Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
No Insurance pay out due to poor/no health and safety arrangments
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
Richardgree  
#1 Posted : 02 August 2010 15:28:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richardgree
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
Back to top
jwk  
#2 Posted : 02 August 2010 15:45:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk
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
Back to top
Phil Grace  
#3 Posted : 02 August 2010 15:52:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace
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
Back to top
Richardgree  
#4 Posted : 02 August 2010 16:03:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richardgree
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
Back to top
martinw  
#5 Posted : 02 August 2010 16:06:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
martinw
http://www.thompsons.law...tor-rsi-compensation.htm One where possible H&S/medical help was refused because the person was not permanent staff. Closest I could find. Cheers Martin
Back to top
fsp  
#6 Posted : 02 August 2010 16:54:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fsp
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.
Back to top
Richardgree  
#7 Posted : 02 August 2010 17:43:52(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richardgree
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
Back to top
ijmartin  
#8 Posted : 03 August 2010 09:19:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ijmartin
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.
Back to top
Richardgree  
#9 Posted : 03 August 2010 10:06:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Richardgree
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?
Back to top
bob youel  
#10 Posted : 03 August 2010 10:44:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel
we also need to consider the rise in costs for cover after a claim/attempted claim
Back to top
Ciarán Delaney  
#11 Posted : 03 August 2010 10:53:08(UTC)
Rank: Guest
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.
Back to top
ijmartin  
#12 Posted : 03 August 2010 11:41:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ijmartin
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/
Back to top
Phil Grace  
#13 Posted : 03 August 2010 11:47:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace
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
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET