UKA have already expressed an opinion on matters specific to the previous case but also hinting at their views more generally in testimony. Am aware of some issues arising: it would be helpful for the entireity to be circulated so that people are aware of UKA stance which is perhaps not as helpful as we might hope or expect. It was a public hearing, so there is little reason not to publish it.Originally Posted by MargC
On the matter of insurers: Don't you just hate insurers who love to leave loopholes to exit whenever you need to claim!
I quote from the insurance policy as it pertains to organisers: (Bet most RO have never read it)
"Hazardous Activities Exclusion – this policy does not apply to
liability arising out of hazardous activities which increase
the risk of bodily injury or damage to property."
Whilst it does not say it means or includes fell running, and the examples given relate to ancilliary matters, the fact it says "not limited to" is typical insurers "wriggle room"
( Spot the anorak - the only person you have probably met who turned down two hire and courtesy cars in the past, because of the fine print. These agreements are not all the same. It is amazing what some people think you will sign up to!)
