Should a Chess Club take out Public Liability Insurance?

[MSoszynski]

Should a Chess Club take out Public Liability Insurance?

I'm talking about an ordinary (I'd say typical) not-for-profit Chess Club with no paid volunteers or employees, that meets in the back room of a social club.

The Chess Club owns its own sets and clocks etc., has its own bank account, and is governed by an Executive Committee according to a written constitution.

[Ian Thompson]

Should a Chess Club take out Public Liability Insurance?

I'm talking about an ordinary (I'd say typical) not-for-profit Chess Club with no paid volunteers or employees, that meets in the back room of a social club.

The Chess Club owns its own sets and clocks etc., has its own bank account, and is governed by an Executive Committee according to a written constitution.

If the chess club is an unincorporated association it could not be sued, so I'd say it doesn't need insurance. However, the officials of the organisation could be sued in a personal capacity so they might want insurance to cover that risk. They might already have it under a household policy. If they do need it the club ought to be covering the cost/taking out a policy to cover them.

[John Upham]

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/clubs-c ... e-2022-23/

[Paul Cooksey]

I did once insist that a club had insurance if it wanted me to continue as an officer.

Given the cost of the policy John linked compared to venue costs it seemed to me a marginal impact on membership fees. While the club unlikely to need to use its insurance, it might.

[MSoszynski]

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/clubs-c ... e-2022-23/

This links to a document that includes the following statement:

“It is prudent that all clubs should hold public liability insurance. In the compensation culture we now find ourselves, even the most obscure/absurd accidents/losses can result in a claim. Without public liability insurance all club officials and members could be held personally liable.”

Is this a fair and reasonable statement? Is it true that “all” members could be held personally liable... for what exactly? Give me an example of an accident/loss against which a Club (as a Club, or its officials or all or some of its members) could be held liable and expect to be “defeated” in court. Come to that, why should the club take out insurance to protect some members from the consequences of their actions? Note that a previous poster suggests that the Club itself could not be sued.

Do any ordinary/typical chess clubs actually have Public Liability Insurance? Does your Club have it? PLI I mean not other insurance.

Are we then all being unreasonably imprudent in the face of advice from the ECF?

(I might add that the construction “It is prudent that X should..." is a clumsy one compared to “It is prudent for all clubs to hold public liability insurance.”)

[NickFaulks]

Are we then all being unreasonably imprudent in the face of advice from the ECF?

If the ECF feel the need to say anything on the subject, that is hardly going to be "don't bother to insure".

[Roger de Coverly]

If the ECF feel the need to say anything on the subject, that is hardly going to be "don't bother to insure".

Various bodies including the BCF and the Surrey County Chess Association have felt the need to convert from unincorporated bodies to Companies limited by Guarantee, Was that not in part to reduce or remove the risk of legal action against officers of the bodies?

[Chris Rice]

It is the chess club's call at the end of the day but it's not wise to try and save a few quid by ignoring taking out the correct insurance.

Chess Clubs should take out public liability insurance. It doesn't cost much and as a chess coach in schools I take it out as the schools insist that I should have it. For example I could take a box of chess sets out of the cupboard put it on the floor and a child falls over it and injures themselves badly. I could be seen as liable and I wouldn't be covered under the schools insurance. It's the same if you want to run chess tournaments. It really doesn't cost very much, I use Insure4Sport, as they offer really good discounts and I felt relieved once I had got the cover. You can get it from many different places though and it only takes a few minutes. Chess may not be a sport but you can still get injured.

If you want to know more here's some information about why clubs should have such cover: https://www.insure4sport.co.uk/covertypes/facilities.

[MSoszynski]

Hm. I get the idea of getting Public Liability cover "just in case" but in case of what? If one of our members is responsible for causing injury or damage why would the chess club be liable ahead of the person? Remember, the chess club is unincorporated, does not have its own venue, and is not an employer — doesn't even pay expenses.

A legal opinion would be useful here.

[Nigel White]

I believe there is no known case in UK law of the members of an unincorporated body being sued for its liabilities.

In my professional life I dealt with an unincorporated body which had financial obligations of the order of tens of millions of pounds to the organisation I represented. We took legal advice about what would happen if the unincorporated body could not fulfil its obligations and were told by our solicitors that we could pursue the members who were large multinational corporations. As the future of this unincorporated body became less certain, we were advised to get a QC's opinion on the matter. He ruled that we would not be able to sue the members and, at best, we would only be able to sue the individual officers who had signed agreements on behalf of the unincorporated body. They, as individuals, would be unlikely to have the assets to cover the sums at stake. Although the officers may have been insured, it was not clear if liability insurance would cover the form of financial default we were concerned about. Therefore, we rapidly had to re-evaluate our relationships and agreements with the unincorporated body.

So, I think the main lesson is that the officers are potentially liable - but case law in this area is very thin to non-existent.

[Roger de Coverly]

So, I think the main lesson is that the officers are potentially liable - but case law in this area is very thin to non-existent.

At the start of the long Greater Manchester v Lancashire feud back in 1975 or thereabouts, one of the Lancashire protagonists served personal writs against officers of the BCF. That's as recounted by Paul Buswell, then BCF General Secretary.

[Ian Thompson]

Hm. I get the idea of getting Public Liability cover "just in case" but in case of what? If one of our members is responsible for causing injury or damage why would the chess club be liable ahead of the person? Remember, the chess club is unincorporated, does not have its own venue, and is not an employer — doesn't even pay expenses.

Suppose you turn up at your hired venue with all your chess equipment and leave something on the floor which a visiting player trips over injuring themselves. Who's liable if they make a claim for the injury? Not the venue owner because they've done nothing wrong. Perhaps the person who left the item on the floor, but how would anyone determine who that was? Who gets sued - possibly the club official who organised the event, for not checking that there were no hazardous items left on the floor.

Real example - many years ago someone threw a brick/stone through a high-up window during a match and a visiting player got showered with glass. If the player had claimed for injuries suffered or the venue owner for damage to the window Public Liability insurance would have covered the club/its officials for legal costs in defending the claim.

[MSoszynski]

Hm. I get the idea of getting Public Liability cover "just in case" but in case of what? If one of our members is responsible for causing injury or damage why would the chess club be liable ahead of the person? Remember, the chess club is unincorporated, does not have its own venue, and is not an employer — doesn't even pay expenses.

Suppose you turn up at your hired venue with all your chess equipment and leave something on the floor which a visiting player trips over injuring themselves. Who's liable if they make a claim for the injury? Not the venue owner because they've done nothing wrong. Perhaps the person who left the item on the floor, but how would anyone determine who that was? Who gets sued - possibly the club official who organised the event, for not checking that there were no hazardous items left on the floor.

Real example - many years ago someone threw a brick/stone through a high-up window during a match and a visiting player got showered with glass. If the player had claimed for injuries suffered or the venue owner for damage to the window Public Liability insurance would have covered the club/its officials for legal costs in defending the claim.

Let's see if I've understood you. You're telling me that a (unincorporated) chess club could be sued for the consequences of a window broken by a brick? In what way could the chess club be negligent regarding (criminal) brick throwing? "The club recklessly arranged a match in a district well known for vandalism."

The better example is that of tripping over a piece left on the floor. Though again, negligence would have to be proved. "The club persisted with a member known for knocking pieces to the floor (mattering not whether due to infirmity or frustration)."

I suppose we all have to weigh up the likelihood of serious-enough injury/damage occuring during chess club activity and legal action being taken as a result.

Meanwhile I've no doubt that insurance companies will talk of "prudence" and "liability" and so on to gain more premiums.

[Simon Brown]

That’s all fine of course if you’re happy to bear the costs of defending yourself, with no chance of recovering those costs if the plaintiff drops the complaint.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Various bodies including the BCF and the Surrey County Chess Association have felt the need to convert from unincorporated bodies to Companies limited by Guarantee, Was that not in part to reduce or remove the risk of legal action against officers of the bodies?"

In the latter case, almost certainly. I guess it at least shows they were aware that some of their activities could attract legal action (which is not to suggest that such action would have been successful). I would not be surprised if the same reasoning applied to BCF also. The BCF was sued on at least one occasion.