I see that a member has requested information as to a cheap(-er) source of Public Liability Insurance (PLI) and I also note that Alan Wicks considers such insurance "vital" for a Twinning Association. May I please, (I hope politely, and in the true spirit of the twinning movement, Alan!), question the wisdom of that latter view?

Although my wife and I are covered very well personally for all of the insurable risks to which we think we are exposed, I am no great lover of the insurance "industry". In particular, I am concerned by the extent to which, in what I perceive as the pressure towards increasing, at all costs, their returns, (for which, read "profits"), the insurance industry, (aided and encouraged by their lawyer colleagues), is changing, and usually for the worse, the very nature of British society. Don't we all know of a village fete or gala, a bonfire-and-fireworks show, a charity pancake-race or a church bazaar that has had to be cancelled because the organisers could not afford the premium for the PLI and dare not take the risk of organising their event without it?

The background to my scepticism about PLI is that I am actively involved with two very-different, and very-separate, Twinning Associations. My wife and I are the only members common to both groups. One of these groups HAS PLI and other one DOESN'T. Both groups, (so far, at least), have never had occasion to "need" PLI, i.e neither group has, (SO FAR?), been sued. QUESTION: Which of these two groups is being wise? The one that pays for PLI because it thinks it might need to be, (or should be ?), covered by PLI in the event of a claim? Or the one that doesn't have PLI for spending its hard-earned money on other, (and possibly better?), things?

A short while ago I made a presentation to the group that that HAS PLI along the following lines and concluded by asking those present to describe for me a possible scenario which might make us thankful that we had PLI. I am still waiting for an answer that is to my satisfaction. The "presentation" went as follows:-

In the newsletter of the North West Twinning Association (Second Edition, October 2004) there was an article headed "The Compensation Culture -- A Myth?", to which the editor had added an appendix on negligence. That appendix went like this:-

"Negligence is an element in the branch of English Civil Law called Tort. Tort law is concerned with the relationships between persons and their obligations to one another. Tort action usually results in the award of a cash sum called damages.

"Negligence claims come within the scope of the English Common Law system. The judges decide on the basis of following precedents set in previous similar cases. If the facts of a case distinguish it from previous cases a new precedent is set. In this way the judges "make" new law. The systen gives rise to flexibility but also to uncertainty.

"Negligence claims consist of three parts:-

(i) a duty of care on the part of the defendant towards the plaintiff,
(ii) a breach of that duty where the defendant has failed to take reasonable care,
(iii) damage caused to the plaintiff by the defendant's breach.

"Duty is decided as a matter of law, while breach and damage are decided as matters of fact."

In other words, I take this latter part to mean that, before a claim for negligence will succeed, a plaintiff would have to show, first, in law, that a defendant owed them a duty of care. Only if that were successful would a judge need to go on to consider (i) if there had been a breach of that duty and (ii) if so, how much the plaintiff was owed for the damage that they had been caused.

In their book "What is the LEA for?", Whitbourn, Mitchell and Morris (2000) NFER, [Simon Whitbourn, Principal Solicitor, Hampshire CC; Keith Mitchell, Director of Education, Durham CC; and Robert Morris, Editor of the Law of Education Bulletin. Read in draft form by Roger Butterfield, Solicitor to Kirklees Council.], say:-

"In simple terms, negligence is a breach of a duty to take care which results in damage. For the tort to arise, the damage must result from a duty which the law will impose; there must have been a breach of that duty; and damage or injury must result from that breach.

"So far as establishing a a duty of care is concerned, the law will NOT [my emphasis] impose duties on all occasions. The circumstances where duties may arise were outlined by Lord Atkin in the landmark case of Donaghue v Stevenson [1032] AC 562. 'You must', he said, take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have had them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts and omissions which are called into question.'"

From this it follows that Twinning Associations ought to take so much care as we would normally and reasonably take of our neighbours -- no less, but no more.

Whitbourn et al then go on to say:-

"Even if a duty of care can be established, a claimant then needs to show that there has been a breach of that duty. This is where the concept of 'the reasonable man' comes in and, in most cases, the test is whether there has been 'an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, [in more moderrn language, in all the circumstances], would do, or doing something which a prudent man would not do' Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Ex 781.

"Assuming that a duty is owed and that there has been a breach of that duty, damage of a type recognised by the law has to be thereby caused. This therefore requires a claimant to show that the act or omission which constitutes the breach of the duty caused the injury for which the claimant is seeking compensation and was not so remote that it could not possibly have been a contributory factor.

"The claimant must show that physical damage resulted and, except in very few cases, that economic loss was not the only consequence of the act or omission."

To return now, then, to my earlier question. Would someone please describe for me a scenario involving a day in the life of an ordinary twinner which could possibly result in a SUCCESSFUL claim for neglect and damages against the Twinning Association in question? Let us look at such a typical day when the host group and their visitors are travelling by coach to a tourist attraction. We, host and guests, would wake up and have breakfast in our house. Under the terms of our "House and Contents" policy I see that we are covered to the tune of £2M for each and every successful claim. If the guest were to suffer an accident which they considered to be our fault, they would sue us, not the twinning association. (From the above, whether or not they would be successful in that claim would depend upon the extent to which my wife and I, as the insured parties, were adjudged to be negligent. I think we rarely, if ever, are. It is, presumably, for this reason, and on an actuarial basis, that this £2M of insurance cover can therefore be provided to households like ours for a very few pence in the premium?)

After breakfast, we make our way down the village to the meeting place for the coach. As we go through our gate, we step on to the public highway. From there until we board the coach, any claim for negligence would be against the Local Authority. Again, NOT against the twinning association. From the minute we board the coach until we alight in the tourist attraction's car park, any claim would be against the coach company. At the tourist attraction, the Third Party liability is, again, that of the organisation involved. And so on until we return home when the liability again becomes that of my wife and myself. When, in this scenario, would it ever be reasonable to sue the twinning association? When would such a claim ever be successful? And although it might be argued that we might need some insurance cover to pay for a lawyer to argue our case in court, (i) if that claim were unsuccessful, we would expect to be reimbursed for our costs but (ii) if the claim were so obviously bound to fail, because there was patently no duty of care owed, not only would we not have to defend the claim, but we would not even need to reply to the originating letters in the first place.

OR AM I WRONG? AND IF, SO WHERE, AND HOW, AM I WRONG?

Accidents may happen, I contend, but not all accidents, I also contend, will, or ever could, result in a successful claim for damages. The Local Authority, for example, must keep the pavements in a "reasonable" state of repair, but that doesn't mean that they have to be surfaced like a snooker table. It is also incumbent upon pedestrians to "look where they're going" and take "reasonable" care as they are walking down the street. I realise, of course, that if the activity of the group, instead of a day out at a museum, were to take the form of a BBQ in someone's garden, the organisers would have to be aware of the possible dangers involved and to take ALL REASONABLE STEPS to minimise them. BUT, surely, they would only have to take as much care as they would if they had had that BBQ with their (other) friends, relatives and neighbours? No less, BUT NO MORE?

I would be truly grateful for someone, ANYONE, to try to convince me of the errors of my thinking. Surely, all that we have to do, as in my example above, is to make sure that the companies concerned -- the tourist attraction, the coach company, etc. -- are well covered by PLI? In the meantime, I continue to take part, very happily, as the Secretary of a Twinning Association without PLI.

OVER TO YOU, PLEASE.

Brian.

A thought-provoking piece, Brian!

We have just bitten the (silver-plated) bullet and taken out insurance, basically for one reason. Our Carnival, which is an important publicity and information occasion and an expression of our link between Carnival Queen and Crocus Queen in our twin town, is held on a Council site. The Council has required the Carnival Committee to ensure full insurance coverage, and the Committee has passed the requirement on to us and all the other stand-holders. So what was a free opportunity to publicise our wares has become subject to a hefty fee (payable to the insurers)!

In many respects I agree with what you are saying, but the pressure, in this increasingly litigious society, is always to obtain insurance cover. I note that our insurers are saying that next year they will add in cover relating to child protection! No doubt the renewal fee will reflect this new, unheard of and probably never-to-be-called-upon liability ...

Nice one, Kidder!

Thanks for that. A perfect example of what I'm annoyed about. And my guess is that some groups, even if not your group, THIS YEAR, will either not be able to pay for the PLI, or they will refuse to do so on principle. This will have at least two effects. It will inevitably mean that there will be fewer stalls at next year's Carnival and that, in its turn, will mean an increase in the insurance premiums for those who still can, and will, afford it. But that will begin the vicious downward spiral, with each succeeding year being a lesser spectacle than the last, until your Carnival will eventually fold -- and the Councillors will then say it is because of "lack of popular support". In this way, even the insurance companies will lose out eventually because if there's no Carnival there'll be no premiums at all. Brilliant!!

And just how dangerous an activity is putting up your stall in the town's Carnival? How many claims have you had against you in the years that you've provided your stall? And how many of those claims have been successful? If the answer to both these questions is other than "None" I'd be most surprised. And similarly, before the town council farmed the responsibility for the insurance out to the participants, just how many claims did they receive? And how many of those claims were successful? Might it not be worth your while finding out this information, if need be by way of a Freedom of Information Act request? Again, I suspect the answer will be nil. But I'll bet that that has not stopped the insurance premium from increasing each year, at least at the rate of inflation.

But I return to my original theme. I accept that "someone" might well bear liability to the public for attracting them onto Council land. I also accept that, in the final analysis, that that "someone" must be the Council. I ASSUME that the Council are within their rights to farm out this responsibility to the individual groups concerned. (Although I'm not sure that I'm correct here! Whilst I know that Councils are obliged, by law, to be insured for PLI, I just don't know if they can pass that responsibility on to others. Might not this be worth checking out, too?) And so, even if the Council ARE able to pass the liability on to yourselves, (and any claimant against you might therefore pass the first legal test of you owing them a duty of care as a visitor to your stall), if you've taken REASONABLE precautions, (and they only need to "reasonable", not "bomb-proof"), with putting-up and staffing that stall, any claim against you would surely fail at the second legal test because you would NOT have, by your negligence, breached that duty of care. The original article to which I referred advised readers to list, i.e. write down, the thinking that they had done, and the steps that they had taken, to PROVE to any subsequent Court that they had not been negligent. Any injury sustained must therefore have been an accident. Wise advice.

The third question, that of damages for injury sustained, however those injuries were caused and however seriously injured the visitor was, WOULD NOT, therefore, arise? People can't sue others for ACCIDENTS, however unfortunate they might be. Or am I still wrong?

Although it may not occur in your case, because presumably you will either have to demonstrate proof of insurance or you will not be allowed to put up your stall, a test case by the council against someone putting up a stall without insurance would be interesting. Alternatively, although I freely accept it would be a brave group to do it, the thing to do, wherever it was possible, would be to carry on as before and put a metaphorical two-fingers up the insurers and lawyers who are ruining the pleasure of millions of us. Just ONE of the two twinning groups to which my wife I belong takes this view and carries on regardless.

However, although I am aware that many Twinning Associations do participate in Carnivals such as yours, this was not exactly the sort of "typical" day in the life of a twinner that I had in mind. Neither of the two groups to which my wife and I belong recruit in this way. (Although neither group is short of members at the present, we could, and would, always welcome more. We normally just do it by word of mouth and personal introduction. We also have great hopes for Alan's Regional Directory on this website.) And that might, very unfortunately for ALL concerned -- members of your group, members of your twin town's group, and the general public of Kidderminster alike -- be one of the unfortunate consequences of the Council's new policy. Even if your group was prepared to pay the insurance premium to the last, if none of the other groups are, there will, quite simply, be no Carnival for yourselves or anyone else to attend. Very sad.

I'd still like an example to my question from a more typical twinning day, however? Any other offers.

Brian.

P.S Thanks for your kind remarks about my other bit on "Jollies for Councillors", too.

Hi Brian & Kidder,

Thanks for your posts,, this is a subject which deserves a thorough airing. Obviously each group needs to look at their own needs and conditions regarding their particular type of activities.

At Sandy, we never thought about Public Liability Insurance for about 12 years, until an incident during a visit by our French Twin Town. We were holding a dance in a local school, the bar had been set up on a higher level, approx 4/5 steps above the main hall and seating area. One of our members was walking back to his table when he slipped on some beer someone had spilt on the steps (not seeing it because of the low lighting levels) and broke his arm. Fortunately, he accepted it as an accident and made no claiim on the association for which we were grateful, however, he was involved in the insurance industry and no doubt would have (had he wished to) taken us to the cleaners.

This incident did make us think about PLI and we investigated several companies, finally settling on the one we are still with, not having found any cheaper option.

I must admit that there has been no incident since which could have involved us in a claim despite paying an absolute fortune for the following 13 years.

Regarding our actual liability at the time had we been sued is uncertain. The school could not be held liable as the option of installing a bar and its position within the building was our choice. Due to that decision on our part the attendees at the function had no choice but to use the steps whilst carrying drinks. Where does our duty of care apply here, to my mind we broke that by introducing a hazard ourselves by situating the bar where we did, we also did not have anyone watching the steps for spilt beer etc, merely leaving people to fend for themselves.

However, having paid for some 13 years with no return, I do intend to bring this post to the attention of our committee, and also the other twinning groups I am personally involved with, for them to review their postition re PLI.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this subject, we would be delighted to hear from you.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Thanks for this one, too. Yours is EXACTLY the sort of scenario that I think has got our twinning movement into a fright. And, I THINK, quite unnecessarily -- unless someone who is more- and better qualified can persuade me otherwise!

Two counter-arguments for you, and everyone, to think about.

(1) I think that if a school lets its premises out for hire, and particularly if it knowingly allows drink to be consumed on those premises, then IT, the school, must have PLI, and your guest's claim, should he have chosen to make one, would have been against the school, not against you. Of course, the cost of the PLI would have to be factored in to the the charges that you paid, (as it probably was, anyway), so the price that they charge may well increase over the years, particularly if they get a successful claim, by yourselves or anyone else, against them. But the cost of hiring a hall, once or twice a year, is going to be less than 12 months' PLI premium. This makes sense because one only sues someone who has the money to pay any damages that one might win. Unless Sandy Twinning Association is extremely wealthy, a school, ANY SCHOOL, will have much more in the way of assets than a Twinning Association. Although your claim against the school might ruin your relationship with them, your guest would have been a "fool" to sue you.

(2) Even if your guest had chosen to sue yourselves, he would still have had to prove that you were NEGLIGENT either in serving the drinks from where you did, say, or in not making sure that the steps were dry at all times. That, I think, would have been a hard thing for him to prove. Surely the legal test would be to see if the Committee of the Sandy Twinning Association were UNREASONABLE in siting the bar where it did? Or UNREASONABLE in allowing the steps to be wet after people had carried drinks up / down them? Were you UNREASONABLE? Because if you were not UNREASONABLE neither were you NEGLIGENT, and your guest had an unfortunate ACCIDENT -- but they do sometimes happen.

Either way, whatever else is for certain, it is that it is illegal to claim twice on the insurance for any one incident. Assuming that you have used that same school every year for the last 12 years, and assuming that school has, indeed, been covered by PLI over the whole of that period, the risk that you describe has, as it were, been "double-covered". This "double-cover", so far as I know, is NOT illegal, although I would not expect the insurance industry to make a lot of publicity about that, for obvious reasons. It would only have been illegal if your guest had claimed twice -- once against the school and once against you. One insurance premium has therefore been superfluous and redundant. A waste of "someone's" money.

Two suggested ways forward.

(1) Check with the school just whose insurance is going to meet any claim -- your's or their's. If it's their's, you pay the full price for the hire. If it's your's, you negotiate a reduction.

(2) Take all REASONABLE steps to avoid a charge of NEGLIGENCE sticking. Consider carefully, particularly in the light of this, and other, previous experience(s), about how you are going to organise your occasions; write down the results of your thinking; two of you do a "health and safety" analysis before the event, (so that there is a "witness"); and appoint a "health and safety supremo" for the night. Above all, IF YOU'RE NOT NEGLIGENT YOU'VE NOTHING TO FEAR.

Best wishes.

It is now just over a week since I made my first post on this topic. In that time, there have been just two responses to the question that I posed and 100 people have viewed the thread. May I please make a few comments?

I concluded my original post by asking people to describe for me a scenario in the day-to-day activities of an average twinning group which would, or could, lead to a successful claim for damages against that group. There have been just two replies, from Kidder and Alan respectively.

Kidder's response is unanswerable. However, I would make two points in reply:-

(i) this scenario is purely an artefact of the Town Hall bureaucracy and, short of a successful challenge to it by Kidder's group, (and, preferably, all of the other groups who have been treated similarly), little can probably be done about it; and

(ii) sad though the loss of Kidder's group's appearance at the town's carnival would be, that activity, I would argue, is not absolutely central to the work of a twinning association. The same ends -- publicity and recruitment -- could be pursued by other means, even if not as easily, or as successfully or as enjoyably.

Alan's response was exactly the sort of scenario that I had mind as causing groups the length and breadth of the country to fly to their brokers to take out PLI. If I read Alan correctly, and without wishing to put words into his mouth, I think that even he now has doubts about the necessity for his group to have PLI. Unless and until someone convinces me otherwise, I certainly don't see any reason for his group to have it, and definitely not for the sort of activity which caused him to have it originally.

And if not the Sandy Twinning Association, then NO twinning association needs it. And if not any twinning association, then many other, similar, groups don't need it either. I repeat, there are two possible rejoinders to any claimant seeking damages for injury from a twinning association:-

(i) "LOOK ELSEWHERE for your damages", i.e. to the owner of the property, the coach company, the tourist attraction, etc. in question. The advantages of this will be (1) that they will, unless they have been wilfully reckless, be fully covered by PLI, and (2) even if they're not, they will almost certainly have more assets upon which to claim than any twinning association; and

(ii) Unless the twinning association has been unreasonable in its actions, it will not have been negligent in those actions either, and therefore no liability pertains. The claimant's mishap, therefore, will be deemed to be just that -- a mishap. Unfortunate accidents, the law acknowledges, do sometimes happen, and no-one is to blame.

Although I take comfort and solace from the fact that I have not had, (with the qualified exception of Kidder's reply, as above), a response to my question that I think blows my case out of the water, I still await one, please? Any such response should, of course, cite legislation and / or legal precedents, as I have done. Without such a response, all twinning associations with PLI should seriously consider whether they need to maintain their cover when renewal falls due? It is high time for us, as responsible members of legitimate organisations, to fight back in defence of those voluntary activities and pastimes that we hold dear.

Brian.

I know this series of posts is regarding PLI (Public Liability Insurance), however, there are other insurance risks that we as groups may need to consider.

The main one is Travel Insurance, in the past we normally had to only insure against accident, baggage loss and or delays. Nowadays however, we need to consider terrorist activities, local polital activites at our destination, airline failures etc. It appears to me that we should now consider our situation more seriously than we did in the past.

I must confess to being someone who has very rarely taken out Travel Insurance, and just trusted to luck and the odds of a successful journey free of problems.

One consideration we should look at is the lack of the younger element in many of our twinning activities, many of the original twinners, who are still in many cases the backbone of our organisations are now becoming elderly (and I confess to being in this group myself) and they are now finding it harder to obtain travel insurance.

At the age when you should be able to travel and enjoy your life after a lifetime of working we find that the insurance companies are loath to insure us. Yet another instance of ageism, which no government will ever legislate against.

If you are in this group I suggest you check out the post by "Kidder" here, and take a look at the U3A (University of the Third Age) and their insurance options.

Alan

Hi Alan,

Yes, you are quite correct that we need to consider types of insurance other than PLI (Public Liability Insurance). However, having considered all of them, it doesn't mean we need, necessarily, to buy all of them! Please let me explain.

Lest people think that I am an out-of-control Luddite when it comes to insurance, please let me reassure you that I do not think that I am. My wife and I think our house, its contents, and the eight vehicles that we own between us are insured to the hilt, all on a "new for old" (contents) or a "comprehensive" (vehicles) basis. My wife and I also always take out annual holiday insurance. However, as I suspect is the case with you, we are both now past our "best before" dates, even if not, exactly, our "sell by" dates. We realise, therefore, that medical insurance will either become impossible to obtain or prohibitively expensive, which amounts to the same thing. So, what do we do? Depending upon the holiday that we are contemplating, (because, much as we love twinning, we do take several other holidays each year as well), we make what we consider to be a rational appraisal of the risks that we are likely to encounter -- delays at airports, lost luggage, etc. -- and insure those alone. For the most part, since we rarely venture outside of Europe these days, we rely on the E111-replacement, the new EHIC card, in the belief that if we need emergency medical treatment, we would get it within the EC anyway, (even if we had to pay something up front -- which, fortunately, we think we would be able to afford), and claim it back later. Otherwise, for something either less serious, less urgent, or less disabling etc., we would simply jump back in the car or on the plane and be home within between 8 and 24 hours to get treatment with the local doctors, hospitals etc. that we know. We realise that that may mean that we "lose" part of our holiday without the possibility of compensation, but it's never happened yet. Nor has it happened to our many friends and relatives, some of whom spend much more time on holiday than we do.

Now, I fully realise that this may well be a risk that other people might consider foolhardy to the point of reckless, but my points are:-

(i) that it is fine for us. That is to say, my wife and I have made what we consider to be a rational decision and we are very happy, (so far, we fully realise, and as our friends in insurance delight in pointing out to us), with the choices we have made.

(ii) I calculate that what we have saved over the years, in buying only that insurance which we consider that we truly need, we have had one or two "free" holidays. With destinations in Greece over the last three days being the exception that makes my point very eloquently, people should ask themselves, "What are the actuarial risks of anyone being more than inconvenienced, let alone injured, as a result of either terrorist- or political activity in Europe -- or even most of the rest of the world, these days?" Bad as the tabloids might like us to think it is, the world is not yet one anarchic maelstrom of either human discontent or natural catastrophe. Whilst my wife and I would both agree that a modicum of insurance is absolutely essential, the thing to do is to avoid "going over the top" about it and to ensure that, so far as it remains possible, it does not impair one's enjoyment of life. Make a considered and rational appraisal of your insurance needs, and buy that much cover and no more.

REMEMBER, there will always by people trying to "persuade" you that you "need" more insurance cover than is really the case. Two quick examples will illustrate the point.

(i) A good few years ago, one travel agent told us that we could not travel to Crete without insurance cover -- of course, it just happened to be "their" insurance cover that they wanted to sell us. Having spent a fair amount of their, and our, time arranging the holiday, just at the point when we were about to produce the "plastic", we declined it with thanks and went to buy the same holiday next door, where this stipulation, now outlawed by legislation, did not apply.

(ii) I don't know if anyone else saw it, but it was in my paper, (the Guardian), yesterday that the Church of England is now trying, in some places, to claim a "Chancel Tax" from people who live in houses built on what was once church-owned land. This results, so far as I could see, from one case where a farmer has been ordered by the courts to pay a(n admittedly) very large sum of money to his local church*. Consequently, apparently, and according to the cleric who was quoted, a substantial market has grown up with insurers and their "agents", in this case the Estate Agents, selling policies to cover for this eventuality. Just as with most, if not all, PLI for Twinning Groups, this is purely pandering to an artefactual fear. And for two reasons: (i) the tax does does apply to any house built after the Reformation of the Churches by Henry VIII (1491 - 1547), and (ii) if one were to be challenged with this tax, (in itself, a very unlikely proposition, apparently, because even the Cof E realises how much bad publicity it's causing them), a more reasonable claim would be upon the solicitor who did the conveyancing -- for his / her negligence when doing the land searches. Again the actuarial risk involved is, I suspect, negligible. But when did that ever stop a smart insurer making a quick buck?

And finally, because what Alan, (in his latest post on this topic), and I, (both originally and here), have said is extremely relevant, may I please conclude as follows? My original post has now been on the Forum for over two weeks. In that time, over 150 people have viewed it. Assuming that at least most of those of those people have managed to get to the end of my original piece, (which, I admit, is quite long -- but I'm afraid I didn't have time to write a shorter post!!), only two people have come back to me with examples as I requested -- "Kidder" and "Alan".

As I said subsequent to their posts, "Kidder's" position is perhaps unarguable, but purely an artefact of an impecunious Town Council. (And in that sense, but only in that sense, it "doesn't count".) "Alan's" scenario is EXACTLY what I'm fulminating about. "Someone", I contend, has created a fear within the Sandy Twinning Association which is totally unjustified by the circumstances that he describes. Sandy Twinning Association's guest, had he had a mind to claim, should have been directed to the school. And even then his claim might have failed. Just as with the Twinning Association, if the school had not been "unreasonable" in letting out its premises for, amongst other things, the sale of alcohol, they would not have been "negligent", and therefore they would not have been "liable" for the "damage" the guest sustained.

NO OTHER CASE-SCENARIOS HAVE BEEN OFFERED. To my mind, this means that, assuming that those 150 people who have viewed this thread represent, say, 100 different Twinning Associations, this matter should be on the next agenda of at least 100 different twinning groups. Remember, the great thing about ignorance, (in the true meaning of that word), is that once it has been dispelled it can never be reinstated.

IT BEHOVES US ALL TO MAKE A CONSIDERED AND RATIONAL DECISION ABOUT OUR PERSONAL- AND GROUP INSURANCE NEEDS. NONE OF US SHOULD JUST "GO ALONG WITH THE CROWD" BECAUSE "SOMEONE", (perhaps with a vested interest in the matter), PERSUADES US THAT WE SHOULD.

* = I also uderstand that the farmer in question, whilst he accepts that he has "lost" the Court case, and is therefore obliged to pay the tax, has not yet parted with a penny.

Brian.

Hi Again,

One quick further thought. Most people will, I guess, have a great many of their holiday insurance needs covered, at least to some extent, by their ordinary Home & Contents Insurance policy. For example, I see that I am covered for:-

(i) Riot, civil commotion or strikes.
(ii) Storm or flood.
(ii) Credit Cards [defined as "Credit, cheque, debit, banker's and cash dispenser cards issued in the British Isles to you"], Money [ defined as "Cash, cheques, money orders, postal orders, current postage stamps which are not part of a collection, National Insurance stamps, saving stamps or certificates, Premium Bonds, traveller's cheques, travel tickets (MY EMPHASIS), luncheon vouchers, gift tokens and phonecards which belong to you and are not used for business purposes"], Personal Possessions [defined as "Valuables, luggage, clothing (MY EMPHASIS), sports equipment and any other items you normally wear, use or carry which belong to you or for which you are legally responsible], Pedal Cycles.

However, there are some exceptions, exclusions and special conditions which apply, one of which in the "Contents" section is, "Property insured by any other policy". In other words, as I said earlier, I seem to be able to multipli-insure almost anything I wish, as often as I like, provided that I only claim once. At the risk of trying to teach my grandparents to suck eggs, may I urge people to read the fine detail, i.e. the "small print", of their House and Contents Insurance policy. You may well be surprised how much you've got covered already.

Brian.

Hi again to everyone,

It is now some 3-plus weeks since I posted my original piece. I concluded then by asking people reading this thread to propose to me any scenario which might befall their twinning group and which might lead to (i) a successful claim under a PLI policy being made against them, and (ii) a similar scenario when it would not be more appropriate for an injured / aggrieved party to claim elsewhere. Since then, two people -- Kidder and Alan -- have kindly responded.

As I have said earlier, Kidder's scenario detailing their need for PLI is undeniable, but merely an artefact of living in a cash-strapped local authority, (and who doesn't, these days?). Alan's scenario describing their need for PLI was more understandable -- but only superficially so. As I also said earlier, (i) unless his group had been unreasonable, (a very hard test), in putting their drinks bar on the stage, they would not have been found negligent in so doing. And if they weren't negligent, neither were they legally liable for their guest's injury, however unfortunate that might have been. And if they weren't legally liable for the injury, their funds weren't at risk, and they had, and have, no need of PLI.

I repeat all of this because this thread is an exact analogue of the discussion that took place in that one of the two twinning associations with which I am involved and which now has PLI. "Someone" suggested that the group needed PLI and spelt out some possibly-disastrous consequences of life without it. "Everyone" then panicked, and voted to have it. Just as with this thread, I am still waiting to hear from that group of a scenario that would justify its expenditure on PLI.

SURELY, with over 200 people having now visited this thread, SOMEONE, from SOMEWHERE, would have given me, and all of us, an absolutely unanswerable scenario? Unless, of course .....

Brian.