Liability Insurance

[boxerman]

If some di**he*d was to try sue me it would ruin the peace of mind I'm seeking.

I think that probably answers the question..... Pay the insurance and, so long as you don't do something stupid, you have that peace of mind.

[outeredge]

Well summarised!

[jennysmate]

So woodland liability insurance is different to other insurances ?
Ive had car, house and pet insurance in the past and the last thing they gave me was peace of mind.
You have to carefuly balance up making a claim with excess charges, loss of no claims and the inevitable hike in premiums, its usually not worth it. If you do dare to claim they'll find any small print clause to wriggle out of payment.

[thebeechtree]

Hi, I think you've either taken out the wrong cover then, or been misadvised! Insurance is a legal thing; it's based on UK law, especially liability insurance. It's there to defend you, as long as you have been accurate in describing what you do and where you do it. After all, it's potentially a lot of money that insurers stand to pay out in the event of a claim, so we need to know what we are insuring. Believe me, having to tell someone he's not covered because he either innocently or deliberately hid the facts is not a pleasant experience and one I don't relish. But it's not about wriggling! If you own a wood, describe truthfully what you do there, eg, run it as purely an amenity for friends and family, right up to holding Royal Marine fieldcraft courses there (that's the range of activities I've insured), then any claim will be dealt with. But if you say nothing happens but lazing in the sun, whilst you hold a mini-Glastonbury there, well, no, you'll have a problem if a claim comes in!
By the same token, because all liability insurance is based on UK law, claimants can also have a problem because they have to prove that you, the owner/user of the land, have been negligent in causing their injury. Accidents do just happen - and if no negligence can be proved against you, the claim against you will fail. But your legal costs and the stressful fight itself, is taken care of by the insurer (as long as you've been accurate in telling us the facts).
And if you are unsure what facts need to be declared, or what that clause or exclusion means, just ask; that's why we're here.

[jennysmate]

Hi, I think you've either taken out the wrong cover then, or been misadvised!

The only insurance I take out now is car, and thats only because I abide by UK law. I've been with a dozen or more over the years and theyre all the same. Who would you recommend then that are so different?

it's based on UK law, especially liability insurance

Isn't every UK company?
That doesnt stop the likes of Amazon, Starbucks et all, wriggling out of paying more than 0.1% tax. It may be totaly legal, but its totaly wrong. I'm sure I could find similar examples in other companys, including insurance.

It's there to defend you

Its there to make a profit.
I think I'd better stop there.

[thebeechtree]

Oh dear! Have I struck a nerve?! But seriously, I can see that you don't like insurers or insurance and don't believe in it; well that's fine for you. Many people do see the need and all I'm trying to do is present the facts as to what you need, what you probably don't need - and how it works. Yes, it's based on UK law, meaning that it follows a legal process, just as those who sue you have to follow that same process; I'm not sure why we're talking about tax avoidance and Starbucks! My point is that following a legal process inevitably incurs legal costs - and insurance pays those costs, regardless of the merits of the allegation against you. Someone can allege injury, it costs them nothing, even if they are shown to be fraudsters, but it could literally bankrupt you to fight it. Why take the risk of doing that on your own, other than the fact (which I was clear about) that woodland owners aren't a top target (yet!). Just those two claims in several years of running the scheme.... but if I was allowed to give you the names of the woodland owners who were sued, I reckon they'd tell you how relieved they were that we fought the case on their behalf. And no, we didn't try to wriggle out of it!!
I can't recommend a motor insurer: I look online just as most people do! And yes, they are all pretty much the same in my opinion, because apart from price and quality of service, being a legally required insurance means... yes, a legally-approved wording, so they'll all be very similar. I take it you mean you don't trust them and why do I think there's any one of them that's different in that regard? Sorry, I'm not here to change your opinion; you're entitled to it just as I am to mine.
Finally, of course insurers have to make a profit or they'll go bust! What's the point of any business that runs at a loss until it folds? And yes, just as with any business, there will be insurers or their agents who promise the earth at very cheap prices - and after a while, go bust and leave you in the lurch. Given someone can sue you up to three years after an alleged injury (longer in some circumstances), and it's whoever insured you at the time of that alleged incident who will deal with the claim, where's the use of a cheap as chips insurer who isn't there any more when that solicitor's letter lands on your doormat? On a personal level, I take calls and give advice at all times of the day and sometimes the night (1.58am is the late night record for a phone call seeking urgent help), so yes, we ARE there to help.
But, I reiterate, you have your opnion and I can see that I won't change it and that's fine, let's agree we have vastly different viewpoints!

[Meadowcopse]

I have public liability insurance for 'peace of mind' - I also have Employers Liability Insurance as it specifically covers mates, helpers and volunteers who may be unpaid.
It is through a particular agricultural insurer and combined with my main residence, but I am rather supportive of the points Mr Beechtree is trying to get across (and would have been a customer of his, had it not been for other existing agricultural / property policies).

There is quite a good book with a few extracts based on case law of 'tree' incidents - "The Arboriculturalists Companion" by NDG James

[Lincswood]

I agree with just about every point Gary at the Beech Tree makes. Reassuring I guess, because I'm a policy holder with this company. For me, it's all about peace of mind because part of my wood fronts a busy road and even though it may never happen in my lifetime, a tree could fall where a car is driving... Don't want to think about it really, but the threat is there all the same. Two days after I bought the wood, a car overturned and ended up in it. The driver was probably drunk, inexperienced or talking on the phone. I'll never know. The previous owner of the wood said that it had never happened in the 20 years he had owned the wood. I hope it never happens again, but you never know... The tree surgeon who felled the 4 trees the car had damaged told me about our 'duty of care' as woodland owners, so this was the point that I had the rest of the trees assessed and then organised some public liability insurance. Helps me enjoy the wood and sleep easier at night...

[thebeechtree]

Thanks Lincswood; but now that I'm aware of just what a dodgy risk you are, I may have to cancel your policy!

But that's what it's all about... if that driver had made a claim against you for some reason, it would have been ridiculous - but your policy would have defended you. It doesn't matter if the claim is genuine (I hope we never have one because that means someone really has been hurt) or ludicrous, the insurance takes it over and deals with it.
Having your trees assessed is a very good move but it's not a requirement. What it does do, however, is help us defend you. If a tree is clearly in a dangerous state and yet nothing was done about it, we have to accept you are liable and offer a settlement to the claimant. But if the tree showed no obvious signs of disease or danger, then you start from a non-negligent position and it's up to the claimant to prove negligence on your part - and that won't be easy. Having assessments done helps even more, by showing you take good care to avoid mishaps and that goes a long way to help us in your defence.

[Zathras]

At the end of the day we are talking about liability insurance here, rather than any loss experienced by the owner.
On that point I whole heartedly prefer to be covered.

Not sure I should mention it here (with my provider in this thread ) *cough*, but...
During the high winds earlier this year we lost the top of one of our big Ash trees, which is by the waterway that runs along one edge.

It landed in part in the waterway, where boats cruise by - No harm done, the water authority pulled it onto the land and chopped at it a little bit, we then finished the job and have a decent pile of logs.

It was a reminder of what can happen though - as the top landing on a boat as they went past was definitely feasible and could have easily lead to a claim against us.