Public Liability Insurance

Mazlinite · #1 11-15-2003, 06:40 PM

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 · #2 11-15-2003, 08:36 PM

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 · #3 11-16-2003, 05:42 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mazlinite:
[qb] We have been having a Family Fun day so to speak for many years now.
[/qb]

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! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Naturist Mark · #4 11-16-2003, 06:12 AM

quote:
Originally posted by missouriboy:
[qb]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! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] [/qb]

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 · #5 11-16-2003, 06:29 AM

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 · #6 11-16-2003, 07:30 AM

quote:
Originally posted by NudeAl:
[qb] 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. [/qb]

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 · #7 11-16-2003, 07:58 AM

"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 · #8 11-16-2003, 02:12 PM

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 · #9 11-16-2003, 04:14 PM

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 [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

Gary Naturist · #10 11-16-2003, 11:58 PM

quote:
Originally posted by missouriboy:
[qb] "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? [/qb]

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