Public Liability Insurance

[Mazlinite]

Hi All,

Public Liability Insurance has been an issue for us at Maslin Beach Olympics. We have been having a Family Fun day so to speak for many years now.

I was wondering if anyone visiting this site there in the USA would have any ideas as to how best to deal with this situation.

Surely there must be a way out of this and not have to pay huge sums of money just to have a fun day at the beach!

Any suggestions from someone who knows the law would be very much appreciated. I know the law must be different there in the USA but any help in this area especially from people who have been there before would be great.

Thank you
Maz

[Naturist Mark]

Got no answers. Hope someone has some ideas. We've had similar problems here in the States. The facility we used to rent for winter swims in Toledo is closed to us (not just us, but all outside rentals) because of huge increases in liability insurance costs.

Insurance for special events, or public liability, has gone through the roof. They blame 9-11 but the real reason is all the money the insurance industry lost in the stock markets over the last 3 years. The biggest hikes are in specialty insurance products that don't have much competition.

I know some people who operate a food concession at a county fair for 8 days every summer. They used to get a rider added to their regular insurance for $40 to cover the business. This summer the company said the rider would cost $1800. Everyone is getting squeezed, not just nudists, this is equal opportunity price gouging.

Ironic that while the religious extremists have been unsuccessful, the insurance bean counters are successful in shutting us down.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mazlinite:
We have been having a Family Fun day so to speak for many years now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know much about the law, but what if there was no one to sue? Could such a "fun day" be advertised and promoted such that no entity made money from it, or provided manmade objects to operate it, etc. etc.? Seriously, if a day like this appeared to be the spontaneous activity of a bunch of unorganized but like-minded people, who on earth could be held "liable" for anything?

The sue-happiness on this world has to be stopped, somehow! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
Seriously, if a day like this appeared to be the spontaneous activity of a bunch of unorganized but like-minded people, who on earth could be held "liable" for anything?

The sue-happiness on this world has to be stopped, somehow! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The owners of the beach could be sued. If it is a public beach that means the government with primary jurisdiction.

The insidious nature of the need for liability insurance in a litigious society is that it requires government or private owners to control public behavior far beyond the bounds of legal requirements. We are seeing our freedom to enjoy public spaces sacrificed for risk management.

-Mark

[NudeAl]

This is sounding more and more like a reason to reform our legal system. Our tort laws seem to have gotten way out of hand. I know this has been the case in the US for about the last 30 years or so. The other component here seems to be the insurence companies making money hand over fist at all costs. If there is a legal requiremant to have insurence surely it seems reasonable to have it regulated to a certain degree by law. If they are simply using the tragic events of 9-11 as an excuse to jack up their rates when it was really financial mismanagement of funds I think someone should be held accountable.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NudeAl:
If they are simply using the tragic events of 9-11 as an excuse to jack up their rates when it was really financial mismanagement of funds I think someone should be held accountable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean someone other than their customers, right?

The thing is, the insurance industy didn't really lose much money in the stock market, anymore than you or I did so long as we held our positions. A properly diversified portfolio will recover its value in due time, it always has. Insurance investors are by definition in for the long haul. The real mismanagement was that during the boom they were selling many insurance products for less than their costs, oversubsidizing them with stock market profits. With 9-11 they have the excuse to reverse that error, and then some.

Tort reform is still looking for some good ideas. Most proposals amount to denying justice for the small guy who really does deserve it. The big guys already get a free ride. Outside of the big settlement with the States the Tobacco companies have yet to pay a single dollar in damages (I've only heard of a settlement they made with an individual in 1 single case). Those 'outrageous' damages we always hear about juries awarding do not get paid - McDonald's never had to pay in the 'hot coffee' case. Most valid suits (and many nuisance suits) get settled out of court by insurance companies more interested in saving the time and money a lawsuit costs - and then pass the cost on to everyone else.

This has made the practice of medicine (for example) increasingly impossible. In some states medical malpractice insurance accounts for over 80% of the costs charged for Obstetric medicine. Is it any wonder that even though no country pays more per person for medical care than the US, we rank only 37th out of 191 nations in the world for quality of care?

Tort reform alone isn't a cure for litigeousness. Insurance is a necessity and it would be wrong to consider those that provide this essential service to be evil or to blame.

I just wish I had the answer.

[missouriboy]

"I just wish I had the answer."

A place to start would be to somehow remove liability from the owner for any "natural" object. Why should just the mere ownership of a beach imply responsibility for a rock that's been there for thousands of years, being tripped over in the dark, that's been dropped upon us all every night for our whole lives... you get the idea. Litigation more and more goes after what one "should" have done, not what they did do, and is mostly directed to entities perceived to have "deep pockets." Is this really right and good?

[naturalmanwa]

I am not familiar with the area in question, but what about having all participants sign a release of liability like drivers do at racetracks?

[Mazlinite]

Yes this was my thought but people come at all times of the day and it would be hard to keep announcing "PEOPLE WHO HAS JUST ARRIVED SIGN THIS RELEASE OF LIABILITY FORM"!(great idea)

I was just on the phone to the council who has only just in the last year and a half made this public liability insurance mandatory!

So I got on the phone to the ANF (Australian Nudist Federation)They said that they might be able to help connect with all the nudist organisations in Australia and put the hat around to help cover the ten million dollar coverage that we need.

Now this coverage occurs when there is 30 people or more in a gathering. I had to laugh because I said to them that there are hundreds of people on the beach playing games at all times during summer! Weird!

So there is still hope, my other idea was that if we got under the same umbrella maybe this will reduce the insurance policy dramatically.

Maybe if there was a "World Wide Nudist Federation" and people were covered under the same umbrella? We have to look deep into this issue because as I say in my signature: It is only through Ignorance that we surrender our FREEDOM.

I will keep you posted as to what happens /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
"I just wish I had the answer."

A place to start would be to somehow remove liability from the owner for any "natural" object. Why should just the mere ownership of a beach imply responsibility for a rock that's been there for thousands of years, being tripped over in the dark, that's been dropped upon us all every night for our whole lives... you get the idea. Litigation more and more goes after what one "should" have done, not what they did do, and is mostly directed to entities perceived to have "deep pockets." Is this really right and good? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's a clothing-optional beach in BC accessible by land only through private property. The owner allowed people to cross his property to get to the beach. One day, someone slipped while crossing the property, broke his leg and successfully sued the owner. The result: no more beach access across this property. And this is Canada, where we don't normally see lawsuits like this.

Gary

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
You mean someone other than their customers, right?

The thing is, the insurance industy didn't really lose much money in the stock market, anymore than you or I did so long as we held our positions. .. Insurance investors are by definition in for the long haul. The real mismanagement was that during the boom they were selling many insurance products for less than their costs, oversubsidizing them with stock market profits. With 9-11 they have the excuse to reverse that error, and then some.

Tort reform is still looking for some good ideas. .. Most valid suits (and many nuisance suits) get settled out of court by insurance companies more interested in saving the time and money a lawsuit costs - and then pass the cost on to everyone else.
..
Tort reform alone isn't a cure for litigeousness. Insurance is a necessity and it would be wrong to consider those that provide this essential service to be evil or to blame.

I just wish I had the answer. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A couple of comments. Property and casualty insurers often pay out more in claims and operating costs than they receive in premiums. So they depend on investment earnings (interest more than capital gains) for most of their profit. With low interest rates these days, investment earnings are inequate to produce an acceptable profit.

9/11 forced the insurance companies to get real about premium rates. In many cases, they have overreacted and jacked up rates excessively. This will settle down in time, thanks to competitive forces.

Regarding lawsuits, the biggest problem in the U.S. is the contingency fee system, whereby it costs nothing for an individual to sue someone else (unless they win). This problem is made worse by the ability to launch class action lawsuits, which can produce payoffs for entrepreneurial lawyers in the tens of millions of dollars.

When a company or an individual sues another, they are not adding value to the economy. Rather, they are playing a zero-sum game whereby someone wins, but at the expense of someone else. This causes the economy to underperform, making us all poorer.

The solution to all of these problems: get nude and chill.

Gary

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
9/11 forced the insurance companies to get real about premium rates. In many cases, they have overreacted and jacked up rates excessively. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo! To give an idea of this, I just paid my annual homeowner premium this month. I went back and found these rates of increase... 2002 was 17.2% over 2001, and 2003 was 22.9% over 2002. That makes 2003 30.6% over 2001! With no change in the policy, which includes 100,000 liability.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
Regarding lawsuits, the biggest problem in the U.S. is the contingency fee system, whereby it costs nothing for an individual to sue someone else (unless they win). This problem is made worse by the ability to launch class action lawsuits, which can produce payoffs for entrepreneurial lawyers in the tens of millions of dollars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But if you get rid of these (especially contingency fees) you effectively bar the courts to everyone but the very wealthy - and the system is already stacked in their favor.

The US has a political system that arguably affords more freedoms to the individual than anywhere else. But those freedoms are backed up by the court system, not by law enforcement or administrative action. Without access to courts those freedoms will quickly evaporate.

In America our civil, economic, and personal rights are all mediated by lawyers. We can't afford to strip away that mediation without a replacement. There ought to be a better way, but in America 'trusting the government' or 'big business' or the very powerful isn't it.

In the short term the best I can come up with is showing less tolerance for frivolous lawsuits. It would also help if more courts sent the message that you are always responsible for your own actions.

-Mark

[Rex]

In regard to public liability, perhaps the old concept of "you can't sue a man [or woman] of straw" would be a way out. If a totally assetless person signed that they were responsible and anything went wrong, then who would waste their time and money on litigation. I suppose a lawyer would have to look at this, but perhaps this could be done through a civil liberties organisation for little or no cost and it would only need to be done once for each jurisdiction.
It may not be easy to find such a person, but in every community there's always someone who may think, "this is my last chance of fame and anyway it's always fun to beat the system".
Think laterally.

[Smoof]

Rex you may be onto something with that. A person who has signed all of his assets into an RLT (Revokable Living Trust) owns basically nothing and that might work somehow. I'm sure it would only work one time though, by next year they would catch on and close that loophole somehow.
It is a real travesty that we even have to find a "loophole" to do something that people have done naturally forever. Suddenly, someone else has to be responsible for everything YOU do! Stubb your toe on a rock while walking the beach, its the owners fault (unless it's Gov't owned of course) he should have removed all of Gods rocks before you graced the place with you presence. Have a bad allergic reaction to a bee-sting while there, Hot-dang you hit the jackpot! The owner should have fumigated the entire site, put up warning signs everywhere, had a minimun of four beecatchers to bee on duty during your stay in case any miscreant insects held their breath during the fogging, and hope he had a ten million dollars liability policy because you are going for the whole amount. You aren't the least bit culpable for being there knowing you're allergic, wearing that high-smellin' perfume or even a sunblock with a scent that will attract insects. It can't be a simple act of nature, someone else has to be at fault. Just a typical scenario but what a crock!

[Smoof]

Sorry hit the wrong button before I finished.

The RLT option might work as a "strawman".

As far as getting some kind of reform that would eventually cause some relief to the situation I think one of the first steps is to change the law so that the losing party of any Tort pays the legal expenses for both sides also. So that if you frivolously sue me for whatever reason and lose, you pay all my legal expenses too. Too many frivolous suits are happening because people are basically able to gamble with OPM (other peoples money). The way it is now, if it will cost you nothing then you have nothing to lose and possibly everything to gain. The other person or entity that you sue loses no matter what happens by paying huge fees and costs to defend themselves so even if they win - they still lose. How about making it a fair game?
The only sure winners in this whole mess are the lawyers who get paid anyway. They are the ones who perpetuate the whole system as it is. Any guess as to why?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoof:
The RLT option might work as a "strawman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Setting up a 'Strawman' doesn't protect the property owner. The owner of a pool or beach (whether private or public) needs liability protection.

I don't know what the rules of civil liability are in OZ, but here in the US, all parties can be held liable individually or severally. In other words, even if the landlord's contributory negligence amounts to 1% of the fault, they can be held for the entire amount of damages if the money isn't available from the other parties.

-Mark

[Rex]

Re public liability. Thanks for your comments, guys.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've managed to beat one or two at various times in various ways.
Basically, we're caught up in a ridiculous and unfair system which the parliamentarians will not sort out. So we either try to work within that system [almost impossible at times], ask the government to fix it [bang your head against a brick wall], or find a way around it.
If I want to have fun on the beach, organised or not and someone reckons they got hurt and they want to sue the owner of the beach, then in Western Australia that is either the local council or the government and to decide which, they may have to prove it happened either above or below high water line [not always obvious].
Either way, they are not sueing me or my mates, so if the govt gets caught up in a stupid system that they have failed to fix, then it's their own stupid fault.
Sometimes the only way to get any sense out of politicians and bureaucrats is to put them in a quandary and then they will endeavour to take the easiest way out, so it's up to concerned members of the public to try to make sure that the easiest way is what they want.
The fact is, the current public liability system is a pain in the neck to governments too, so forcing them to do something about it is good for them as well.
Regarding owning nothing, some apparently very affluent people have their affairs structured in such a way that they are technically insolvent and don't even pay tax. Don't ask me how, but it happens.
I still think my original idea is a possibility. Some enterprising person could even make a modest living out of it, by accepting anonymous cash donations from grateful people. If you think about the ramifications of trying to close that loophole, well it may never happen.
The real drawback is that most people would be scared to be part of it and that is why it needs to be run past a lawyer.