Forum menu
Need the above for using the Army Gym, but not sure if its in my House insurance - here is the blurb from my Policy - any STW peeps know if this is it?
Section four : Legal Liability to the Public
This section applies only if the schedule shows that either the buildings are insured under section one or the
contents are insured under section two of this insurance.
Part A
Part A of this section applies in the following way:
x if the buildings only are insured, your legal liability as owner only but not as occupier is covered under Part A (i)
below.
x if the contents only are insured, your legal liability as occupier only but not as owner is covered under Part A (i)
and Part A (ii) below.
x if the buildings and contents are insured, your legal liability as owner or occupier is covered under Part A (i)
and Part A (ii) below.
What is covered :
We will indemnify you We will not indemnify you for any liability
[b](i) as owner or occupier for any amounts
you become legally liable to pay as
damages for
x bodily injury
x damage to property
caused by an accident happening at the
premises during the period of insurance,
OR
(ii) [u]as a private individual for any
amounts you become legally liable to
pay as damages for
x bodily injury
x damage to property
caused by an accident happening
anywhere in the world during the period
of insurance[/u][/b]
I don't understand the question, but if you mean does your house insurance, which will pay out if a tile falls off the roof and lands on someone, also pay out if you drop a barbell on someone at the gym, then I suspect the answer is No.
If your running some sort of class there, then no it wont cover you
"as a private individual for any
amounts you become legally liable to
pay as damages for
x bodily injury
x damage to property
caused by an accident happening
anywhere in the world during the period
of insurance "
if dropping the barbell on someone was an accident then i interpret that as a yes. How ever i am not a legal eagle....
if you mean using the army gym for some sort of club, fee paying facility or a business concern then no .
That is, effectively, public liability cover, however worth checking what you are required to have [i]specifically[/i].
I would email the policy (including a note of any caps on liability) to the legal bod in charge of the gym (i.e. the person who required you to have public liabiliy cover in place), asking them to confirm that it satisfies their requirement.
If you don't get confirmation then we're all just guessing as to whether it's sufficient.
thanks for replies.
its not for me to run a class, for me to USE the gym equipment.
and i assume, dropping a barbell on someones foot, and/or damaging the floor if i did it ...
There will be exceptions to that cover (most obviously, driving a car will definitely be excluded) but assuming "dropping bar bells on people in gyms" is not listed then you should be covered.
"Crashing bikes into other people's cars" is also not a normal exclusion, which is why many if not most cyclists do in fact have insurance...
Doesn't the gym have insurance?
its not for me to run a class, for me to USE the gym equipment.
Why? Seems like overkill. Are you in the habit of causing damage? Are you the hulk and you're going to smash the place up?
If Roady Tony isn't employed by the army and isn't using the gym under their invitation / supervision then I'd imagine they're seeking reassurance that if he hurts someone or breaks their equipment or spins so fast the exercise bike burst into flames and burns the building down that the army aren't faced with having to cover the costs. I expect there would be questions asked if repairs were being funded by the army for use of their facilities by non-army personnel.
Its possibly also that its just a polite way of saying no without actually saying 'No'
But in reply to OP to my mind your house insurance covers you, but what matters is whether the person asking you feels that it covers you. In the event that something did happen having the cover doesn't automatically place the liability on your shoulders or take if off of theirs.
dunno why - its policy, army peeps are covered , but civvy peeps are not, there are civvies who use it at the moment, they are not trying to stop us, must just be the law.
must just be the law.its not the law but its their house so its their rules. If you go to your aunty's house and she asks you to take your shoes off its not the law but its wise to take them off 🙂
We will indemnify you We will not indemnify you
Which is it?
dunno why - its policy, army peeps are covered , but civvy peeps are not, there are civvies who use it at the moment, they are not trying to stop us, must just be the law.
What you seem to be saying is that the Army don;t have specific public liability cover. That doesn't mean they don't owe a duty of care to each person in the gym, just that they may not carry insurance to cover it. Which I'd be really surprised at.
I'd be less concerned about what protection I was required to give, and more concerned about what protection I'm getting from the Army and/or other users.
What you seem to be saying is that the Army don;t have specific public liability cover. That doesn't mean they don't owe a duty of care to each person in the gym, just that they may not carry insurance to cover it. Which I'd be really surprised at.
Perhaps it's a (misguided) attempt at "if you are injured by another gym user, go after them, not us" on the part of the Army.
I'd be less concerned about what protection I was required to give, and more concerned about what protection I'm getting from the Army and/or other users.
Aye, it's all very well having a rule which says all users much have PL insurance, but how do YOU know that the bloke about to drop a 15kg plate on your head is sufficiently covered?
It does smack of "everyone uses the gym at their own risk", but I can't see how the army can circumvent the common sense approach to adequately insure (which I'm assuming, although not a legal requirement, they would have anyway)?
EDIT: i might have answered my own question. Why would the army need PL for premises where the public have no access? No idea of the mechanics of PL in such circumstances, but could be an explanation why they might not have it, and require individuals to insure?