Jump to content

Public Liability Insurance


MatchFuzee

Recommended Posts

I guess, that by now all my fellow MVT members will have read about the proposed public liability insurance (PLI) in the February Windscreen and I would like to know your thoughts on the proposal. I'm only asking about the personal PLI part NOT the PLI for the Committee of Management or cover for the areas as this is obviously necessary.

 

My first thought was it "seems too good to be true".

 

My second thought was the shortage of detail about the insurance e.g.

In the event of claim, how much is the excess?

How much is the subsidy per member?

 

This cover seems to be "one size fits all", as there doesn't appear to be any attention given to those members who don't need PLI. An example of this is a member who is interested in MVs but doesn't own one and is quite happy to receive Windscreen, go to the local area meetings and travel as a passenger in another member's MV on a road run etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi we discussed it at our area meeting last Thursday and had it explained to us,so as not to create confusion ( in case I remembered bits wrong as I was not taking notes),it seems to be a good scheme,I would suggest you have a chat with your area rep who might be able to answer any questions,

It will be fully explained at the AGM next month when everybody there will be able to ask questions before there is a vote on it,so it would be good if as many people as possible could get there.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, as the Safety officer for the MVT I will be presenting this at the AGM. I personally believe that it is an excellent opportunity for MVT members. There are members who do not think it is a good idea, so there is a debate about it.

 

For me the reality is, event organisers are increasingly asking individuals for Public Liability insurance before they can attend a show. This is already happening for some of the members. If this insurance goes through at the AGM, we will be able to attend this events without having to get our own insurance, which is considerably more expensive if you pay individually.

 

If you have any further questions I would be happy to answer them before the AGM - safety@mvt.org.uk

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have gotten this wrong then I am sure someone will jump in and correct me. This is not an argument for or against the MVT obtaining PLI for its members, one of which I am, it is more an argument that event organisers are the ones who need to get PLI for their shows.

 

Many of us own, maintain and repair vehicles, quite a few of which have historic origins or origins of great interest. Many of these vehicles are beyond common sense in terms of running them, e.g often below 20 MPG, some even gallons per mile. So we not only spend considerable amounts of money insuring, and maintaining them but the costs of getting them to shows is often considerable.

 

When we get our vehicles to a show whether it be a shown specifically for military vehicles, classic vehicles or historic vehicles we are generally allowed free entry.

 

The public who attend these shows often show considerable interest in our vehicles, often these people will know the vehicles intimately having driven and or serviced them. Even if they are not military vehicles the public are still enthusiastic to see older types of vehicle.

 

Meanwhile the event organisers are at the show entrance eagerly collecting the £3-£5 (or more) entrance fee from the public. It seems to me that it is the event organisers who should be funding the cost of PLI as it is their event. Were it not for us and owners of many others types of classic, historic or interesting vehicles going to these show, having refurbished them, insured them and fueled them to get to the shows out of the goodness of our hearts and pockets there would be no show.

 

Diana

 

 

I guess, that by now all my fellow MVT members will have read about the proposed public liability insurance (PLI) in the February Windscreen and I would like to know your thoughts on the proposal. I'm only asking about the personal PLI part NOT the PLI for the Committee of Management or cover for the areas as this is obviously necessary.

 

My first thought was it "seems too good to be true".

 

My second thought was the shortage of detail about the insurance e.g.

In the event of claim, how much is the excess?

How much is the subsidy per member?

 

This cover seems to be "one size fits all", as there doesn't appear to be any attention given to those members who don't need PLI. An example of this is a member who is interested in MVs but doesn't own one and is quite happy to receive Windscreen, go to the local area meetings and travel as a passenger in another member's MV on a road run etc.

Edited by Diana and Jackie
added "going"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points to consider:

 

1. Do all MV owners really understand exactly under what circumstances the use / attendance of their vehicle requires PLI which would not be covered by their own personal vehicle insurance policy? The cost-effective provision of such insurance by MVT to all its members is surely a great benefit and saves members any concern about whether they have adequate insurance for group events or individual attendance at any other event.

 

2. A member without a vehicle but travelling as a passenger in another member's vehicle would be assured of reliable insurance cover for personal injury should it be required but might not be covered by the owner's policy due to the circumstances of use.

 

3. The possible provision of something like 'Associate Membership' for these members without a vehicle, or some other variety of membership for those not wanting PLI would only save a (and I'm guessing here) modest proportion of their membership fee and would be quite costly to operate if only in administrative time, and would add (albeit marginally) to membership cost. The selective opting out of the scheme might also add to the cost of providing the cover to those who are happy to accept the benefits.

 

4. I suspect the vast majority of members stand to benefit from this scheme - even if they might not appreciate it!

Edited by N.O.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many vehicle owners have PLI up to £5 million ? Not that many I suspect, all shows I attend require that you have PLI to some extent, though they all differ in their wording there seems to be no standard minimum requirements I think that a clarification from a show organiser would be helpful.

Personally I think the mvt PLI scheme is a good idea for vehicle owners who attend various steam rallies etc throughout the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly the value of the insurance cover is arbitrary. The issue is that if a show has say £10M of PLI cover and you as an exhibitor have £5M then the show organisers may be asked by the courts to cover the difference. This creates a "race to the bottom" environment where the numbers just go up and up, costing individuals more and more money just to mitigate the insurers risk. However any cover is better than none at all. Also if you get to a point where you need to claim your £5M something has gone spectacularly wrong, this is very unlikely with what we do, but still possible.

 

I think we are all agreed it is a sad state of affairs that we have to have this insurance, and nobody really wants to pay for it. However the ease with which people can sue others has created this environment where anybody could come along and ruin your life.

 

I had one members ask me "why are we doing this, has there been an accident", well in the MVT world there have been incidents however overall we have been lucky so far. Consider the Shoreham incident which is driving a lot of this. Even though the pilot was at fault, some element of blame will be passed to the show organisers, who will have to justify their processes. This will only increase the desire for show organisers to make sure that their risk is mitigated the best way to do this is to make sure every individual exhibitor has the insurance/risk assessments to cover their own display.

 

For £10 (£15 for joint members) members will have peace of mind whatever happens, providing you follow the MVT code of conduct, to turn up and enjoy the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points to consider:

 

3. The possible provision of something like 'Associate Membership' for these members without a vehicle, or some other variety of membership for those not wanting PLI would only save a (and I'm guessing here) modest proportion of their membership fee and would be quite costly to operate if only in administrative time, and would add (albeit marginally) to membership cost. The selective opting out of the scheme might also add to the cost of providing the cover to those who are happy to accept the benefits.

 

The cost of PLI is not just the cost to each member as a modest proportion of their membership fee because to quote from the Membership Benefits article in Windscreen "Insurance like this comes at a cost, one that the MVT are willing to bear the brunt of" i.e. subsidise the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of PLI is not just the cost to each member as a modest proportion of their membership fee because to quote from the Membership Benefits article in Windscreen "Insurance like this comes at a cost, one that the MVT are willing to bear the brunt of" i.e. subsidise the cost.

 

Surely the cost of such provision will have to come from the Trust's revenue stream - its main one being membership fees?

Even if it might initially be funded by any surplus funds, the cost would have to be found be either reducing expenditure or increasing fees.

Edited by N.O.S.
Sarcasm filter engaged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that whether it's required by show organisers or not, it's a good idea.

 

I go along with that. All hobbies are at risk particularly if you engage in anything a little bit different. I have PLI to cover myself for walking along the beach with a metal detector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add that my understanding was that in order to comply - individuals must also have / carry wheel chocks/First Aid Kit/Fire extinguisher etc. - Whilst I already do and always have - and think its both common sense and a bit of a "no-brainer" - some of my members have asked how motorcyclists are meant to carry these ? - who decides if chocks are suitable and for big vehicles where can they be purchased from etc....

- also what defines a first aid box / or a fire extinguisher - are they going to be in breech of insurance if they don't have the correct size or type ?

Another question was "is this to cover the re-enactors / give them liability insurance? - don't we as driver owners already have cover ?

Finally someone asked why cant the MVT cover any additional costs in full - they have a huge pot of money that they never seem to do anything with....

All these questions and more will no doubt be aired at the AGM - Im sure a lot of mvt members have their own opinions and thoughts !.......The debate continues........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

After attending the AGM - I must congratulate Tim Hawkes in his excellent presentation regarding this emotive subject. It certainly opened up my eyes and thankfully now has been given the chance for more information to be gathered and fed back to the many members who were not able to attend the AGM but were tasked with voting in advance regarding the proposals - I can only welcome the MVT for arranging this cover to protect its members - this is a small price to pay for piece of mind - there is no doubt that regrettably this will be introduced to many similar clubs and hobbies - the ambulance chasing / claims society that we now live in is sad - but this will ensure we are all covered .

I would urge any MVT members who are undecided or think this isn't necessary to contact Tim or their Area Secretary to hear the full story and the facts before they decide how to place their vote. Please ignore the hype and gossip and listen, investigate for yourself if your still unsure...and then make your own mind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After attending the AGM - I must congratulate Tim Hawkes in his excellent presentation regarding this emotive subject. It certainly opened up my eyes and thankfully now has been given the chance for more information to be gathered and fed back to the many members who were not able to attend the AGM but were tasked with voting in advance regarding the proposals - I can only welcome the MVT for arranging this cover to protect its members - this is a small price to pay for piece of mind - there is no doubt that regrettably this will be introduced to many similar clubs and hobbies - the ambulance chasing / claims society that we now live in is sad - but this will ensure we are all covered .I would urge any MVT members who are undecided or think this isn't necessary to contact Tim or their Area Secretary to hear the full story and the facts before they decide how to place their vote. Please ignore the hype and gossip and listen, investigate for yourself if your still unsure...and then make your own mind up.
I was also at the AGM and after Tim's presentation changed from being against PLI to voting for it. I even overheard one of the other members at the AGM saying "he was sure that if his fellow area members who had voted no by proxy had been given Tim's presentation before voting that they would have yes".

 

At our next area meeting I will even be promoting that we all vote yes in the postal ballot when we receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A VERY important addition to Matchfuzees' post

I was also at the MVT AGM, in the next edition of Windscreen there will be a form on the cover sheet to vote on the proposal for Public Liability Insurance, please complete this and return it. Please do not discard the cover sheet as this is very important.

Edited by johnwardle
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last nights West Sussex Area monthly meet I read out the proposals as per the presentation at the AGM - I answered the same questions that were asked of Tim at the AGM - I answered them as per Tim's answers - I left with an overwhelming feeling of a unanimous YES vote for the proposed changes - I think the issue was that members weren't in full possessions of the facts - they now have a better / clearer picture and cant vote accordingly - my concern is for the 3/4 of the membership that doesn't regularly attend area meetings and may not be in full possession of the facts, and may think that this isn't necessary or affects them - I would only urge anyone with doubts to contact their Area secretaries or the CoM. - please don't take for granted you are covered or will be ok - this is more than vehicle insurance - this is personal public liability and all that it entails - its a serious matter - please don't be caught out by ignorance or lack of clarity....check with your insurance provider - ensure you have full ppli before you make a decision on how you are going to vote - ultimately it is you the individual who will loose out if you get this wrong!

- Now - another debate - the role and workload of an Area Secretary - but lets leave that for another day !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this information be posted on the mvt website for all to read and understand, you make the argument without stating what exactly is proposed, plus the pros and cons.

 

Personally I think its a no brainer and I shall vote in favour for the proposal an extra tenner seems cheap to get the cover required to allow us peice of mind when exhibiting our vehicles in public should the worse happen.

 

I asked the question how many hmvf members have PLI and I can't remember any replies. As a carpenter my PLI only costs me £70 or so but that's double the proposed increased in mvt membership .

 

RR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this information be posted on the mvt website for all to read and understand, you make the argument without stating what exactly is proposed, plus the pros and cons.

 

 

RR.

 

I believe that the information will be sent out with the voting form in this month's Windscreen. This time, we are not being asked to vote without all the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...