothing to do with concerns about BECTU and until Pete's information becomes more widely verified I think we might need to refrain from comment.

 

Pedantically speaking any open-forum comment on a case which might end up in court is questionable.

[benweblight]

This is the latest statement from BECTU on the matter:

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1177

[son of lx dad]

My partner is with BECTU and has received emails from various companies she subcontracts for, warning of this situation. I am not with BECTU myself but we both feel the wording of the policy as stated in Pete's post is more than vague. I would doubt the phrase "in partnership with" has any legal standing and seems wholly open to abuse by BECTU and their underwriters.

 

Judging by the emails my partner has received at least 2 of the largest lighting companies in the UK are taking this situation very seriously indeed.

[Junior8]

My partner is with BECTU and has received emails from various companies she subcontracts for, warning of this situation. I am not with BECTU myself but we both feel the wording of the policy as stated in Pete's post is more than vague. I would doubt the phrase "in partnership with" has any legal standing and seems wholly open to abuse by BECTU and their underwriters.

 

I think you're right but the whole statement is vague. However I think there is some logic there. If the policy is indeed for individual freelances the premiums will be set according to typical risks taken on by individual freelances. Once a freelance sub-contracts for or works on a casual basis jointly with another organization that risk wholly alters as well as leaving an underwriter subject to disputes about whose policy is liable for what and to what extent. On that matter I think the word partnership is bring used as a catch-all to describe anything other than working entirely on your own. One would hope that the policy definition is clearer. But It does stress the importance of reading the policy every time...

[scjb]

There have been concerns over the policy for pyrotechnics crew for a long time now, including a very important exclusion that very few people seem to spot. Things are worth what you pay for them?

[paulears]

Can somebody change this policy wording into examples of where BECTU cover could be in doubt - I think I know what you mean, but the wording is so obscure and imprecise I can't quite get a handle on this one?

 

If somebody has made a claim and it's been rejected, then this needs to be detailed - I'm not quite sure why it needs to not be talked about. People with policies need to know what the circumstances were - there seems no legal reason to not talk about it, as long as it's fact and no conjecture? If a hire company circulates instructions that a specific insurance product is not acceptable, then it's to everyone's advantage to publicise this widely, I'd have thought.

[Wilflet]

There have been concerns over the policy for pyrotechnics crew for a long time now, including a very important exclusion that very few people seem to spot.

 

out of interest, what exclusion is that?

[scjb]

out of interest, what exclusion is that?

The cover is only valid whilst you are working under someone who is listed on the BECTU SFX Grading Scheme as a Supervisor. There are not too many of these around, and I am struggling to think of any who work in our industry... they tend to confine themselves to the film/tv world.

[murrayt]

I have to declare an interest as I run Precision Broking Ltd and we operate a crew liability policy but I also have a valid point to make.

 

I think it is relevant to point out that the reason the freelancer claim was turned down was because the ACE Insurance Policy Wording, which is the insurer and wording of the BECTU member's Liability Policy, excludes claims "in respect of damage to property in the custody and control of the insured". I spoke with the crew member involved and the claim involved AV equipment and the wrong voltage but it is simple to see that this exclusion would apply to most situations of damage involving crew and equipment that ends up being damaged or lost.

 

ACE did not rely on the BECTU partnership point to exclude the claim, they referred to the point as an additional grounds but their main grounds for turning down the claim was the exclusion for equipment in custody and control.

 

There is a danger that the BECTU point, which I do not deny is a worrying and needs to be clarified, obsures the real point which is that any crew buying a liability policy expect their policy to cover them in respect of the equipment they are working with and handling and that the BECTU liability policy excludes claims made against crew for damage to equipment which is deemed to be in the crew' s custody and control.

 

Most people I know including myself would find it impossible to deal with a bill for £10,000 or £20,000 which is why we insure our houses and cars. If you are a freelancer working in the production services sector this has to make you question the value of a liability policy with this exclusion and there are alternatives.

[Junior8]

 

I think it is relevant to point out that the reason the freelancer claim was turned down was because the ACE Insurance Policy Wording, which is the insurer and wording of the BECTU member's Liability Policy,

excludes claims "in respect of damage to property in the custody and control of the insured". I spoke with the crew member involved and the claim involved AV equipment and the wrong voltage

but it is simple to see that this exclusion would apply to most situations of damage involving crew and equipment that ends up being damaged or lost.

 

Murray - is this because the underwriters would assume that the equipment would be insured under the owner's business property policy for all risks?

[murrayt]

I think it is relevant to point out that the reason the freelancer claim was turned down was because the ACE Insurance Policy Wording, which is the insurer and wording of the BECTU member's Liability Policy,

excludes claims "in respect of damage to property in the custody and control of the insured". I spoke with the crew member involved and the claim involved AV equipment and the wrong voltage

but it is simple to see that this exclusion would apply to most situations of damage involving crew and equipment that ends up being damaged or lost.

 

Murray - is this because the underwriters would assume that the equipment would be insured under the owner's business property policy for all risks?

 

 

Unfortunately they are not assuming that the equipment is insured by anyone else. ACE are simply pointing out to the freeelancer that their liability policy does not cover the equipment.

It is also relevant to say that even if the equipment is insured by a company, there is nothing to stop the insurer of the company looking to the freelancer to recover the cost of the equipment.

[GMPSA]

First of all, let me declare my interest. I work for the Production Services Association and our passion is protecting the interests of those involved in the technical side of live event production.

 

We are the organisation that, with the permission of the company that suffered the loss, took the reasons for refusing the claim and pasted them into an email, warning our company members about the perils of using self employed subcontractors with insurance that didn't cover equipment in their custody and control.

 

We have since received emails from companies who have freelancers saying that what we said is, pardon the language, ######. How can it be, they are actual words from the actual claims handlers of the actual insurers.

 

I get the feeling that some people, under the instruction of a 'friend', would jump into a freezing lake and, if I were a lifeguard, warning them that they were about to die of hypothermia, would reply that I'm talking ###### because their mate said it was warm.

 

You can get better cover at a similar price to BECTU membership plus insurance, the differenc eis that you will be covered for the risks you pose. With the crewcover policy, you get memebrship of the PSA included, membership of an association that was formed specifically for live event production.

 

Still, some will stick their heads back in the sand...hope they don't get their arses kicked.

[richard]

Just to quote BECTU's statement (linked above)

 

3. Where an individual freelance member, covered by the union's policy, secures work in partnership with another operator, that operator must have his/her own PLI insurance, whether provided by BECTU or another provider, in order to be so covered.

 

Public liability insurance provides cover against claims which result from the conduct of an individual freelance whilst working which results in an injury to someone or in damage to their property. Cover applies to work undertaken personally and which relates to membership of BECTU.

 

This suggests to me that the only time you are not covered is when you 'secure work in partnership with another operator' - which I would take to mean you quote on a job together with that person and enter into that work on an equal basis with them. If I supply my services as a freelancer to a company such asXL I am not working 'in partnership' with them, I am just supplying my services to them, however if I quote to XL to work on a job alongside a specific other party, and we are booked as a team (ie we provide a single quote, and a single invoice) then me and that other person would be in partnership and as such if the other person did not have PLI (provided by anyone) then neither of us would be covered - I assume due to the difficulties with applying blame.

 

BECTU also seem to claim that their policy *does* cover damage to the property of A.N. other as long as the work is related to your membership of BECTU

 

Now that this statement has been published by BECTU I would say that if it does transpire that the cover was not valid in these circumstances BECTU could be considered liabel themselves, so I would assume that this has been checked with them before posting.

 

We shall see!

 

Richard