BECTU Insurance Cover issues

[paulears]

So what does the insurance actually do then in a practical sense - if nothing in your own sphere of influence is covered, then if you are the lighting man, and accidentally trash a piece of sound kit, you are covered - but if you do the same to lights you are in charge of, you're not?

 

That can't be the right interpretation, can it?

 

I don't understand without a context to frame it in. What do others think - dream up some scenarios and lets see if we can establish a pattern of covered, not covered. Damn airey-fairy isn't it?

[gareth]

That seems to be how insurance underwriters and brokers work (I'm speaking generally here, not with specific reference to entertainment industry insurance). Keep everything deliberately vague, and therefore maintain plenty of potential "wriggle-room" to maximise the possibility of finding a way out of paying out on a claim. For the insurer, taking money from the policyholder = good, and giving money to the policyholder = bad ... so of course they're going to try to take as much as they can, and give as little as possible.

[charlyfarly]

For the insurer, taking money from the policyholder = good, and giving money to the policyholder = bad ... so of course they're going to try to take as much as they can, and give as little as possible.

..........and keep their shareholders happy.

[richard]

Interestingly I emailed Aon myself this morning to find out what was the situation in reality, their first response was that XL had 'got confused' however I pointed out that XL were quoting ACE, at which point they said they'd check and get back to me - this may be where the new BECTU statement has come from, although I'm rather suprised that no one from BECTU or Aon seems to have actually gone through this letter before.

 

In terms of partnership though they have confirmed that:

 

Basically, regarding the working in a partnership, all this means is if you are in a partnership - i.e. you and someone else trading as Richard Williamson Enterprises (as an example) and you are a BECTU member but the other person isn't, then you are not covered.

 

You, as a freelancer/sole trader are covered as a BECTU member to work for any third party.

 

Which makes sense, and is how I would read it.

 

The way I read BECTU's statement about control and custody

 

b) Premises (including their contents) not leased or rented to the Insured but temporarily occupied by the Insured for the purpose of carrying out work.’

 

Kind of reads like if you are working in a venue which has equipment not hired by you, and you damage it, you would be covered (ie, I am working in a theatre, and there are some macs which they have hired, and I drop - I would be insured) but obviously that is open to interpretation.

[hgale]

The thing is people like to know on a basic level: if they break something are they covered or not?

 

If they are, great. If not then they every tech needs to either find new insurance or put sufficient money aside to cover accidents with equipment they commonly use.

 

This custody and control clause is really a massive spanner.

And as I said earlier until it is properly clarified with regards to OUR industry, I just do not see how anyone with BECTU PLI can hold faith in their policy.

 

If I go to work tomorrow, in a venue, as a lampie, and accidentally drop a flightcase on the FoH desk and break it.

I am mightily worried that the FoH desk owned by the house will be classed as in my control = no payment.

Besides what is the legal definition of control?

 

It's a ridiculous situation to be it.

Unfortunately insurance isn't an industry like ours where generally people call a spade a spade.

If it was this would have probably been sorted in five minutes over a pint.

 

 

Addition: Lets not forget there's been no statement on the worldwide nature of the cover, which is also up the spout too. Is it worldwide or does it exclude USA etc (see my previous post for evidence)

[GMPSA]

To say you have waited, read all of the posts and considered your response, I find it a little off-key. If it was meant to be insulting, weel done, you have succeeded in doing so in a very public forum. Moderators?

 

And if all you use to make critical business decisions is the information contained in BR threads, I wish you luck.

I've re-read it, and cannot see any problem with the forum terms and conditions. The one thing that stands out, reading all the posts is the tone of some of them, and usually they are not really appreciated, and perhaps some useful points have become obscured.

 

What is quite clear here is that people DO make critical business decisions based on BR topics. In effect, people have got to know individual members over the years, and while I'd never pretend we all get on, all the time - we do have respect for people's opinions. I think many of us can almost predict the responses some of our members will put up, and I for one have certainly spent real money, on the advice and recommendations I have found here.

 

The insurance and financial services sector have proven themselves as people economic with the truth, and their advice is often confusing, and frankly people do not believe they are impartial.

 

This, I suspect, is what is happening here - no doubt all the parties concerned sincerely believe they are giving good advice - but the trouble is the people being advised are simply suspicious, and any attempt to gain a little extra clarity has resulted in yet more confusion.

 

Members here who are insured with the policy arranged with BECTU quite rightly want to know if it is worth the paper it is written on - that is all. Nobody is able to confirm that under specific circumstances, the PSA one is better or worse. Please don't think that I think the policy is a PSA one, we know it is not - BUT it is one that is linked quite tightly with the PSA. As in, if you take it out, the PSA give you a discount on membership. That makes it linked, and is clearly taken as something that people think the PSA approve of, and warrant it worthy of discount.

 

Now, what could be happening here? The PSA may have decided that it is an excellent policy, and worthy of giving a large discount on the membership fee. My response to this is that if the two companies are NOT linked, why would taking out a policy with an independent company trigger the discount? The assumption, which could of course be wrong, is that the discount is funded by some kind of commission payment? If this is the case, then the two organisations have a financial interest in attracting more business, and in a limited market, this extra business would come from where? Bectu members! The same organisation also seem to have been involved in making the deficiency in the Bectu policy public.

 

Have I got this all wrong? I hope so.

 

I'm sure the PSA will quickly pop up and confirm that they receive no commission from the insurance company that is used to offset the discount on membership. If there is no commission involved, then I would also assume that the same discount would be available on year two - as if having the insurance, to make the industry safer is the reason for the discount, then next year it would be obviously the same. If the discount is for some other reason, maybe the same thing applies.

 

Dismissing comment here on the BR, where members have expressed their concern, seems a little off-key.

 

If I'm reading it correctly, all people seem to want to know, is do they have a worthless policy, and is the one being talked about a genuinely better product, or just a different one, at a higher cost.

 

I doubt we can get a solid answer on this one as neither BECTU or PSA are exactly unbiased.

Correct, no commission from any of the insurers that have offered discount for the past 16 years. Really busy today. And we are unbiased, like we've said until we reach the point of absolute frustration, we list brokers that are qualified to give advice.

 

What we could do is buy a big policy and spread the cost amongst members, say £23 each. Then, when we've got enough members to cover the cost, we keep the profit from the rest. Not commission, just profit...

 

I feel like a hedgehog that's being poked - you may find it a little prickly. This hedgehog has teeth.

 

Really have to go, back later if time permits...so much to say about this post.

 

Sorry, one more important thing.

 

Quote:

 

"Members here who are insured with the policy arranged with BECTU quite rightly want to know if it is worth the paper it is written on - that is all. Nobody is able to confirm that under specific circumstances, the PSA one is better or worse."

 

There IS no 'PSA'one. There are several brokers that are members, we point you to them on our site. If that statement refers to crewcover, the person that posted it needs to check Murray's post from a while back and check out the wording.

 

Cheers

[Junior8]

b) Premises (including their contents) not leased or rented to the Insured but temporarily occupied by the Insured for the purpose of carrying out work.'

 

Kind of reads like if you are working in a venue which has equipment not hired by you, and you damage it, you would be covered (ie, I am working in a theatre, and there are some macs which they have hired, and I drop - I would be insured) but obviously that is open to interpretation.

 

You'd like to think so wouldn't you - but it seems to me that you then end up with an argument about what constitutes 'contents'. I looked into this Care & Custody business last night albeit only through Goggle but most of the instances - and it is widely used as an exclusion AEC are right about that - seem to be designed to limit insurers liability to open ended claims and/or disputes about coverage. Paul wanted a possible scenario so here's the one I would ask any underwriter - "I am a freelance working in a venue and while rigging a mover owned by another company I drop it breaking both the mover and two seats. Am I covered under your PLI policy for both the mover and the seats?" My guess is that many would say, or try to say, we'll pay for the seats - they are contents - but not for the mover because it isn't a fixture and fitting owned by the venue coming under the definition of contents but it was under your custody and control so you are liable to somebody - hard luck.

[richard]

FYI on the worldwide cover, bectu/aon/ace re issued the cover document with worldwide full cover as a mistake was made on the initial letter in saying us/Canada are excluded.

[kerry davies]

Sounds great Roger until the "partnership" exclusion points up that you were working in collaboration with a non-BECTU venue. Then the seats might not be covered (pun intended). Oh and widely used or not I have never had that AON exclusion with any of the PSA-linked brokers, it would render the policy useless for me. Take a look at the small business needs policy that BECTU has on its' benefits page and ask yourself what is the difference between "individual freelance" and small business. Elephant/room/tax syndrome? I couldn't possibly comment.

 

Take a scenario where Paul drops a Mac onto a Midas and thence onto the promoters Merc. The Mac is not covered due to custody and control, the Midas may not be covered due to "partnership" exclusion but the Merc is covered as personal effects. Though, thinking about that, what if it were a company car?

 

I have spent ages picking apart the inconsistencies in the two BECTU statements, what members have posted here and what ACE has written in rejection but any of you can examine them and come to your own conclusions on veracity. Where we came in was with a fellow worker in deep trouble and a hiring company explaining why they were no longer accepting the policy. If anything we have solidified that position, BECTU have mentioned the victim only in passing and that policy holders are not covered as they were led to believe.

 

We can discuss ad infinitum what is or isn't covered but some firms will never accept the policy again so the OP knows what he has to do. What other hiring companies and each individual do about it is a matter of company policy and the only productive thing I can suggest is that policy holders get in touch with their contracting firms and find out the score.

[hgale]

@Richard: that is good to know!

 

@Kerry Davies: Apparently it's been clarified the working in partnership clause applies to working as business partners with someone who is uninsured. It has nothing to do with the venue being affiliated associated or anything else with BECTU....thats what we've been told anyway, whether it's true, I don't have a clue. All seems a mess.

 

 

In general, remaining as impartial as possible, as someone who purely buys insurance for myself

Having no strong affiliations with BECTU (don't really see them as that focused on our industry tbh) and no affiliation with the PSA

 

Until this gets cleared up, until the hire companies, the freelance employers and others feel confident about the BECTU policy.

BECTU are basically p**sing in the wind with their press releases. As it stands the policy can't be trusted to cover the vast majority of freelancers.

Certainly not in the way that they imagined.

 

The knock on effect of all this is

a)new policy shopping

b)increased cost for PLI (BECTU vs CrewCover)

c)importantly in my opinion, increased complexity for a lot of new entrants in to the industry, who had cover with BECTU and will find themselves in a lot of trouble if anything goes wrong.

 

These are bad and confusing! times for a lot of people. And I can only hope some clear and definitive statement is put online with examples of what custody and control mean and hopefully a detailed explanation of why the freelancer who damaged XL's gear was rejected, when the vast majority of BECTU policy holders assumed (rightly or wrongly) that if they were in the same situation they would be covered.

 

HGale

 

Just a further point the definition is:

 

Care Custody Control:

 

An exclusion common to several forms of liability insurance, which eliminates coverage with respect to damage to property in the insured's care, custody, or control.

 

In some cases, CCC has been determined to entail physical possession of the property; in others, any party with a legal obligation to exercise care with respect to property has been deemed to have that property in its CCC.

 

 

 

 

That brand new shinny mac that's just slipped out of your hands and hit the deck. You were in physical possession of it. And you had an obligation to exercise care of it.....So ...You pay.

 

[Caerdydd]

Important Update from BECTU:

 

PLI (public liability insurance) further update

 

Acting entirely upon advice received from Aon Limited, in good faith, on 7 March 2011 BECTU issued a statement advising that the public liability insurance policy provided to freelance members 'definitely covers property in the custody and control of members that belongs to third parties'. Aon has now advised BECTU that this particular statement is incorrect and has apologised for this error.

 

As a result BECTU advises its members that the correct position is as follows. The policy carries an exclusion which states that:

 

'Section 2 of this Policy, (I.e the Public Liability section) does not apply to liability in respect of Damage to property:

4.1 belonging to the Insured

4.2 in the custody or control of the Insured or any Employee or agent of the Insured other than;

a) Personal effects (including motor vehicles) belonging to visitors, directors, partners and employees of the Insured

b) Premises (including their contents) not leased or rented to the Insured but temporarily occupied by the Insured for the purpose of carrying out work.'

 

This is a standard exclusion in Public Liability policies. It is extremely rare to find a policy in which it does not appear.

 

The intention is to exclude property for which you are responsible that should more properly be insured under a material damage policy or similar.

 

BECTU has arranged Public Liability cover for its members through Aon for a number of years. As far as we are aware, until recently no BECTU member has ever had a claim repudiated for this reason.

 

However there was a recent claim made by a BECTU member which was repudiated by the insurer. Aon advise that they are continuing to challenge the insurer's interpretation of this exclusion and are seeking urgent clarification as to why it has been applied in this case.

 

The policy does provide cover in respect of accidental damage to third party property that is not deemed to be in your custody or control.

 

Aon has confirmed that all other statements made regarding the extent of the cover are correct. If you have specific queries on custody and control or any other matter pertaining to the BECTU Public Liability policy please call the Aon Entertainment and Media team on 0845 601 0380.

 

 

PLI (public liability insurance) further update - 9 March 2011

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1185

 

PLI (public liability insurance) cover for members - 7 March 2011

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1180

 

 

 

[hgale]

The above statement was already mentioned on the previous page...it's nothing new. http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif

 

And clarifies nothing.

[Caerdydd]

Apologies for the post. Regardless of this statement I've lost faith in BECTU and aon from all this and I'll be taking out insurance with Doodson who haven't been Advertising bectu's plight!

[Shaggy]

Apologies for the post. Regardless of this statement I've lost faith in BECTU and aon from all this and I'll be taking out insurance with Doodson who haven't been Advertising bectu's plight!

From a policy arranged through Doodsons:

 

Key Exclusions

• Damage to property where its the direct result of work carried out by the Insured

• Damage to property held in the Insured’s care except for

• Personal effects

• Buildings temporarily occupied by the Insured

• Premises hired leased rented to the Insured, but not for liability assumed under agreement

unless liability would have attached in absence of such agreement (£500 deductible

applies)

[hgale]

Just been on the phone to Doodsons actually

 

The exclusions state that, but if you read the endorsements section full care custody control is reinstated on the endorsements page (the guy mentioned F3554 or something like that)

 

So I'd say the above isn't the full picture

 

PUBLIC & PRODUCTS SECTION ENDORSEMENT F3554 – Property in the Insured’s Care, Custody or Control

 

 

Attaching to and forming part of the policy

 

 

 

 

It is noted that Exclusion 1 (d) under this section excluding the cost of making good Damage to the property in the Insured’s care custody or control is hereby deleted.

 

Subject otherwise to the terms conditions and exclusions of the policy