Mike's E-news

[Oldman]

What about all the non GBR runners who cover more than 3 events... are they covered by insurance?

Are they treated as BOF members if they are members of another IOF Federation??

I would imagine that WOC will not be covered by the normal BOF insurance and a special policy will have been arranged.

[Sunlit Forres]

making non-members aware that they may not be insured

Will non members care whether they're insured for a ramble round some woods? I don't think I would.

[roadrunner]

My household policy, which is a fairly ordinary one, covers:

...all amounts you become legally responsible for ... as a private individual as a result of an accident ... if (a) someone is injured, falls ill or dies, or (b) property is lost or damaged anywhere in the world ...

As always there are exclusions, but I can't see any that would apply to taking part in orienteering except possibly

...liability created by any agreement

Maybe all policies don't include this (although all the ones I've ever have had), but it does make we wonder whether extra cover from BOF for competitors is really necessary.

[pete.owens]

making non-members aware that they may not be insured

Will non members care whether they're insured for a ramble round some woods? I don't think I would.

I would imagine that most non-members (and indeed members) would be surprised to discover that they were covered. I am pretty confident that I could give a very accurate figure for the total number of claims ever made under this clause.

[andypat]

I'm struggling to understand all this cover and non-cover malarkey. Can anyone give a definitive answer to what if any liability a club has if it allows someone who isnt covered by the BOF insurance to participate? eg could the individual sue the club for not telling them they werent covered?

[cbg]

The definitive answer has to come through BOF from their insurer. Anything else will be conjecture. I suggest that you pose your question to BOF.

[andypat]

I think you'll find that the lively discussion of this very topic at the SOA club conference which prompted many clubs and the SOA to write to Mike to address our concerns is what generated his recent response. Its a bit disappointing that the guidance from BOF on this topic doesnt appear to be very robust - they need to take the lead, rather than individuals or clubs IMO.

[graeme]

Did you ever try making an insurance claim? It's pretty well impossible to know what clause the company will use to wriggle out of paying until you do. Like pete.owens said, it is probable that nobody has ever claimed against a participant in an event, so BOF don't know and can't give definitive guidance.

If you want chapter and verse, try looking at the very similar policy held by UKA here: http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/gove ... insurance/. There are some specifics (e.g. Race the Castles would NOT be insured for a bouncy castle), but in general you'll be none the wiser. And that, I suspect, is exactly the intention.

[SeanC]

'Race The Bouncy Castles'. That sounds like a fun event.

[andypat]

[url]file:///C:/Users/Andy/Downloads/UKA%20Insurance%20for%20Event%20Organisers.pdf[/url]

The UKA seems to have various different policies to cover different issues. One key difference in the above policy for event organisers, is that it doesn't differentiate between member or non-member participants in terms of the liability. Of course it could be trying to compare apples with oranges, but I think its a pretty important point.

[JK]

'Race The Bouncy Castles'. That sounds like a fun event.

7' walls are marked as "crossable", but like 1st leg at Jukola - spikes are not permitted.

[Scott]

One key difference in the above policy for event organisers, is that it doesn't differentiate between member or non-member participants in terms of the liability.

Because it's a policy to cover the liability of event organisers. It doesn't differentiate between member or non-member participants because neither of them are covered by it.

The "UKA Insurance for Athletes" is the equivalent insurance policy for participants, and that only covers people who are

an athlete who has paid (or is deemed to have paid) subscriptions to a club or organisation affiliated to UKA, England Athletics, Scottish Athletics, Athletics Northern Ireland, or Welsh Athletics

[andypat]

Sorry Scott, my point was that as an athletics event organiser, if something goes wrong, you appear to be covered regardless of if the person who caused the problem is a member or not. I havent seen anything to suggest I'd have the same protection in Orienteering.

[Scott]

Sorry Scott, my point was that as an athletics event organiser, if something goes wrong, you appear to be covered regardless of if the person who caused the problem is a member or not. I havent seen anything to suggest I'd have the same protection in Orienteering.

Generalizing (as graeme says, both policies have some specific exclusions):

In both orienteering and athletics, the "organisers insurance" only covers things for which the organisers are liable. If something goes wrong and it's your fault as an organiser, and it hasn't been caused by a "deliberate act or omission", you should be covered by the insurance in both sports.

If something goes wrong and it's a competitor's fault, the organiser shouldn't need insurance, as it'll be the competitor who is liable. The question is over whether or not a competitor is covered for incidents for which the competitor is at fault. Again, both orienteering and athletics have equivalent policies - "members" are insured, "non-members" are not - although orienteering has extra cover for non-members at their first three events which athletics lacks.

[roadrunner]

If something goes wrong and it's a competitor's fault, the organiser shouldn't need insurance, as it'll be the competitor who is liable. The question is over whether or not a competitor is covered for incidents for which the competitor is at fault. Again, both orienteering and athletics have equivalent policies - "members" are insured, "non-members" are not - although orienteering has extra cover for non-members at their first three events which athletics lacks.

That's my interpretation as well - and yet non-member ("unaffiliated") athletes are allowed to compete an unlimited number of times, in road and cross country races at least, and my club allows them to attend two or three training sessions as non-members as well (not sure how general this is). I've never heard anyone complain that the lack of insurance cover in these situations is a problem, so why is orienteering different?