• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
shindigger

Insurance Question

Recommended Posts

Ok

I am very close to signing a lease on a band rehearsal room. In which i will be taking bands and providing them with rehearsal space.

I am taking over a building that already has Public Liability and theft insurance in place.

The excess on the the theft element is £500, so effectively of no use, unless everything is cleared out overnight.

The landlord has advised me that i should really get my own PL insurance.

I could get the whole shebang by joining the Musicians Union and using their default scheme. And would be happy to do that so i can also set them loose on Acid Jazz records who owe me (a small amount of )money.

My question is, because there would be 2 policies running concurrently, with 2 different providers, would they just spend months tossing the liability back and forth between them?

Is it actually illegal to run 2 policies for the same risk?

How do we get anything done in this country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the caveat of im no expert ,the buildings PL insurance would be for the building itself i.e the ceiling falling down or some other shit causing an injury to someone ,yours would be for something you are providing perhaps electrocution from a PA system you might be providing .or something like that these days i would like to cover my own arse rather than relying on others to do so ...PS LTD.co would also be my chose 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Only people and legal entities can be insured.

2. To insure something you need to have an 'insurable interest' in what is being insured.

I am not sure how a building can have insurance nor the insurable interest the landlord might have in your equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shindigger said:

Ok

I am very close to signing a lease on a band rehearsal room. In which i will be taking bands and providing them with rehearsal space.

I am taking over a building that already has Public Liability and theft insurance in place.

The excess on the the theft element is £500, so effectively of no use, unless everything is cleared out overnight.

The landlord has advised me that i should really get my own PL insurance.

I could get the whole shebang by joining the Musicians Union and using their default scheme. And would be happy to do that so i can also set them loose on Acid Jazz records who owe me (a small amount of )money.

My question is, because there would be 2 policies running concurrently, with 2 different providers, would they just spend months tossing the liability back and forth between them?

Is it actually illegal to run 2 policies for the same risk?

How do we get anything done in this country?

2 policies is fine -- back and forth very acceptable if it means it doesn't come your way.

Ltd can protect against very bad things happening.

Oh, and £500 excess is perfect -- the purpose of insurance is to protect you against debilitating loss, not to cover all & sundry.  I really don't understand why people get insurance on stuff that they can readily afford to sort out if the worst happens.  The insurance company always takes their cut, but this is okay if you're talking about a £1,000,000 cover against a 1:10,000 year risk and at £200 per year -- if the worst happens you'll need the million and the only way you'll get it is with insurance (even if the risk weighted cost isn't great).  Buying £500 cover against a 1:10 year risk at £100 a year is the same relative weighted cost, but in reality you'd be better off just saving your premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Panther said:

1. Only people and legal entities can be insured.

2. To insure something you need to have an 'insurable interest' in what is being insured.

I am not sure how a building can have insurance nor the insurable interest the landlord might have in your equipment.

I`m guessing but i think he`s referring to the owner of the building has PL insurance on the building  

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Long time lurking said:

With the caveat of im no expert ,the buildings PL insurance would be for the building itself i.e the ceiling falling down or some other shit causing an injury to someone ,yours would be for something you are providing perhaps electrocution from a PA system you might be providing .or something like that these days i would like to cover my own arse rather than relying on others to do so ...PS LTD.co would also be my chose 

Electrocution is the thing. All kit will have to be pat tested anyway. I am so mistrustful of all insurance that i had it in my mind that it was more problematic to have 2 concurrent policies but has been said, there are clear enough lines between the 2 parties responsibilities. 

Will look in to Ltd Co too. Have been a sole trader since 97. Have a bit more to lose now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shindigger said:

Electrocution is the thing. All kit will have to be pat tested anyway. I am so mistrustful of all insurance that i had it in my mind that it was more problematic to have 2 concurrent policies but has been said, there are clear enough lines between the 2 parties responsibilities. 

Will look in to Ltd Co too. Have been a sole trader since 97. Have a bit more to lose now.

That`s what it`s all about ,but it`s very detrimental if any sort of credit required 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dgul said:

2 policies is fine -- back and forth very acceptable if it means it doesn't come your way.

Ltd can protect against very bad things happening.

Oh, and £500 excess is perfect -- the purpose of insurance is to protect you against debilitating loss, not to cover all & sundry.  I really don't understand why people get insurance on stuff that they can readily afford to sort out if the worst happens.  The insurance company always takes their cut, but this is okay if you're talking about a £1,000,000 cover against a 1:10,000 year risk and at £200 per year -- if the worst happens you'll need the million and the only way you'll get it is with insurance (even if the risk weighted cost isn't great).  Buying £500 cover against a 1:10 year risk at £100 a year is the same relative weighted cost, but in reality you'd be better off just saving your premiums.

Thats fair enough. Its just that the world of band rehearsal rooms is fraught with petty theft. But even a £100 excess is pushing it in that regard.

Hmm whats that?  The drummer has decided he likes that studio kick pedal more than his own, why he can just swap them over. And so on. I accept no insurance is built for that sort of scrote based activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shindigger said:

Electrocution is the thing. All kit will have to be pat tested anyway. I am so mistrustful of all insurance that i had it in my mind that it was more problematic to have 2 concurrent policies but has been said, there are clear enough lines between the 2 parties responsibilities. 

Will look in to Ltd Co too. Have been a sole trader since 97. Have a bit more to lose now.

Trust me on this. Go ltd. 

Or LLP if you like the tax status of sole trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

That`s what it`s all about ,but it`s very detrimental if any sort of credit required 

Thankfully i will be able to start trading with an outlay of less than £2k. A great opportunity actually.

Edited by shindigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shindigger said:

Thats fair enough. Its just that the world of band rehearsal rooms is fraught with petty theft. But even a £100 excess is pushing it in that regard.

Hmm whats that?  The drummer has decided he likes that studio kick pedal more than his own, why he can just swap them over. And so on. I accept no insurance is built for that sort of scrote based activity.

You'd have to include the cost of insurance in the fees anyway -- You'd be better off just keeping the difference in premiums for a high vs 'no' excess and self-insure the cheap stuff. 

[Always remember, with insurance the insurer will take their cut; If you can self-insure you should self-insure.  This is made 10x worse by petty fraud, that you'll be paying for with your premiums.  Of course, you might like to commit petty fraud yourself, but that's a different matter]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.