IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
No Insurance pay out due to poor/no health and safety arrangments
Rank: Forum user 
|
I have been asked by my employer for cases evidence of insurance companies not paying out due to organisations not having health and safety control measures in place.
Could someone please direct me in the right direction? We have gone down the road of explaining direct and indirect costs but some people need to be further enlightened.
Many Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not heard of this one; usually what happens is either the insurers will insist that policies are put in place otherwise they will refuse cover in future. If a peril is insured under written business they probably have to pay out, they may just refuse to write that business in future, or raise premiums. There could be relevant exclusions I suppose, but then I can't imagine an employer agreeing to exclusions would leave them in fact without insurance,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Richard,
It can't happen - well not insofar as Employers' Liability insurance is concerned. Insurers are not - by virtue of the laws relating to the provision of EL insurance - to place any restrictive conditions on the EL Policy, to refuse payment as a result of there not being proper H&S or risk management in place.
Hope that clarifies the matter..
Phil
PS It is different for Public Liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
thanks to you both ....its contents insurance they are asking about, for instance.....a fire and then not having a fire risk assessment in place..but i see your point the insurer should not provide insurance cover if control masures are not in place.
In a nut shell the insurer finding any means possible not to pay out
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
With regards to contents/assets insurance, it depends on what is agreed in the policy.
If the terms make it a requirements to have a full sprinkler system and you don't then the insurance cover is not valid - much the same as not having a currrent MOT on your car or not having business cover etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Exactly the point I’m trying to make....there's no way Churchill insurance will pay out if you crashed the car twice over the alcohol limit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Some insurance companies will have a warranty on the material ddamage (contents) policy regarding completion of the 5 year fixed wiring inspection (electrical inspection warranty). If a fire happens and can be attributed to electrical failure then if the electrical inspection has not been carried out the insurer can void the policy = no payment for fire claim.
There is also a general condition on all insurance policies that you must comply with the law as it stands. Failure to comply with H&S legislation could be seen as a breach of this condition and could allow an insurer to invalidate policy, however, this would only be used in exceptional circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Quote from ijmartin:
"There is also a general condition on all insurance policies that you must comply with the law as it stands. Failure to comply with H&S legislation could be seen as a breach of this condition and could allow an insurer to invalidate policy, however, this would only be used in exceptional circumstances".
Where can i find evidence of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
we also need to consider the rise in costs for cover after a claim/attempted claim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Quote from ijmartin:
"There is also a general condition on all insurance policies that you must comply with the law as it stands. Failure to comply with H&S legislation could be seen as a breach of this condition and could allow an insurer to invalidate policy, however, this would only be used in exceptional circumstances".
Where can i find evidence of this?
Richard,
It is generally buried in the terms and conditions in very small print, but it is most definitely there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Richardgree This condition is usually found in the Policy Conditions section. The following link will take to you a sample of an AVIVA Contractors Combined Policy, you may have to cut and paste into your brower. The specific condition is on page 281 out of 287 - Condition 10. It can be difficult to find unless you know what you're looking for. For specific guidance I'd suggest you ask your insurance broker or PM me and I'll try to provide more specific advice. Cheers http://broker.aviva.co.u.../contruction-policy-new/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To recent posters,
There is no condition on EL policies that requires the insured to comply with H&S legislation.
The purpose of EL insurance is to deliver compensation when an emploeyr's negiligence has resulted in an injury to an employee. The effect of such a condition would nullify the purpose of the insurance. Such a condition is prohibited by the EL (Compulsory ) Insurance Act/Regs.
In other insurance policies the purchaser (or their broker) should look out for any/all restrictive terms and conditions.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
No Insurance pay out due to poor/no health and safety arrangments
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.