Liability Insurance

[thebeechtree]

I like the viewpoint, particularly ready-made trenches (just right for no win, no fee lawyers!) but - it is a risk going without insurance. I will say that woodland owners are not a high risk target for the compensation brigade (show me a children's play area and you can see the lawyers licking their lips), but even trespassers do have a right to safe passage, amazingly; and being sued even when you know you've done nothing wrong, is not a nice experience; I know, it's happened twice to me and even though the insurer says, "Don't worry, we'll fight this for you", you can't help the disturbed nights. So imagine having to fight the claim without cover...
Not a nice world out there...

[outeredge]

we've had only two claims, both spurious

I'm intrigued, can you give us an idea of what was claimed?

[thebeechtree]

I can't mention names of course but they were:

. an allegation that a woman's (moving!) car was struck by a tree stump which rolled down a slope and onto an A road! She somehow managed to find out who owned the wood and sued for £1,500 damage to the car. Pretty impressive. Even more impressive was a tree stump rolling down a slope, some 200 yards! Not sure quite how she expected to get away with that one, nor the lawyer involved... we gave them short shrift
. the other was an allegation of damage to a car by a branch brought down by heavy snow. The snow happened; it's possible that the branch did come down - but was mysteriously cleared away immediately as nobody in the private square involved saw any debris! Oh, and it took the claimant three months to notice the damage to the car!

Dealing with genuine claims is part and parcel of insurance; protect the client from the worry and hassle, pay the legal fees to defend the claim - and if liability is proved or admitted, proceed to a settlement that suits everyone. Fine. But dealing with scammers gets my back up!

[Tarrel]

Interesting. No broken ankles tripping over tree roots, etc. then.

I suppose we're a little more exposed up here, due to the Land Reform Act, giving right of access over most private land.

[thebeechtree]

I think if woodland owners are to be targeted by the claims brigade, it's going to be where the public are allowed in to view the woods, take part in activities and so on; those are the obvious areas where if it's going to happen at all, it'll be there. Having said that, the two car examples we've had did take us by surprise; like you, we'd expect the slips and trips claims, not outlandish ones such as those two.
Generally, woodland owners are still fairly safe from being targeted, but if it does happen, you really wouldn't want to have to fight a claim on your own; it could literally cost you your house or life savings.

[smojo]

As a new woodland owner and keeping an eye on the running costs, I'm trying to decide whether there is any real risk for my situation. Mine is a plot of woodland in a larger area. There is no public access as far as I know. Any visitors invited will probably be just a few close friends and family. Any contractors I might employ should have their own insurance so I guess the only likely risk is a falling tree or branch hitting another woodland neighbour. I'm not intending leaving anything valuable so don't need cover for tools etc. In all the years of having various house and contents and appliance insurance, I have hardly ever claimed a thing. So my general feeling about insurance is that it's mostly a waste of money and based on fear but ....I'm torn between having piece of mind and no fear or keeping a couple of hundred quid a year in my bank balance.

[outeredge]

I'm in the same place with this as you smojo although my situation is higher risk with road running along boundary etc. Do I really care if someone sues me - didn't I say life's too short and that's why I bought the woods? LOL oh I don't know...

[boxerman]

As a total newbie around here who's not yet been in your position I will offer my thoughts as an outsider.......

I guess the real issue is one of 3rd part liability rather than theft, damage etc and only you can make the decision. As you say, with your location the odds are probably high that you'll never have a problem BUT these days judges don't appear to use common sense when it comes to claims for injury. I suspect even if an uninvited guest was to injure themselves and try to sue you could have problems if you don't have the insurance to cover it. In this day and age of litigation I wouldn't be surprised to hear of a successful lawsuit by a poacher who tripped over a tree root and shot himself in the foot..... The odds are you could go 100 years without problems but just one such problem could wipe out everything you've worked for and destroy the dream.

We were both brought up in an era where it wouldn't cross your mind to sue someone 'cos you were dumb enough to trip over a tree root but in these days of free claims lawyers advertising everywhere there appears to be no such thing as an accident..

I guess you need to weigh the odds and decide what risks are worthwhile

[thebeechtree]

Exactly right, it's a personal choice. Putting aside the fact that I'm biased as I'm an insurance underwriter, it's all about peace of mind. Forget the actual risks involved; they're minimal. These days, it's not about what could go wrong, but who might slap in a claim, totally spurious, never even been near your land - but has nothing to lose in writing that letter! Yes, if you have trees near public areas or have visitors - or trespassers - on your land, then technically there's a real risk, however tiny. But it's not that real risk you are really insuring against, it's having insurance to pay the legal costs of fighting a claim. Those two claims I mentioned, by car owners alleging damage? Without insurance, imagine the costs of fighting that all the way to court... their lawyers were no win, no fee, in other words, with every incentive to just keep fighting you! Without a settlement offer from you, there's no "win" and so no fees can be charged - and they aren't going to just give up on their potential earnings. I have one (non woodland) claim, totally ludicrous, which has been refuted time and time again over the past five years - but we're still fighting as their side is no win, no fee - and the legal costs are now over £100,000!! THAT'S what you are insuring against.
But yes, of course it's a personal choice and luckily, woodland claims are few and far between. Just hope that you aren't the unlucky one.

[smojo]

I guess the issue really is about how comfortable you feel if you consider any risk of being sued. My reason for getting the wood is largely to get awsy from the sh*tty world we call society. If some di**he*d was to try sue me it would ruin the peace of mind I'm seeking.