Public Liability Insurance

[Dukesy 0]

Whose cluster of speakers? You'll find that comprehensive policies state there is no restrictions under the policy to the type of equipment used (other than a particular identified restriction, such as use of fire or pyrotechnics).

 

Do you think that if a cluster of speakers owned by the venue fell on someone, that it would invalidate the performers liability cover?

 

Top performers have the option to take out additional professional indemnities which far exceed the price of a pli policy, and since 2003, I've not met one mobile DJ turning over enough (even full time) to afford.

 

However, its assuring to know that the specialist policies cover the named business for indemnity for damage (property) and injury, whether by death, bodily injury, illness or disease of or to any person whilst conducting their business, so long as the business is specified in the policy Schedule and subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions of the whole policy, or thereabouts!

 

Indeed, it's worth noting the small print of any policy and yes, its not only down to an individuals requirement but these days, more empathies seems to be placed on 'budget', so perhaps its worth checking out the small print with fine scrutiny to establish whether the policy chosen will meet the requirements of main work / venue premises requirements.

 

Policies with legal defence costs included are not to be overlooked IMO. The costs, fees and expenses incurred by the "assured" for defence or settlement of any claim are usually covered by the underwriters and will most likely state as such on the policy, along with any specific exclusions.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Dukesy

[PWES 0]

Whose cluster of speakers? You'll find that comprehensive policies state there is no restrictions under the policy to the type of equipment used (other than a particular identified restriction, such as use of fire or pyrotechnics).

 

 

I always thought it was strange that the cover of any of the policies I've looked at and had, never specified equipment usage (ie:not erected over XX height etc.), PAT testing, stress testing of stands and/ or truss, T bars etc.

 

It would appear they have left themselves wide open... Perhaps after the first claims (which will happen at some point), bearing in mind PLI is still relatively new to the DJ community, they will revise the restrictions, but so far so good, no claims and no restrictions !

 

[Welsh Audio Man 21 0]

Whose cluster of speakers? You'll find that comprehensive policies state there is no restrictions under the policy to the type of equipment used (other than a particular identified restriction, such as use of fire or pyrotechnics).

 

Do you think that if a cluster of speakers owned by the venue fell on someone, that it would invalidate the performers liability cover?

 

Top performers have the option to take out additional professional indemnities which far exceed the price of a pli policy, and since 2003, I've not met one mobile DJ turning over enough (even full time) to afford.

 

However, its assuring to know that the specialist policies cover the named business for indemnity for damage (property) and injury, whether by death, bodily injury, illness or disease of or to any person whilst conducting their business, so long as the business is specified in the policy Schedule and subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions of the whole policy, or thereabouts!

 

What i'm getting at is, I don't believe DJPLI or DJ@ etc.. would cover for my installation work on land, on ships, overseas... I used a cluster of speakers as an example, it could be in relation to any excessive weight of equipment being flown. When I took out my policy, I had to give details such as would I be working at ladder height, harnessed rigging etc...

[PWES 0]

What i'm getting at is, I don't believe DJPLI or DJ@ etc.. would cover for my installation work on land, on ships, overseas... I used a cluster of speakers as an example, it could be in relation to any excessive weight of equipment being flown. When I took out my policy, I had to give details such as would I be working at ladder height, harnessed rigging etc...

 

You will probably find that any DJ related policy, if claimed upon would look at your main area of work, and if that was mainly large installs, huge mobile rigs etc. they would perhaps argue that you are not a mobile DJ, your are an A/V installer

 

If however you do perhaps 2 BIG rigs a year, but the rest of your work is mobile DJing, with assorted sized kit, then you'd be ok...

 

Maybe PM me with some more details (rather than bore everyone here !) and I'll be happy to look into it for you

 

[Dukesy 0]

Whilst one would be expected to have a duty of care, comply with health and safety and statutory requirements and legislation, where "PAT" (portable appliance test) is concerned, I doubt that an insurance company would get involved in the logistical nightmare of checking PAT validity. PAT may be stated as a requirement of the membership entity / association the individual wishes to join, however unlike other entities, DJ@ did not insist PAT to be a requirement of association membership, as this would have placed the onus on the association to check and confirm that the PAT details submitted were genuine, especially in the event of an unfortunate claim. :hide:

 

Possession of a valid PAT would certainly satisfy an insurance company in the unfortunate event of a claim, however in the case of enquiries by DJ@ to Hencilla, lack of PAT in itself would not automatically invalidate cover. In fact I believe that once insurance is granted and the premium paid, nothing which arises between the insured and insurer will invalidate the right of a third party to make a claim against them and their policy.

 

 

For example, if a driver lied about the number of penalty points they had at the time of taking out car insurance cover (in order to gain a pecuniary advantage) then, if the discrepancy was found out by the insurer at a later date, i.e during a claim, then it would still not affect the payout to the party claiming against the driver if they were found to be at fault.

This however doesn't mean that the insurer won't persue the insured personally for the claim they have paid out if they had lied about anything at the time cover was granted, and they certainly would not pay out anything for the insured's own loss. It just means that the third party will not be inconvienced and their claim will be honoured and still be paid by the insurer.

 

This also brings me to another point. With the glut of offshore insurance companies creeping into the realms of PLI, my only concern is that they are still regulated by the FSA (!) and are full members of the UK based insurance ombudsman scheme.

Its all very well obtaining insurance from outside of the UK, provided that in the event of a claim they do pay out, or in the event of any dispute about the claim, the insured (the association or entity) will have the right to take the matter to independant arbitration via the Ombudsman Scheme. However, not all overseas insurance companies fall into this umbrella leaving the insured with no means of independant protection or complaint if the company decide not to play fair in the event of a claim.

 

Let’s hope that there never is a liability claim, as it would undoubtedly force the cost of the policy premium the following term MORE than the previous years for sure, and will probably result in the same attitude shown towards our industry for PLI as exists currently with Motor Insurance for anybody in the Entertainment industry - ie, hard to obtain! :yes:

[Raymilkybarkid 0]

I think DJ Guard will only provide up to £5M (at extra cost). The gocompare site allowed me to select up to £10M, but i wanted to get a min price - and assumed £10M would be more expensive.

 

I've only ever been asked for PLI twice. I always offer it, but only 2 actually took it from my hands!

 

Not to say I wouldn't want to trade without it!

 

Some of the venues I work at ask for it every time.

I worked at the same venue on a Friday night + Saturday night and was asked on both occasions but having said that some venues have asked I had cover but never asked for proof.

[PWES 0]

Just a quick update chaps - Several people moaned about having to have a backlink as part of their membership to get the cheap PLI. Several also didn't have a website, so couldn't !

 

I have therefore now reconsidered, and backlinks are now voluntary and will be in return for direct to links to your site only. So hopefully this is a step forward everyone will like...

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[PWES 0]

 

Morning chaps, just a reminder to those of us who had the DJ@ policy, that it ran out last night !!